Fair enough Py.

Well, when you do eventually see it, let me know your thoughts. It's worth checking imo, especially since you guys do have some experience using thermals down there.

Why yeah , Wolfie.. I'll run right out and do just that. Nothing like another piece of useless for the most part equipment that I have to lug back into the woods almost every other weekend. Especially a pricey one with lots of bells and whistles that I'll probably have to learn to read Japanese to understand the directions anyway.. Whoooo ... What fun !!

I just realized how far off this thread got derailed, and I apologize for my significant part in this.

Tugboatwa, can you or any mod please move all the discussion of the Greene footage starting with bushloper @ May 24 2009, 01:19 PM to a new thread?

And then lets get back to the Saturday's speakers.

Sorry.


.

Will mainstream science accepted even superb quality thermal images when it dismisses the PGF? We all know that science, with a few honourable exceptions, is loathe to touch this thing with a 10 foot bargepole (too many closed minds and vested interests), and as is repeatedly stated, nothing but a body, or at least a head, will suffice.

I got to play with a colleague's expensive Raytheon imager earlier this year and was impressed with what I could see. Obviously I didn't 'spy' any Squatches but I could see some superb detail of my research buddies at a distance of around 20 yards (similar to your second photo). Now, if somebody presented detail of a squatch similar to that then, yes, that would be groundbreaking and important evidence (BTW I am confident that the BFRO or other group/individual could well come up with something like that...well see). Thermals are another important additional tool in the bag but they are in no way definitive and I doubt whether they are going to break this thing. As good quality units get cheaper and more accessible in years to come, then, no doubt will be seeing the same sort of embarrassing hoaxes that appear using conventional video cameras. In short, the two major pieces of themal evidence presented so far (correct me if I'm wrong) are the Don Young and Mike Greene. Don's is probably a Sasquatch (given the credible backstory) and, frankly, underwhelming. Mike Greene's sounds superior thankfully and I look forward to viewing it. The next step is hopefully something that will 'blow our collective socks off'.

Good points LondonPaul.... but it's not the same.

The Patterson film can always be debated because the reality is we can't prove 110% it's not a suit, and probably will never be able to. "If" she's real and she happened to have been captured by say an X200xp... day or night (especially from only 100-130 ft), you could say 110% it can't be a guy in a suit and the animal you see is the animal you get. The only dissenting argument I could imagine would be she's some kind of oddly proportioned hirsute human and I'm sure that would be the point of contention on the JREF.

As for the Young & Greene footages. Imo, Greene's footage is in a whole different league, especially with time, distance & what we see of the subject. Young's footage because it's B&W, is likely beyond the threshhold distance to determine if it's absolutely a person or primate (I may be wrong on that). Greene's is well within range even if he's off by 10 yards. So I imagine we're going to get an expert determination. A matter of fact, I might soon as I may have a direct connection to a Raytheon employee with high security clearance who can get one of their experts to analyze the footage-even if it's briefly.

I wonder why those who make definitive statements about the anticipated lack of impact, very good, clear thermal footage will have can be so sure without a previous respectable thermal footage (hasn't existed) that stood trial to compare to... The most common answer I seem to hear here is good thermal footage is insufficient as damning evidence.....just because. Because why?
If someone makes the statement they should be able to give an answer and say this is why the footage won't hold up and give a scientific explanation or point to a fault or flaw in the technology, not just insist how they presume how science will collectively react because afterall, it's 'bigfoot." I'd also like to hear about how something can appear through a thermal like any other "naked" hair-covered mammal but in reality, be a clever hoax that can potentially fool experts who specialize in that technology.
There may very well be a fault in the technology I don't know about and if there is, I really would like to know about it.

BTW, LondonP, I enjoy your posts and am just making a general point not directed at you.

The problem is that they are locked into a monolithic structure of how "science" MUST be done in order for them to accept it. They are demanding the end product (a type specimen) up front before they will look at any evidence of it's existence, nevermind that at that point the evidence is moot because they have their slab monkey.

