IR camera - 7 UFO's seen.

reply to post by HankMcCoy


Every piece of glass inside was taken out, and replaced. The camera collects zero visible light now. It uses pure IR pass glass all the way through. There is no need for any filters at all as it is soley an IR unit.

reply to post by silver6ix


Here, this is what bird whatechers use for their CCD imaging.
www.scopecity.com... tc=

reply to post by D4rk Kn1ght


Did you do the mods yourself or did you outsource?

reply to post by HankMcCoy



Brough the whole thing for £200. Was up and running straight from the box and I got the glass for the normal unit too if I ever want to convert it back (which i don't).

reply to post by D4rk Kn1ght


That is a fantastic price, actually. Did you get it online? I have been looking for a good deal and this sounds PERFECT for what I was hoping to achieve.

Originally posted by TravisT
reply to post by silver6ix

 

Here, this is what bird whatechers use for their CCD imaging.
www.scopecity.com... tc=

CCD is near IR technlogy. Thats exactly what this camera he has is. It has a very low range and isnt very sensitive. CCD IR mages are greyscale, in some cases you might get software to create a thermal image in post processing.

Thermal technology is a whole other ball game, ten times the price and a radically different view. Thermal will give you a full color specturm using a microbolometer technology, not CCD. It weighs in at a pretty hefty price.

If you have ever seen Predator, then when he takes of the mask, that is thermal imaging, full colour thermal display which you dont get on a near IR ccd camera.


Bottom line is, a bird at that range shouldnt be showing up like that on near IR.

Originally posted by silver6ix
Bottom line is, a bird at that range shouldnt be showing up like that on near IR.

Are you a photography expert?
Are you an IR expert?

If you answered yes to either of these, can you provide any evidence to back up your claims? I only ask because I already had to correct you on the bird temp information you posted, so I really don't have any reason to take you at your word.

With respect,
Hank

Originally posted by HankMcCoy

Originally posted by silver6ix
Bottom line is, a bird at that range shouldnt be showing up like that on near IR.

Are you a photography expert?
Are you an IR expert?

If you answered yes to either of these, can you provide any evidence to back up your claims? I only ask because I already had to correct you on the bird temp information you posted, so I really don't have any reason to take you at your word.

With respect,
Hank

You didnt correct anything, all you showed was the internal body temperature of some mamals compared to humans. Not really sure what relevance you believed that had, unless of course you were talking about thermal imaging, but im sure you had some kind of point I missed.

I suppose basic physics might have told you that RADIATED heat is tied to the surface area so im a little puzzled why you imagine a bird emits more than a human? Unless of course we are talking those new human size birds? Ahh wait, no they dont exist.

Something else might have told you to check the range of near IR technology and the micrometers a camera of this sort is sensitive to, but hey dont let me stop you.

If you wish to believe that a standard near IR camera will show a bird like a lightbulb when its was up in the sky, do so, id LOVE to see you produce an photograph of one, that would truly be something to see.

Hold on, I think I asked this back on page one didnt i? I guess you missed it.


yes thats right, sacrasm is a two way street


[edit on 29-10-2008 by silver6ix]

reply to post by HankMcCoy


I got it through a third party and shipped to me from the USA all done and dusted - but hell its great fun to play with.

As for the bird theory. This camera picks up strong IR at above 780 nanometers i.e past visible light. Now, for those original 7 objects to be visible at the range I saw them and at the clarity they are, one of two things was happening.

1) They were extremely reflective and large - scattering back huge amounts of IR for me to see them.
2) They were radiating their own source of bright IR radiation and could be any size at all but still needed to be fairly big for me to capture them on the cameras sensor.

I will wait for a bird above the cloud layer at 6000 feet + and see what they come out like on a sunny day.

Where to begin.. I guess from the begining..

Originally posted by silver6ix

You didnt correct anything, all you showed was the internal body temperature of some mamals compared to humans. Not really sure what relevance you believed that had, unless of course you were talking about thermal imaging, but im sure you had some kind of point I missed.

You said.. humans have more heat than birds.. In the real world more heat= higher temp, and as such, I pointed out the flaw in your logic.

Oh, and another point I would like to make is that..

birds aren't mammals..

I suppose basic physics might have told you that RADIATED heat is tied to the surface area so im a little puzzled why you imagine a bird emits more than a human? Unless of course we are talking those new human size birds? Ahh wait, no they dont exist.

