Thermal cameras - why no footage?

CMcMillan,

I think you are missing the point.

Obviously there are going to be discoveries that result in revisions to our understanding of the evolutionary timeline. But the things that you are suggesting fall well outside accepted wisdom and contradict much of what we know about evolution.

Consider the follwing options:

A) Bigfoot is unlikely to exhibit eye-shine and accounts involving eye-shine are likely to be own to mispercption.

B) Much of what we know about evolution and genetics is wrong and 1000s of scientists with tens of thousands of hours experience are mistaken and basing their findings on inaccurate observations and misinterpretations of the fossil record.

Which is more likely?

GT3Paul wrote:I am working on this right now. I have two quality FLIR systems cameras, a Tau 320 and a Tau 640. These are perfect for this type of work.
Two problems. They are expensive unless you buy the cheaper handheld cameras that lack in Range. The tau 320 is almost $5000. The tau 640 I have is well over $8000 depending on the lens you buy. The guys I have been working with that are some of the mors advanced researchers dont have that kind of funds to spend on stuff like this. The other issue is although not difficult to integrate in to systems that researchers might have, alot of researchers dont have the scientific background to take full advantage of this technology. You have to have a video display and a computer system
to set the range, what type of color you want to use in your look up table and the list goes on.
This is going to change. I am putting them on airborne systems. It will make even easier to get good data.
At this time this type of advanced FLIR was only used by agencies that are not looking for BF.
So the advanced FLIR systems arent in the hands of the researchers yet. The ones that will get good data were too expensive.
The best possibility is getting a Junk system out of a BMW that uses it in its HUD (heads up Display) these are FLIR Pathfinder IR systems
and have good range but the sensors are not intense enough other to show hot spots on the road and they are $3500 new.

So thats the problem, and its going to change.

jeez man be careful flying those things!!! That's a lot of $$$$ you'll have hovering around ! One bad move and it could be crashed to bits!

Though, you ARE an engineer, and engineers tend to over,well, ...engineer things! lol, so I reckon you have made some sort of protective covering or suspension system to keep em from being bashed in the case of a crash (which is bound to happen eventually)

Kel they are multicopters, they are RC OR autonomous. The Camera mount is the best I have ever had and I think its
pro movie quality. When they get up above about 75 feet the blade noised blends into Ambient. So at 200 feet they should
be perfectly silent unless its absolutely still. What I have to to is balance altitude with the range of the camera. I dont think
thats a problem for the camera.
I flew last night in Mammoth Lakes at 7,500 feet with no issues at about 70 feet altitued above ground.
Please understand I dont know of anyone who has done this outside the military in much faster UAVs.
(outside of Police helo's with FLIRs and night vision) but what I am doing is different and I have to experiment with
range of the camera and altitude.
On the multicopters I have some are high end industrial and some of them are of my own design with the camera mount
design to work in Pitch and Roll for small cameras. So lots of stuff to come up.
I am in the mountains riight now and I am REALLY excited about the performance in swirling winds at this altitude.
I am going out again tonight.

Stank you are 100% correct. Crashes happen Especially at night. I have had props split and come off. On a quad its over on a hexacopter you have
a chance. I have had batteries quit. Everything you can imagine can and will happen. In the newer aircraft there is $2000 in the aircraft, $5K for the camera mount and choose your number for the camera of your choice $600 to $2000 for daytime camera, $4000 to $9000 for a FLIR $500 to $1000 for the battery.
That doesnt include the support equipment like battery chargers, and the $3000 radio and the $4000 ground station for the laptop.
So yea it gets expensive And if you hit yourself with one of these things you can get hurt really bad.

As far as protection the landing gear and the suspension system do protect the camera and that kind of equipment but usually I lose a prop and or a arm.
But Its rare but it happens. I get nervous when these things get up to altitude and I am doing some tricky moves. I can put the aircraft in hold mode and fly just
the camera I can get confused. I should have the safety officer fly the camera so I can pay attention to the aircraft.

Allthough this stuff gets expensive but I am trying to design MUCH less expensive multicopters so that more people can fly and we can have more people researching.
I have been cutting multicopter frames in my CNC machine in the lab and the whole frame is less than a hundred bucks but then you have the electronics for the motors and the autopilot.