I use this analogy to illustrate: You walk into a kitchen. In the trash is a used coffee filter. On the table is a stained, empty coffe mug. On the tablecloth are coffee stains. On the counter is a receipt from the supermarket indicating the purchase of a can of ground coffee.

People like Longtabber, Drew, et al would STILL insist on you producing the actual pot of coffee before they would accept that someone drank a cup in that room.

No, actually Longtabber, Drew, et al would insist on you producing evidence to support your claim that it was a magic elixir from Ponce De Leon's fountain of youth instead of coffee.

Gotta disagree with you there with Longtabber Mulder (though I enjoyed your analogy). Wolf is right.
LT's also good about telling you what your going to need and why. When I need a strong objective viewpoint based on life experience especially relating to this field, I love to pick his brain. Alot of people just don't want to hear what he has to say because the list he'll give you will discourage you, LOL. But at least you'll aim higher & get your ducks in a row.
LT's not against bigfoot existing (he's had a few maybe's posted somewhere here), his problem is with the poor standards practiced in the field that'll never hold-up.

However, per our conversations and where he's an expert, thermal under the right conditions can be potentially damning and a huge piece of the puzzle.

One problem, is what constitutes a fraud with thermal. Imagine someone trying to hoax a thermal, with some kind of "monkey suit ", such as the fine suit in Messing With Sasquatch commercials. The difference would actually be quite easy to point out, as Bf is basically naked, and pushing out heat energy through air between the long hairs. The hairs would be slowly dissipating the heat, but still quite warm relative to the air around it, with only the tips of the hair showing black/cold. Someone in a suit, would be insulated by whatever the poly fibre hair is attached to, a cloth body, vinyl body, etc. The human bodies heat would be held within the suit, and the poly hairs would be almost at air temperature, showing greyish against the black background. Only the eyes would stand out hot/white. I can't imagine anyone taking the time to place single hairs onto a naked human subject, just to hoax a thermal image.

So, discriminating a "real" BF by thermal would be easy enough, if close enough for a good visual of what the surface of the body shows, as far as heat transfer to the air. Again, a good telephoto lens on the imager, would allow that kind of detail to emerge, as opposed to a white blob at 50 feet.

Maybe someone could do a comparison of what a rented monkey suit looks like with thermal. Then do a thermal at a zoo, of various primates, up to gorilla, at different air temperatures. I would try it with mine, but I don't have a zoo here. Anyone near the San Diego Zoo?

This is an excellent idea and hopefully has been done or, hopefully, is being done as we speak. Naturally the suit should be rented (researchers should avoid owning one for obvious reasons) and comparisons should made with a naked human and a suited human in different scenarios using various units. The main groups with access to these would be the best people to conduct them. (I heard in an interview that Cliff Barackman was planning to do something like this - would be interested to discover if he did). The zoo idea is good too but is nighttime access to zoos, for paying patrons, allowed? Unless you're going to climb over the boundary fence at one in the morning, of course, in which case I say go-for-it!

As far as thermals go I want to be educated.

Night time isn't the problem for thermal recording. Temperature is what is recorded. Differences in temperature between the animal and the surrounding environment, is the only thing needed. Early in the morning would be just as good, on a cloudy day. Night is just a lack of visible light, which is irrelevant to a thermal camera. Dusk is just as problematic as full daytime, as the environment hasn't cooled off enough from the daylight yet. Between say, midnight and 9 in the morning is best, before the sun warms everything up, although the sun does blind the thermal camera with it's own heat, and whatever is reflected off of what is around you. San Diego might be a problem with that, from spring through fall.

I've been mulling this idea around since yesterday about comparing the thermal signitures of a real gorilla to one in a monkey suit. More specifically, since the gorilla has hair density on certain parts of anatomy than other vs the monkey suit which has air and padding inside, where would the heat be brightest and how would they differ.

