This video was exactly what I was looking for! Thanks man! Very interesting
@Seeker_of_sense19 күн бұрын
So your dog has no heat signature?
@debyoungwirth22 күн бұрын
Your commentary to this video is the best. 😂 Way to take out the A-holes with wings, Hornet Slayer! 😉😆 You saved some honey bee lives to be sure (as well as your own lol). 🤣
@kingchungus23 күн бұрын
Your video description was great 😂 "I learned, they use flashlights too. Mine."
@richbattaglia535023 күн бұрын
Godspeed
@zaczasiedko7572Ай бұрын
Hey I was wondering if you could try out different natural fibers and see how they are for thermal, I'm looking at the proapto ghillie
@ThatThermalGuyАй бұрын
I’ve done some testing with some different materials. Burlap and jute. Those kinds of things. I also experiment a lot with nylons, I think a silverized nylon is what proapto is actually based on (their thermal blocking suit, not their ghillie) Here’s a link to one of my experimental videos where I test four different patterns and materials in one go. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/aMl7qNRm2cmZn3k.htmlsi=56abmX0UAO_GNRXe Check out my other videos. I actually spend a lot of time testing everything from wool to jute to bubble wrap to copper mesh and on and on.
@zaczasiedko757221 күн бұрын
Interesting thank you!
@BD.1996Ай бұрын
Is there a way to pair this laser with an ir illuminator?
@cringeyidiotterryАй бұрын
Beg pardon, another stupid question: did you wear protective eye wear & breathing protection while using the Rust Oleum spray paint?
@RikTagliaferriАй бұрын
man.... just buy ProApto or Saab, or Ametrine...
@ThatThermalGuyАй бұрын
You do realize the purpose of this channel don't you? Its not to tell people to go buy thousand dollar gear that is often law enforcement or military restricted and impossible to obtain for certain civilians. I test common everyday readily available materials for their effectiveness for the common person who is curious about how these things image on thermal. I also myth-test materials that urban legend says are effective, but maybe are not. This particular video, is a myth test. This video is looking at commonly held myths about the absolute effectiveness of space blankets against thermal in any conditions and at any range. Most people have no idea what they actually look like on thermal. I can argue with people over space blankets until I'm blue in the face, or, I can just record it and show people from a somewhat neutral perspective so they can figure it out on their own. Like I did here. You were apparently so anxious to name-drop top-shelf brand-name military grade gear to try to look smart, that you completely missed the whole point of the video. Bravo. Slow clap. lol. Next, those things you are touting above, ProApto, Saab., etc., have limited usefulness and function as well. There are many DIY signature suppression methods that are darn near as effective as those three you mentioned, or roughly equivalent in effectiveness, for a fraction of the cost, and that don't come with civilian restrictions. ProApto even came over and left comments in my channel awhile back trying to challenge me and my findings saying basically the exact same thing you did with the same look-down-their-nose connotation you did, just buy their stuff because its better. Well guess what, when I challenged them to put up or shut up, and let me do a real world side by side with their gear and some of my experimental designs, under real world conditions and without their ability to veto publishing my findings, guess who tucked tail and ran. ProApto. Suddenly they had nothing to say. Because the real answer is that all this military grade and high end stuff is on average only about 85% effective at signature suppression. Which is roughly the same numbers generated with good civilian experimentation. these manufacturers are all carefully crafted showings and restricted results showings under their specific guidelines and circumstances. But the reality is that when you hit the field and you're out in the real world, things are different. Have you actually looked at Saab's design, their material? From inches away? I have. I know what it looks like and how much signature suppression is gained from it. At distance, under thermal, in the real world, there is a difference between civilian and professional signature suppression modalities, yes, but its nowhere near the difference you apparently think it is if its being designed by someone who actually looked at and studied this stuff. And the difference in price, hundreds to thousands of dollars, for a couple percentage points of difference, that really means little to no difference in the real world, makes no sense to the common person, who, lets face it, is the person watching my videos. Hello common person. The perfect comparison is night vision. I own gen 3, autogated, OMNI VIII, L3, unfilmed, white phosphor, aviation grade, 2500+ FOM night vision. Essentially the top shelf. I own own lower end, gen 1 and gen 2 night vision. I used middle grade Gen 3 night vision as a cop. I've used other peoples middle grade gen 3 night vision. I know, firsthand, experience, moving through darkness, multiple terrains, operating weaponry, etc., how these differences perform. And I can honestly say, buying a good average gen 3 night vision at roughly $3 grand, you will be able to do pretty much everything you can do if you bought the $5 grand tube. Only you'll have an extra two grand. Thermal signature suppression is just like night vision. There is a curve whereby spending more money will get you better results, but that curve flattens after a point, and you can continue to throw huge amounts of money at it, and the returns become more and more diminishing after a point. That's just reality. You don't actually gain that much more buying the best of the best. A Daniel Defense rifle will still fail sometimes. A Trijicon optic can break. A Steiner IR laser can get fuzzy. And its still possible I see your signature at 100 yards whether you are in off the shelf DIY signature suppression gear or name brand Saab thermal suppression gear. Its just reality. Thanks for stopping by.