Like I said, I am no expert, and I understand now that you aren't either, considering you are telling me now according to this paragraph trees emit more heat than either humans OR birds. (I understand that the trees are reflecting, so don't bother. I am just making the point that birds might also reflect.)

Also.. you've obviously never seen an emu, condor, or a golden eagle.

Something else might have told you to check the range of near IR technology and the micrometers a camera of this sort is sensitive to, but hey dont let me stop you.

I have checked the range, which leads ME to believe the objects are MUCH closer than presented.

If you wish to believe that a standard near IR camera will show a bird like a lightbulb when its was up in the sky, do so, id LOVE to see you produce an photograph of one, that would truly be something to see.

Hold on, I think I asked this back on page one didnt i? I guess you missed it.

I am still researching. I will let you know.

yes thats right, sacrasm is a two way street

[edit on 29-10-2008 by silver6ix]

Sarcasm only works if you are being funny, ironic, or right.. you aren't being any of the above.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by HankMcCoy]

reply to post by D4rk Kn1ght


So, to clarify (and help us understand what we are looking at), what is appearing in your images are things that either:

1. Reflect near IR light (700nm - 900nm)
   
2. Emit near IR (not the longer, thermal, wavelengths)
   

Regarding A): Some materials, like leaves, reflect a lot of IR in comparison to visible light. This is why the leaves appear so bright in your images. Other materials will reflect more of less the same amount of IR as visible light and so appear about the same as they would in a b&w photo using visible light. Still other materials will absorb more IR and thus appear darker than they would in visible light.

Let's get back to birds. There are white birds, black birds, red birds, blue birds, all different colored birds. There are birds with different colors on different parts of their bodies. The fact that birds are different colors in visible light means that they reflect certain wavelengths and absorb certain wavelengths. This would be true in IR as well. A black bird would not reflect infrared any better than it does visible light. A blue bird would probably appear very dark in near IR since his color tends away from the IR spectrum. For the same reason a red bird may appear quite bright. A white bird, reflecting the full spectrum of visible light, could also appear quite bright in IR. There is always the possibility that for some reason some birds are very bright or dark in IR but not particularly remarkable in visible light. A bird which reflects IR well, when flying against a dark IR sky would be prominent. For this reason I don't think birds can be ruled out.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by Phage]

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
birds aren't mammals..

Yes, obviously you missed the point here because that was MY point to you, thats right so a mamal chart hardly demonstrated anything did it?

Like I said, I am no expert, and I understand now that you aren't either, considering you are telling me now according to this paragraph trees emit more heat than either humans OR birds. (I understand that the trees are reflecting, so don't bother. I am just making the point that birds might also reflect.)

Thats called reflectivity. Not really that complicated is it?

Also.. you've obviously never seen an emu, condor, or a golden eagle.

Yes, as a matter of fact I have, all of the above, whats your point? They dont glow under near IR either.

I have checked the range, which leads ME to believe the objects are MUCH closer than presented.

Ahh of course, you couldnt just be wrong, someone else has to be lying right? Why doesnt that surprise me.

I am still researching. I will let you know.

I already do, its you who seems to be catching up here. Im still waiting on the photo though, but again ive waited god knows how many pages of deja vu asking the same thing so I suppose im not holding my breath here.
rather than jumping in and stamping your feet, it might be easier if you just supported your point, in fairness to the OP at least he bothered, although im not sure why he wasted his time as clearly pictures of birds with the same cam wasnt obvious enough.

Sarcasm only works if you are being funny, ironic, or right.. you aren't being any of the above.

Id check the meaning of sarcasm.

Reproduce the results I got with an IR camera from birds at very high altitude and I will bow to your words. You cannot reproduce those results because its not possible - the surface area of the birds is not large enough to reflect that amount of IR from above high (7000m + cloud layer). Also the speed of these objects rules birds totaly out of the picture.

Also, the birds at distance I posted for you to look at - look how dark they are even at relative close distances, even the pale (brown and white buzzard).

reply to post by D4rk Kn1ght


I akes this on page one. All that happened was the same people arguing the same points, they couldnt support them then and I dont think they will be bothering now.

Really if its birds why not just show it, otherwise accept you cant prove the point and find another one, thats the sensible thing.

Oh I agree silver with you 100%. If they can get a bird flying above the cirrius clouds to glow enough from any IR source to be visible to a camera on the ground with only a little zoom. Thats 7000m + I am informed, so - i will try and get a passing jet liner on camera and compare that too.