IMHO, if we used the same or similar IR camera with only B&W and greyscale, I think that there will be tell-tale lines in the seams of the suit, and obvious shapes and forms of the padding, and a double density exposure where there is an air gap. This would be in stark contrast to the smooth and even changes on much of the gorilla torso and some obvious bright spots on other points such as the groin, butt, ears and eyes and nostrils.

What (I think) needs to cinche the deal is some decent proximity and of course, being in focus.

Did any of you see the movie HEAT with Deniro? I think that IR cam scene is a good illustration of the facial contrast one can expect.


.

Sorry I couldn't give you San Diego, but Cliff did the chimps in Portland, OR.....I mean "thermally" of course

Here's the link http://www.northamericanbigfoot.com/MyRese...os_animals.html

Also, LT has assured me previously that if somehow a costumed individual happens to appear like a naked mammal (would be obvious to the naked eye for a fair distance anyway) the thermal software he has access to will take care of that.

Btw, the reason we've spent so much time discussing it is because I wanted to know if I ever get another opportunity.... that if I was able to capture what I personally witnessed could he have taken that footage (would've been from 50 yds but clear) and proven it was the animal it is. In a hypothetical example (of course he has to take my word for the distance, description) him and his team could've taken the footage as I described, analyzed it & would've been able to go to bat for me and show that yes, this is may or may not be a "bigfoot," but it damn sure is the animal you see-- whatever it is.
That's all I would've needed as what it was would've been visually obvious. I needed to know that moving forward with the way I operate in the field, or else what's the point of staying up all night therming if the results would have low scientific impact potential anyway?

Actually, he's not.

(continuing my analogy) All I'm trying to prove is that a cup of coffee was drank there. I say nothing about some "magical elxiir from the Fountain of Youth" or any such nonsense.

The implication is that BF is somehow "special" in it's existence and extraordinary, thus requiring an above the normal standard of proof. Another popular skoftic comparison is BF/UFOs.

Bigfoot requires NO reinterpretation of the laws of biology or wildlife science (laying aside the fringe arguements about "spirit beings" et al). BF is an ordinary animal, like any other that has come to be on this earth. It's abilities and characteristics can be described entirely within the terms of the existing wildlife biology paradigm.

The sole characteristic of BF that might qualify as extraordinary is it's elusiveness. Given the vastness of the wilderness and the suspected relatively low population of BF, it is not unreasonable that the amount of contact and trace evidence is as low as it is.

It took almost a quarter century of concentrated fieldwork just to produce and film ONE encounter with the giant squid in the wild.

Various means used for longevity are known and found.

Sasquatch is extraordinary in that there hasn't been a bipedal ape outside of the Homo lineage found outside Africa, bipedal apes outside of the Homo lineage haven't been alive for the last 1.2 million years, other species of humans haven't been found in the last 50,000 years, and so far the only apes known to make it to North America are modern humans.

You can call it scofticism, communism. McCarthyism, or rascism, but that's the reality of the situation. Don't start throwing labels on somebody you don't even know.

I think Wolftrax hit the nail on the head. No-one would bother to question if you had drunk a cup of coffee or not.

Here is an excellent video on OPEN MINDEDNESS. This point is covered at 6.51. The whole video in my opinion spot-on with regards to the legitimacy of demanding (or not) evidence to support extraordinary claims.

I have to thank a fellow for posting it .

Those commercials mostly come on late at night.



.

I was just talking about how those commercials are on non-stop all the frikkin' time...



That's a good video, John. Where did Mulder post that comment?

Right here

Why do we keep saying that this is a ape when it has not been establish as of yet that it is .There is nothing that proves that this species is a ape, not one bit of proof what so ever

sorry for going off topic I just believe that we have not establish yet whether these creatures are apes,That's all.

Duly noted, now what would you prefer that everyone refer to this entity as?

How about "Mr Hairy Unknown Species"?

or "Furball in her Majesty's Service"?

or "Mr Stinky Pants"?

"The Artist Formerly Known as Patty"??