@bgrateful453Ай бұрын
Hey, I have a bad actor that is shining laser lights into my house, hitting my face at night, paning the rooms, then it turns into a low purple hue and I can see everything in my room. I have barriers of protection on all windows, but it still is happening. They seem to know my every move. I havent done anythi g to provoke this. Any ideas what i can do?
@Dissension2492 ай бұрын
Hey I just found your channel and watched a couple of your other videos since I’ve been thinking of making something similar. I actually thought of chainmail earlier today but the copper mesh really gave that barrier space you needed! Would you be able to try a thin jacket with the copper mesh sewn on the inside, paired off with a poncho with the Mylar clipped onto the inside and see if that works?
@telesniper22 ай бұрын
This reminds me of Bart Simpson's wish for the monkey paw: "X-ray specks that REALLY WORK! "
@telesniper22 ай бұрын
This is just OK. I think what would work better is a more extensive layer of fake leaves, like those leaf type ghillie suits. Maybe even some of the leaves backed with mylar. Or if you REALLY want to get fancy, leaves backed with different thicknesses of mylar with different reflectivity. That way it would randomize the thermal outline as much as possible.
@telesniper22 ай бұрын
Works pretty well for what it is! This would be good as the base for a lightweight poncho type thing. Staple a bunch of fake leaves on the outside to break up the visual and thermal pattern even more. I think that a good solution doesn't need to be *perfect* , and focus should instead be on reducing signature and breaking up the shape of what is seen. Especially at a distance -- that's the limitation with thermal -- minimum resolvable temperature, which gets worse with distance.
@telesniper22 ай бұрын
Test out the thermal signature of a coat made out of a bunch of cat pelts sewn together! That cat seems to have low IR signature on the body portion at least
@telesniper22 ай бұрын
Dang this channel is great!!! You are criminally underrated! Thanks for all the good work!!!!
@johnharley72902 ай бұрын
Is your suit vented pretty good?
@johnharley72902 ай бұрын
And if you really veg it up with 550 like you were going on a true stock does that make a difference because I hear the insurgents and Iraq used wall blankets to be our flir
@jim59312 ай бұрын
If you wear that for one second here in Arizona, you die.
