cameras see gold

[Charlie P. (NY)]

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
_________________________________________________________________________________

Well . . . yes. Those elements that are capable of producing electromagnetic radiation on their own along any portion of the spectrum (radio, microwave, IR, visable, UV or VHF, etc.) are called . . . radioactive. To detect them is easy - set a receiver to the proper frequency - al la Geiger Counter - and have at it. No camera needed.

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??

Harmonics? It has been my finding that harmonics are more related to shape/morphology than material composition. You want a higher note you use a thinner guitar string - same composition. I haven't seen any science on certain substances of various shapes or buried in contact with rock and soil being able to resonate particularly well.

________________________________________________________________________________

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.

Why would gold absorb or retain any more ambient heat than say, zinc, barium, aluminum, or any other metalic element in the vicinity? Why do you isolate gold when it is actually a pretty boring element compared to others? Just because mankind puts great value on it doesn't mean Nature does.

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

Enjoy your posts, too. Actually, science is open ended and will adopt to any findings of substance. Keep at it.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[jb7487]

Why would gold absorb or retain any more ambient heat than say, zinc, barium, aluminum, or any other metalic element in the vicinity? Why do you isolate gold when it is actually a pretty boring element compared to others? Just because mankind puts great value on it doesn't mean Nature does

Amen! I really don't understand why so many people on this forum fail to see the fact that they are grasping at straws simply because they truly want to believe it is possible. If I told people that a buried twinkie could be detected with a digital camera they'd say that I was absolutely insane. Yet they will hold out hope for any possible explanation that will lead to the conclusion that buried gold can be seen with a camera. As Charlie pointed out, why would gold be any different from rocks, alluminum, steel, pennies, gum wrappers, or anything else buried in the ground? Why would cameras be able to see gold yet fail to see any of these other things? Since when did digital cameras aquire the ability to discriminate between metals better than the best metal detectors known to man?

It's wishful thinking is all it is. People spend hours on end out here debating and theorizing as to how cameras could see gold, how treasure gases could be produced, and whether or not a crooked tree can lead them to a hidden Spanish cache. Yet science has been trying to prove these things over and over again for centuries and has failed to. Oh well. What can you do? You really can't convince them that they are wasting their time. They just don't want to hear it.

 

[bigwater]

"Wishful thinking" is not a bad answer, however we have to remember that this is a hobby for most of us, and if it weren't for wishful thinking we wouldn't be doing it in the first place. Do you go swing a coil just because you have spare time and can't figure out anything else to do with it, or do you go out with wishful thinking of finding jewelry/coins/nugget, whatever it you like to hunt for?

Wishful thinking and grasping at straws have led to some of the most innovative and useful things in our everyday lives. Just because it probably won't ever work doesn't mean that people can't try to make it work, and if nobody tries to make it work, then it definitely won't ever work.

 

[jb7487]

"Wishful thinking" is not a bad answer, however we have to remember that this is a hobby for most of us, and if it weren't for wishful thinking we wouldn't be doing it in the first place. Do you go swing a coil just because you have spare time and can't figure out anything else to do with it, or do you go out with wishful thinking of finding jewelry/coins/nugget, whatever it you like to hunt for?

Wishful thinking and grasping at straws have led to some of the most innovative and useful things in our everyday lives. Just because it probably won't ever work doesn't mean that people can't try to make it work, and if nobody tries to make it work, then it definitely won't ever work.

It may be wishful thinking to believe that I'll pull a gold coin out of the ground on my next hunt. But at least it is scientifically possible.

 

[jb7487]

It's wishful thinking is all it is. People spend hours on end out here debating and theorizing as to how cameras could see gold, how treasure gases could be produced, and whether or not a crooked tree can lead them to a hidden Spanish cache. Yet science has been trying to prove these things over and over again for centuries and has failed to. Oh well. What can you do? You really can't convince them that they are wasting their time. They just don't want to hear it.

The winner(s) here are the ones writing the books promoting wishful thinking. Now that is a money making gimmick!

It doesn't have to be necessarily true....nor does the context of the text have to be validated. Write it...sell it...and move on to another $$ making gimmick.

Next book: Find Gold and Treasure Using Paint Splatters

Amen!

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI: I have been hacking and coughing for a few days and so neglected this site.

First, show me why it isn't possible? Scientifically or other wise. Just because of our still very primitive level of knowledge that we can't do it at the moment, doesn't mean that it is impossible. On the contrary, theoretical physics says 'yes' anything is possible.

A mere 'prove it to me' is as unacceptable now, as it was to prove that manned flight to the moon and shortly Mars was in the time of Abraham, or Adam.

How can one say that anything such as this is impossible unless they know absolutely 'everything' there is to know about the Universe and it's intimate parts, from pure energy to the latest wiki for swr?