I want to know whats ging on in the skies, and all this 'its just birds' is wearing me down. I wanted to get people on board for a good think and discussion, not 9 pages + of people calling me and each other names.

Originally posted by silver6ix

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
birds aren't mammals..

Yes, obviously you missed the point here because that was MY point to you, thats right so a mamal chart hardly demonstrated anything did it?

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?? What mammal chart? You aren't even making sense..

Originally posted by silver6ix

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
Like I said, I am no expert, and I understand now that you aren't either, considering you are telling me now according to this paragraph trees emit more heat than either humans OR birds. (I understand that the trees are reflecting, so don't bother. I am just making the point that birds might also reflect.)

Thats called reflectivity. Not really that complicated is it?

It's like you are being purposely dense, ESPECIALLY considering I mentioned the trees reflecting in my post. This is the point I was making to you. There is more than one potential source for the blip in that image.

Originally posted by silver6ix

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
Also.. you've obviously never seen an emu, condor, or a golden eagle.

Yes, as a matter of fact I have, all of the above, whats your point? They dont glow under near IR either.

MY POINT?? ARE YOU SERIOUS?? It is to laugh.

Man. Sized. Birds. Exist.

Also, I require evidence that they do not reflect IR.

Originally posted by silver6ix

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
I have checked the range, which leads ME to believe the objects are MUCH closer than presented.

Ahh of course, you couldnt just be wrong, someone else has to be lying right? Why doesnt that surprise me.

Did I say he was lying? PLEASE point out where I said he was being purposely deceptive. Do NOT mistake me with the other people in this thread. I have a 2 year history with Dk, in that time it has been COMPLETELY respectful and civil. However, that doesn't mean that just because HE believes the objects were that high, doesn't mean they WERE that high.

Originally posted by silver6ix

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
I am still researching. I will let you know.

I already do, its you who seems to be catching up here. Im still waiting on the photo though, but again ive waited god knows how many pages of deja vu asking the same thing so I suppose im not holding my breath here.
rather than jumping in and stamping your feet, it might be easier if you just supported your point, in fairness to the OP at least he bothered, although im not sure why he wasted his time as clearly pictures of birds with the same cam wasnt obvious enough.

WHOA. Time OUT.

Recheck this thread and look at my input. I am asking YOU to support YOUR points, considering you are the one making them, and using flawed information when you do.

Originally posted by silver6ix

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
Sarcasm only works if you are being funny, ironic, or right.. you aren't being any of the above.

Id check the meaning of sarcasm.

www.answers.com...

Dictionary: sarcasm (sär'kăz'əm)

n.
1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
3. The use of sarcasm.

*YAWN*

Just stop while you are ahead.

reply to post by Phage


I agree all the way.

Good job, man.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by TravisT]

reply to post by HankMcCoy


Now you are just getting tedious. I think you will find my point was made LONG ago, page 1 probably. Since then its been groundhog day in here and as yet not a single person in all these pages has supported anything.

Im sorry but a bird emits such a tiny IR signature that a near IR camera just wont pick it up flying high in the sky. Thats a fact, they arent sensitive enough.

Im the one talking reality here so im afraid its down to you to prove how its possible for that camera to pick up birds that high with such a signature. Again, why do I have to keep asking? its your point, so make it already. How many birds and IR cameras are there on Earth? Yet none of you can produce a single corroborating image? Theres my point. Again, if you can please do and save me another ten pages of this same old stuff.

Again, the OP clearly said they werent visible to the naked eye, and the position of most of you seems to be that hes a liar and everyone should take your word based on nothing, fine, have a nice day, why ruin the topic for anyone else?

If you dont want to contribute to it, why bother?

So right back to the original point. What is so high he couldnt see with the naked eye which shows up on IR with such a hit? Not a bird, unless someone can demonstrate how thats possible, also if it wasnt showing up to the naked eye it must have been VERY high and in which case it must be a damn big bird.

This isnt discussion in this thread, its hijacking by a bunch of people who just want to get their own way.

reply to post by silver6ix


A lot of text to get right back to the original point.

Are you a photography expert?
Are you an IR expert?

Why should I take YOUR word on anything? Just because YOU say it is so, it doesn't mean its true.

Unlike you, I haven't made my mind up on anything here. It might be a bird, it might not be. Just because the images haven't been produced yet, this does not mean they wont be. Like I said, I am still researching it.