Woodwose wrote:CMcMillan,

I think you are missing the point.

Obviously there are going to be discoveries that result in revisions to our understanding of the evolutionary timeline. But the things that you are suggesting fall well outside accepted wisdom and contradict much of what we know about evolution.

Consider the follwing options:

A) Bigfoot is unlikely to exhibit eye-shine and accounts involving eye-shine are likely to be own to mispercption.

B) Much of what we know about evolution and genetics is wrong and 1000s of scientists with tens of thousands of hours experience are mistaken and basing their findings on inaccurate observations and misinterpretations of the fossil record.

Which is more likely?

Wood
I am not missing the points
Like i said if we take the fact that Bigfoot doesn't have eyeshine then we can discount all the evidence of eyeshine being bigfoot. If we say this then we can not discredit say the White Bigfoot because it doesn't have eyeshine. And since the White Bigfoot falls into the other evidence and descriptions of big foot then you would need to look at it mor.
If we assume that bigfoot has eyeshine then we can mark off the white bigfoot as a hoax because no eye shine.
Skeptics have just as many possiblities of discrediting bigfoot based off assumtions as footers have for believing things are bigfoot.

Since bigfooting has no clear cut research and science it has a greater chance of missing the target.

Now lets look at those 1,000 of scientists who believed for years that Dinosaurs were not connected to Birds but lizards. See how now they are saying that T-rex mostlikely had feathers on it? See how Science had miss identified things and is only being corrected?
I am sorry it happens on both sides.

I am not missing the point. I am questioning both sides of things. When people talk about absolutes or the chances of this can not be doesn't mean it it can not.
That is my point. I like to keep an open mind about the subject on all sides and thoughts till we know for sure.
I have experienced things that I can not explain and that I know human tech and science can not Identify or track as of yet.

Again you are talking about minor revisions to our knowledge (regarding dinosaurs) and not paradigm shifts that challenge overall principles of evolution or taxonomy etc.

It's all very good keeping your mind open, but you have to temper that openmindedness with an understanding of what makes something so implausible that it isn't worth considering without hard evidence.

Woodwose wrote:Again you are talking about minor revisions to our knowledge (regarding dinosaurs) and not paradigm shifts that challenge overall principles of evolution or taxonomy etc.

It's all very good keeping your mind open, but you have to temper that openmindedness with an understanding of what makes something so implausible that it isn't worth considering without hard evidence.

And if that Implausible is actual then what?
I don't say these things are Absolute but i do say it is Plausible my gut on bigfoot is that if it is real it is going to change some of the views.

I think Dinos from Lizards to Birds was not Minor in the field. It was actually first thought as crazy talk.

If something implausible turns out to have some basis in reality, then obviously science has to adapt to that information.

The idea that dinosaurs were related to birds was met with a great deal of scepticism, but not because it challenged the wider principles of evolution. The initial controversy was mostly down to lack of evidence.

Confirmation of Bigfoot's existence will certainly shake things up, but I doubt it will represent a serious challenge to current evolutionary models. And if such a discovery reveals that Bigfoot has anatomy that produces eye-shine, the chances are that it will be the product of a mechanism that falls within known evolutionary parameters. So Bigfoot may have physiology that produces an effect similar to tapetum lucidum, which is the result of a different set of adaptions that could occur over a short period of time.

That's certainly a possibility, but again a lack of analogous parallel adaptions in known species means that it isn't especially plausible. You need to be careful that you don't get plausibility and possibility mixed up.

I agree I think woody, I dont think the existance of BF changes anything. From what I have read early DNA results show something science already knew existed but thought extinct. Thats happened more than once.
I dont think they PRODUCE an eyeshine different than any other animal. But I just have a theory that if they do exist then they may be able to see IR coming out of those Game CAMS or they can here the whine of the power supply or they relate the glass of the camera to a gun and are just afraid of it.
Although it seems as though they like to MONKEY around with the cams. Pardon the pun.

If they like to mess around with cams why not put another camera pointing at that camera?

This really oesn't have anything to do with Bigfoot, but it's amazing. guys at MIT have developed a camera that can take pictures at a trillion frames pr second (that's femtoseconds).

here's a demonstration video!