I am afraid that we are still uncountable centuries from this level of knowledge.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

HI: I have been hacking and coughing for a few days and so neglected this site.

First, show me why it isn't possible? Scientifically or other wise. Just because of our still very primitive level of knowledge that we can't do it at the moment, doesn't mean that it is impossible. On the contrary, theoretical physics says 'yes' anything is possible.

A mere 'prove it to me' is as unacceptable now, as it was to prove that manned flight to the moon and shortly Mars was in the time of Abraham, or Adam.

How can one say that anything such as this is impossible unless they know absolutely 'everything' there is to know about the Universe and it's intimate parts, from pure energy to the latest wiki for swr?

I am afraid that we are still uncountable centuries from this level of knowledge.

Don Jose de La Mancha

On the contrary, theoretical physics says 'yes' anything is possible.

Theoretical physicists spend a lot of time talking about Schroedinger's Cat being both alive and dead at the same time and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle on the increasing inaccuracy of more precise measurement; or whether the Big Bang is a one-time event or a cycle. They are just as likely to tell you nothing is possible and we are recording time backwards.

I can not prove a digital camera can not photograph an "unexplainable gold effect"; or a ghost, mermaid, or Yeti. Just as there is no way I can prove that it is not possible for a hamster to spontaneously turn into a radish. We could gather all the hamsters and monitor them indefinately but that still would not be proof. You cannot prove a negative. You can only prove a positive. So, it is up to you to prove a camera can detect gold. Extrordinary claims demand extrordinary proof.

We know gold is not radioactive and therefore does not emit on the known electromagnetic spectrum from Gamma or X-rays down to ELF waves (as probably no other element has been studied as hard or for as long). So it's a pretty good argument that since it cannot be detected with any receiving instrument known to science without first being exposed to an outside energy source (i.e. metal detector field, flashlight, sonar, radar, etc.), and digital cameras are known to science and their only emitter is a flash of visible light (with some UV and IR thrown in), then it follows digital cameras cannot detect gold obscured by any other object or other physical matter capable of blocking the view of the camera's lens. I have proven a digital camera can detect visible gold. But buried gold? No. Or tin, copper, aluminum, iron, manganese, etc., etc.

Perhaps about the time we have the technology of cold fusion to rearrange molecules we'll have a long-distance gold detector. But then everyone will be searching for silicon as that's plentiful and if you can make gold from smaller molecules why bother looking for it?

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Good morning Charlie, good to hear from you again;

You posted -->You cannot prove a negative. You can only prove a positive
**************

Interesting concept, but first we have to define what is 'proof'. Is it merely something that we accept as absolute, given our still primitive level of knowledge? Sooo many proofs have been overturned through the centuries, that one legitimateley wonders what 'is' absolute proof, or if there is even such a thing.
________________________________________________________________________________

You posted -->So it's a pretty good argument that since it cannot be detected with any receiving instrument known to science without first being exposed to an outside energy source
*****************

Ah, but isn't that exactly what we have been talking about in here? An external source of energy, be it solar or natural earth currents?? Our problem is to devise a means of capturing this new frequency / energy in a camera by one means or another. A hetrodyning effect that may actually reach / lower this result to the visual fields, or at least the camera's ability to capture it.
________________________________________________________________________________.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Curtis]

Maybe I should have read all the posts….after 15 minutes of reading really good stuff, I skipped to the last...didn't see any references to that fact they (government) is already doing it. Yes, they are using heat sensitive (IR related?) to map out mineral locations TODAY. Since they use digital photography to relate the finds so that our eyes can correlate the data so we can understand what it represents, why is such a stretch to imagine you can do it too?
SWR and Lamar are very, very, critical of almost everything (and they are on a lot of different threads)….we need that, we do have to prove things, be challenged, taken to task, so that we do something with our ideas and make them become reality. Otherwise they are only ideas, some of us have to Prove something and thus a idea comes to fruition and a device developed that otherwise would have been just an idea. Things are great in these discussions, the thing I see improving is most are trying to keep the name calling and insults out! If you insult or names call you instantly lose your creditability and loose the argument/discussion. Tayopa is a good example of restraint and sticking to the issues.
If we put you guys in a room (SWR would of course have to be there) with unlimited resources I have no doubt that you guys/gals would come up with the exact device to do this in the form of a detector. By the way, there is already a computerized element detector out there that works very well, I have used it. It does not have any photographic characteristics, but it probably wouldn’t take much to change that if you wanted that kind of sensor input. I can envision swinging a hand held device that has a small monitor with (digital) output and as you swing this thing the images on the screen changes color when gold is located. Doesn’t take much to go from digital photos to digital video, with the onboard computer working the images over for the display.
If you would have told someone that was a treasure hunter in the late 1800s the idea of a metal detector they would have laughed at you…been interested, but laughed. That is where we are right now, someone is the pioneer and doing it but we are laughing…well some are.