@ barlojays I would be interested to hear LT's take on extracting more data from Greene's film. I question how much contrasting, extraction etc can be done with this copy of a copy of a copy. Wouldnt we expect Greene himself to polish up his work from the original RAW data or have it done for voracity?

.

That merely makes it unusual, not extraordinary. There is historical precedent for the existence of large bipedal apes hominid and non, as you freely admit. There is precedent for there to be still in existence "relic" species long thought extinct (cf the celocanth, among others).

Your allegation of "extraordinary" fails the test of time and experience.

It's been suggested gigantopithecus may have been bipedal, it was also found outside of Africa, an it may have still been around a few hundred thousand years ago. As for other species of humans not bein' found in the last 50,000 years...what about ...''the hobit''.

As for callin' them apes, it's only natural...after all... they're tailless primates...as are we.

My Best ! Pat...

You have to give $4 to watch the video? Umm, that strikes me as kind of strange I guess.

This thread has been off-topic for days - and all the more interesting for it.

Well, it's just a lot more logical and rational than thinking they are fish.

Good point Guy.

Only $4? Why not $300 for the weekend.

I guess you could spend the weekend watching the video over and over but it still costs $4 for each view.


P.S. Oh you mean like on a BFRO expedition? I forgot about the association.

Bart, excellent link. Everyone who want's to know what a BF would look like in a thermal image, check out the link. It's exactly as I described above. The body heat emanates from the skin, glowing white, dissipating out through the hair, turning black at the tips. Excellent example. Now, this is from a distance of about 40 feet or so, and shows great detail. Anything farther away than that, and it will just be a white blob, because the resolution is low, in thermal cameras.

http://www.northamericanbigfoot.com/MyRese...os_animals.html

Gotta disagree with you there Grazhopper, at least for the X200xp (what Cliff used here). From up to just over 50 yds I've seen large mammals (one being my sighting from 50 which is about the usual threshhold) have slight detail/shade in their coat.
However, you're right that it shows not much more then an exact profile. From 50 yds I can absolutely see clothes on a person. It's about 60-65 yds and beyond where you're a "corona" and would need software help to make some determinations. Also, some nights and places are different even with the same unit (maybe a temp thing). On a beautiful WA night last week after the conference, I used someone's X200xp as a spotter for my color therm because he didn't have accompanying recording capability and did a test with Ranger Leiterman pacing ahead of me. That night I could still make out his clothes at just over 70 yds, no problem.

Really? So finding a living species of Terratorn, Indricotherium, or even a Dinotherium living in America wouldn't be extraordinary? Shoot, since they existed at one time, even a T-rex living today wouldn't be extraordinary using this logic.

But hey, since the posts that describe a thermal image is a concrete fact sasquatch, end of argument, why don't you print out this thread and take it to your local university and have them name the species?

Because it has all of the characteristics of an ape, and even more than that a bipedal ape. It has five fingers with an opposable thumb. It has both eyes facing forward instead of at the side of the head. It has reduced prognathism in the muzzle compared to other mammals. It has a large braincase. It's spine is erect. It's shoulders and elbows move freely in all directions instead of being restricted and used for support like in quadrupeds such as monkeys. They use their heels when walking and do not have an opposable halux. They do not have tails.

Anyone who's interested in seeing some thermal tests check out my buddy, Cliff Barackman's blog:

http://northamericanbigfoot.blogspot.com/

Cliff filmed himself with a black & white therm, in clothes, a suit and naked from between 150-190 ft. This should answer many of the questions some of you have about what distinctions thermal can make. Thank you Cliff!

For those who've made definite comments on what potential scientific/definitive impact (or assumed lack thereof) thermal footage can make, I'm still interested to hear your arguments based on "knowledge" & "experience" pointing out potential technological flaws of how & why thermal footage as a documentative research tool, has little to no particular value. No one seems to be as interested in directly answering that question as they're in making & sharing their conclusions based entirely on personal visual perspective ( many without seeing many previous examples) & assumptions.

With a connection I have with Raytheon (company who made the therm Greene used) in WA state, I'm currently working on having an unbiased party & expert hopefully analyze Greene's footage in the coming weeks and determine if the subject he filmed is what it appears as ......meaning.....is it a definite unclothed subject? Can it be a clothed subject? Or, is it inconclusive & if so, how & why (so we know for future reseach)? If it is determined to be an unclothed mammal, and the subject is scaled appropriately & definitively (yet to be completed), we're going to have a real interesting problem and this footage could potentially be a huge puzzle piece in attempting to fulfill our objective of visually documenting these animals. For what it's worth, Greene's enthusiastically on board 110% after telling him personally I want to pursue this...a matter of fact, he even thanked me, though there's no guarantee I can get an expert to examine & analyze it (keeping my fingers crossed). Based on my experience with actual usage of the units and not pure knowledge (I'm not particularly technical in nature) I'm impressed with what he's got, but am reserving opinion until we have some "expert" examination & analysis. I'll keep you posted, though I don't expect anything for at least 1-3 weeks.

One of the problems, not covered in this thread, is that, not all thermal cameras are alike. There is a huge difference between an IRISYS 1011, and a Fluke Ti45, and the X-200xp is someplace in between them. The Raytheon 250d is up there with the higher standards in resolution. There is no difference between black and white, and a color unit. The color is a software addition, and you can download a program from Fluke to colorize black and white images. Everything,,,,,,,,,EVERYTHING,,,,,,,depends on the thermal core's resolution, and the output of the chip in the unit. Lens size doesn't mean anything. What is the unit created for. What are it's capabilities of discerning degree spreads.

There is a wow factor, for people who don't know what thermal cameras are capable of and what their limitations are. Anyone who thinks they've got a BF on thermal, better be ready for a barage of questions about the details of how far away, and what camera was used. Greene's Raytheon 250d is the best for what he's using it for. Simple, but higher quality, without alot of baggage in it. People just have to realize ahead of time, that thermal camera resolution is far shorter, than regular cameras, and the new HD that everyone is getting involved with. Thermal cams take you back to older VHS resolution, but you can see in the dark. So far, there is no application that thermal camera manufacturers create them for, that will require the HD resolution, that BF hunters would love to have. It would be way to costly to create something so delicate, with no commercial value. Even with the technology today, a good 50x zoom lens would help out alot. McGiver one.

I thought a thermal couldn't see through glass? Wouldn't an additional lens block the image?

Also, WHERE DO I GO TO SPEND MY HARD-EARNED FOUR BUCKS? I wanna see this video for myself...

Hey Spazmo,

I thought there was a link to a paypal account at http://northamericanbigfoot.blogspot.com , but I can no longer find any reference to it.

There is a web space http://www.mikegreenethermal.com/ ; the domain was registered and made private on: Creation date: 11 May 2009 23:46:06

I hear this thing got big quick and he was a bit overwhelmed at getting the copywrite legalized and the film hosted etc.

Just to be clear, this is hear-say and anyone wants to know the truth, ask him yourselves. Or ask Drew to ask him.


.

I have had the the opportunity in NJ to go out and research with Mr. Greene. In fact, I got to carry that same thermal imager (I think) and use it for most of the night. He is a stand up guy. I do not want to speak for him, but my guess is that he was just trying to see one for himself. Also, without a doubt, if this is a hoax, Mr. Greene himself was hoaxed. I am hoping he is able to get better footage. Most people will not believe that the clearest photo or footage is enough evidence, but for Mike Greene (and many of us), the glimpse of something on his thermal imager is what he has been looking for for a long time. Whatever is on his camera is a reward for all of the times that researchers go out and get nothing.

I was surprised that these people did not take pictures of the same location with a man standing in the picture for size comparison.
If they did, I didn't see any mention of it.
It would seem the logical thing to do if you were trying to show the night visitor was very large.

You can buy attachment lenses for Fluke and some other thermal cams. They see through those glass lenses in some way. Not sure of the physics, but window glass reflects outer heat, frosting or blacking out the glass in the thermal image. You can see your own thermal reflection in glass windows. If attachment lenses can be seen through, maybe a chummed up telephoto would work too. I'm running that through my mind for my own thermal cam.