 

[okiedowser]

Curtis good post,...yes i know a camera can do all this,capturing energy field ,from gold,silver,exc ,what was impossible is now possible,i don't use a camera,for this,but i know it there...because, i do use the film,picture to find gold and silver,because the camera has capture this on the film,and yes it there,and detected it, you can,i have use this for a year now,worked great,i have not posted it because nobody,would belive it,so i use it myself, because of,insults,argument,challenged,proof,i'am not trying to win a argument,and not going to start one. i have gold,i got to get ,before every body find out, hey ,this ,really worked..... i feel in the next few years, the camera will be the #1 tool for treasure hunter's.( TIME WILL TELL)

 

[Old Dog]

i feel in the next few years, the camera will be the #1 tool for treasure hunter's.( TIME WILL TELL)

For some of us it has been for a long time.
And a very good confirmation tool.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

I'd put an old map state survey map from the early 1800's or even 1900's way above a digital camera for site selection. My prey is dropped coins or interesting relics in cellar holes from homes that were but ain't. I drive along 'till I spot a black square on the map where there is no structure now, or compare a new topographical section map with an old one.

But then I don't hunt treasure - just old coins. The camera will never replace the detector and shovel for me, I'm afraid.

But if optimism generates a ray that gold responds to and photovoltaic cells can capture you may be well on the way to success. Good to have a dream.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Go go my friends !

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[MoonWalkThePlank]

Buenos noches senor Tayopa,

I think two things concern me:


1. (the more metaphysical of the two) is an ongoing argument here. Clint and I and others, seem to be stuck on the fact that for all practical and relevant purposes, seeing a gold "aura" is ridiculous.

you however, being of the opposing camp, say "WHY NOT?" and after thinking about this for some time I realize that you are probably right. Provided enough time and money are spent on one particular area of advancement, almost anything is possible. All objects interact with their environment; All interactions involve transfers of energy and must therefore be recordable in some way or another. I suppose, if enough energy was spent, a camera could be developed that could see farts (probably not so difficult).

---> actually that is a really bad example because there are cameras that can see farts, but you get the idea <------

If all of earth devoted a hundred years and all the money and labor contained therein, we could probably devise a pair of socks that, when worn, could fly you to the moon. For now though, who cares !? It is not feasible. Give it a thousands years and even maybe you could buy those socks at walmart, along with a gold detecting camera.

and yes, these posibilities are important to scientific process, but for god sakes, don't spend $40 dollars on a book that claims it can teach you how to detect "gold auras."

2. The issue of gold acquiring and retaining more energy than the soil surrounding it (during the day), and emitting it into the soil later at night, is causing me some consternation. I'm a little sleepy and a little drunky, so I'll think on it tomorrow. Would you please in the meantime consider it.....

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

PLANK WALKER where are you SNIFF

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[10claw]

the sceptics may be useful up to a point but they really need to sit back and listen for a while. i wonder where they were when i was reading comic books showing dick tracey talking on his wrist radio, ( check out the i-phone here ), where were they when the movies were placing man on other planets? i saw in 1940's my first tv in a store window with so much snow on it that you could barely make out the people's face's. look at tv now-- now instead of argueing they are the first one's out the chute to grab those things. so the moral to this is keep on the trail of pictures of gold and brush the sceptics aside like the the tailings at the mine.

 

[Old Dog]

Best to run a detector over those tailings as you brush them aside.

 

[10claw]

do you guys remember back in the sixties when the blacks and the doctors were so arrogant and obnoxious about
sickle cell anemia was not true? they were ready to crucify anyone who even mentioned it. now they want to crucify
anyone who denies it. anybody listening? remember the air force pilots who crashed and died after having
blood transfusions tainted with sickle cell anemia? and what about fibromyalgia? were you laughed at by your doctor
when you mentioned it? huh?? i'll bet these jokesters on here think like those folks did back then. now look at
them, the first out the gate to make a pot full of money on both of those things. the moral to this?
don't give them the time of day, just keep going and ignore them like the sickle cell tyey are.

 

[Treasure finder]

Hi 10 Claw
There are also marvelous machines that can sniff out metal underground
when it is out of sight, the 49ers may not have believed it possible.
Also there were no such things as UFOs and spacecraft, now we have been
to the moon in spacecraft.
On the digital camera angle, it may not be possible now, but I never expected
we could replace film with electrons and SD cards. So if everybody keeps
investigating, we may get somewhere.
Cheers
Rich

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Ladies, Gentlemen, in basic theory it is possible. Since the mainstream investors will not finance the investigation with the regular scientists, it is up to the small home researcher to do the development and proving of it, Once done, the establishment will pounce upon it and then be perfected by the scientific quarter, just as the Wright Bros. had to do. There is no doubt that it will eventually be perfected.

Don Jose de La Mancha