Bart, maybe you can ask your Raytheon friend, if a zoom lens, or telescope, can be McGiver'd onto a thermal cam. Lense physics and focal length are an issue, with what's running through my mind. If there are other issues of heat flareup in the zoom lens housing, that might throw it out.

Good contributing stuff Grazhopprr. I will definitely try and find out about a zoom lense attachment.





BobTo-

It's my unserstanding that this is being done along with thermal comparisons (very important). Greene took some comparison color-day shots in the short term (got footage only a few weeks before conference he wasn't planning on attending) but they are difficult to discern measurment clearly. Night Stalker described the setting best as it's like an incline heading up to a berm where the stump is on---so it's going to be a little more difficult to fully gauge the size but it can and absolutely has to be done.

thanks for the reply. Looking forward to the results.

I'll keep looking for an opportunity to view this footage, it's the kind of thing I can't "not do".
I've got four bucks burning a hole in my pocket!

Also: Bart, I like seeing Cliff get mentioned more and more here on BFF. Cliff was one of the first people I had any correspondence with when I entered this crazy world a couple of years ago, and back then I actually spoke with you as well (on the phone).
Since then, you two guys have kept showing me what a couple of stand-up guys you are. If there is a bigfoot jackpot to be had, I hope both of you (and a handful of other deserving souls) are in on it. You're doing the "real work" that so many of us only wish we could do.

Big ol' thumbs up to you fellas.

Thanks Spazmo-

Really appreciate it and I'm sure Cliff does as well. Glad we made a good first impression
Cliff has been a great friend and field partner for 5 years and like my other friends/partners/companions in the field, I've learned quite a bit from him. I give Cliff a lot of credit because he's been quietly hitting the bush consistently for almost 18 years, he still gets out there alot (even more now)..and, although he hasn't actually seen one (he was 30 yds away from me during my sighting and didn't know at the time) he's had some amazing experiences in the field and is relentless in his pursuit. He's also very disciplined in his approach.

I, on the other hand have used the last 6 years in the field making up for lost time and have been fortunate in that time to have been out with hundreds of various organizational & independent researchers (many good people that don't always get along with each other, LOL) getting quite the crash course in trying to learn & improve various skills to delve even deeper into what's always been an inherent passion-- regardless, "if" they were "real" or not. I happen to just have gotten lucky one night a few years back in WA and now from a personal perspective, know for certain "they" are real. Talk about eating your words, I always told those outside bigfooting in my life, if "I could only see one," I'd be satisfied and scale back a bit......yeah, sure. It only makes your passion burn that much brighter not having to wonder "if" anymore, but "when." "Who" is going to be interesting as well, but it's just not as important as the objective imo. Always having a previous interest in the subject, I can't imagine what it must be like for those (many people I know in this field) who were either ignorant or could previously care less about the subject until they had a unexpected definitive experience and joined the pursuit based solely on that personal experience. I hope to contribute to the field if I can because I've loved the subject, the experience and a majority of the people. I'm also big on thermal's potential because personally, I know what I would've missed had I not been blessed with the access to it.

I'm not sure of your name from your handle here so send me a Pm if you can. Love to refresh our previous conversation.

B



On another note, I'm still working on having a expert analyze the footage and made some inroads today working the phones a bit. I've learned as of 2004, L3 has purchased the 250D's and I'm trying to use another connection through my prior Raytheon one, to have someone from L3 analyze this footage (although Greene's unit when purchased was made by Raytheon). Soon, I should be able to get Greene's serial number and specs to an appropriate person that would be willing to have their analysis, even if brief, be allowed public (or else what's the point). Again, I don't expect this person to say, "yes, that subject is or isn't a sasquatch." It's either, a "naked mammal," a 'clothed person," or "it's inconclusive based on all available information, and here's why." The opportunity though to get proper analysis has increased thankfully.
Greene should also have the footage back up for viewing within a week or so as apparently there was some server issue, but I could be wrong.

Bart,
As far as analysing the footage, depending on what format it's in, any one of several forensic video analysts can do it. I don't know that someone even from Fluke, would add much to the picture, other than to say that it's interesting. Did the 250d have a cross hair/laser pointer/temperature with a scale on the sidebar? Or was it just straight video? If it's just straight video, then about the best you can do, is take it to a studio for a crop/zoom and resolution enhancement. The people who work on FLIR, are just tech heads, who can explain the data, if there is temperature data. Other than that, it's just a video to them. Like I said before, these instruments are for industrial sensing, and aren't made for this type of research, into animal if/ors. This is a whole nuther ball game. Totally new to this type of technology. Tech heads would just say, it's working fine.

Maybe call Meldrum, and see if his university has a video lab that he can take the tape to. They could crop each frame, to stabilize it, and zoom into the BF, then up the resolution for hopefully a clearer scene, then reformat it into a raw HD video file.

Can't remember about the 250d, does it have a memory card, or just an output to a recorder? How did Greene record that video? If it's a memory card, then it's saved in a compressed file, and I HATE COMPRESSED FILES !! <oops> Dr. Phil Moment.

If it's a raw video on tape, like a Video Walkman, that's at least pure data. Not HD, but good enough for thermal. A video lab can digitize it to an HD raw data file.

Grazhopprr-

A lot of your very valid questions I don't have answers to right now, but will tell you this- I've already emphasized to my contacts I want to avoid having a simple "tech-head" guy analyze this footage as it's a waste of time.
Greene is unavailable right now as I believe he may be out in the field, but not only am I determined to have an expert analyze this footage but make sure he has every piece of information available to him about the combination of equipment used.
Thank you GrazH, as I appreciate your input because you bring up some valid points of contention and obviously have a bit of technological savy (an area I'm lacking in). I fully understand as well that based on the age of the equipment (about 9 -10 years) the only conclusion may very well be "inconclusive," in which case the best that can be done is appropriate measurements & human subject comparisons which would make the subject filmed possibly "very intriguing."

Moving forward thankfully, I've learned that equipment and resolution issues are about to be a thing of the past starting mid-July as several new thermal proprietary units are hitting the commercial market....including a newer version of the X200xp (might have slightly different numbered name) that I believe Cliff used in his comparisons (old current one) and I had my sighting with two years ago.
Apparently these new units are going to be lighter and twice the resolution at almost half the price! I was told that I wouldn't want to ever even look through the old X200xp's when I see the new ones. Can't wait, but I certainly wasn't complaining before.

Do you have a link for this news?

Thanks.

I don't P, one of my contacts just told me verbally in great detail & he's an excited distributor. However, he's sending me a catalog I should have next week with a bunch of new goods and I'll give you, Monica or Craig all that description and order info when I get it.

is this the thermal video that you are all referring too???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMfGSiAuVt8

After using thermal imagers of various makes i think an ideal situation would be only to use them for detection (they don't really have good magnification anyways), with a coupled high end visible light camera and flash attached. Without a visible light camera image and scale, thermal imagery can only direct the user to a heat or non heat source... Not identify it. Even a mannequin placed near a bed in a house on fire would trick a fireman using the equipment until they laid eyes on it. In 3D, heat sources also change shape and what looked human at a distance can quickly change shape with the viewers movements. Very high end equipment, like what the military use, can detect movement easily and has good resolution but not such that movements of say an eyeball of a stationary creature trying to remain hidden from pursuers could be seen.

Night vision and thermal imagery in the military has many checks and balances in its usage as in deadly force. This equipment is also against the US law to use for the hunting of game animals for two reasons... non sportsmanlike and unfair to the game... but more importantly, the targets cannot be positively identified from that single source, enough so that you could end its life legally using the device. Why would anybody spend that much money on something when they could rent it? Unless they like and want the ambiguous results it produces.