@ThatThermalGuy2 ай бұрын
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it get down into the 20's in Flagstaff, and 30's to 40's in Phoenix? I would say you would be just fine in this. This was probably filmed in approximately those temps. If it was summer here during filming, I wouldn't be wearing this much blocking. You don't need this much blocking when its warm. You need it when its cold. Body heat shows up much easier when your background and ambient temperatures are freezing. You have a temperature differential of almost a hundred degrees on an imager that is sensitive to differences of less than one degree, and there is going to be nothing in the environment around you even somewhat close to your temp to help obscure your signature. Of course you need more blocking materials. However, when its baking hot outside, like 100-105 in the shade, you don't need the massive blocking materials because your body temp of 98.6 is already basically ambient temp. There's only a couple degrees of difference, and those couple degrees of difference will be shared by numerous objects in the environment around you absorbing, radiating and reflecting temperatures in the same range as your body heat, from rocks and concrete to car body metal and fence posts. It takes much less effort to mask your signature in such a thermally cluttered environment. Thermal signature evasion is never a one size fits all approach. You have to do something appropriate to the environment you are in. Its just like camouflage. There is no one size fits all approach. You don't wear dark green and black woodland pattern and stand in a sea of uniformly light brown dry grasses and expect to be hidden. Likewise, you don't wear snow print camo while in the jungle. Your comparison is pretty much exactly this. I showed an example of snow pattern and you said it wouldn't work in the jungle. Well, yeah. And? lol. That shouldn't be surprising to anyone. lol. :) I guess the root of the problem is there is a fundamental misunderstanding of thermal evasion concepts and the thermal technology generally in the mind of the public. But that's okay. No one starts off knowing everything. That's why people come to channels like this. So they can learn. :) Have a great day, thanks for watching, and thanks for creating an interesting opportunity for discussion and for learning to take place.
@dandetande2882 ай бұрын
Nice
@catfart8792 ай бұрын
Mesh? Like putting a silencer on your body heat.
@zaczasiedko75722 ай бұрын
What do you think about using it as a scrim?
@zaczasiedko75722 ай бұрын
Would any nylon meah work?
@pauloost593 ай бұрын
I'd be pretty interested to see what it would look like at similar distances after you have it on for an hour or so!.. Otherwise, great find!
@joshlower114 күн бұрын
Shouldn't heat up
@marcingorczynski52123 ай бұрын
Thank You !
@vengeancewaffle11753 ай бұрын
Glad to see you're still kicking around!
@ThatThermalGuy3 ай бұрын
Thanks! Life interfered. How rude of it! Lol. Still have plans to begin Making more vids. Just time gets in the way. I’ll probably try to force something out, just to get things rolling again. It’s easier if I’m already regularly making vids. Its a psychological hump to get over when it’s been awhile. Ah well. I’m here, and it’s good to see you too!
@jasonbrown4673 ай бұрын
i brought along my cheap IR goggles and thermal camera on my quest to watch the night sky during this stuff. your video makes it seem like its happening on top of you and it looks sweet. my IR camera definitely picked up stuff the naked eye couldnt see but it looked like it was way up north from position and way up in the sky. anyways i wanted to see if anyone else had uploaded anything in IR yet
@SixOFord3 ай бұрын
Does it show up any at all through a thermal ? I was out glassing around with my thermal a couple months ago and kind of had a weird experience.
@ThatThermalGuy3 ай бұрын
okay, im curious... what did you see? You can't drop something like that and walk away! :D As to your question, no. The aurora did not image at all. I brought the thermal and night vision out ebcause I wanted to get footage of the aurora on both. Only, once I used them both, i realized the aurora didn't image at all. I actually wound up useing the thermal to differentiate clouds from aurora because the clouds imaged brilliantly, and the aurora was simply not there on thermal, it was just clear sky. So I was able to determine what was could and what was aurora, even when the aurora was only white and had no color, and was diffuse and hazy and not moving much and just kinda looked like clouds. Before it kicked into high gear and turned colors and started beboppin' at higher speed.
@ThatThermalGuy3 ай бұрын
PS, for the record, I've seen some stuff I can't explain on thermal and night vision too. So no worries about judgment here.
@SixOFord3 ай бұрын
@ThatThermalGuy yeah I was just glassing across my pasture one night, I'm sure you're familiar with what that looks like, set on white hot, cool evening, grass showing up black, tree trunks/limbs all white. I'm scanning back and forth, and slowly, what looks like a beam of light starts showing up in the thermal shining from east to west across the pasture, and it was fairly focused. It lasted several minutes and then it just slowly faded out. It was wild. Like a focused beam of heat.
@jasonbrown4673 ай бұрын
my thermal didnt pick up anything unusual in the sky, just clouds, i was more so using it to keep an eye out for freaking coyotes that kept coming around to check me out
@jasonbrown4673 ай бұрын
@@ThatThermalGuy also for the record, while watching a commercial jet fly over head through thermal i saw one object seemingly fly from the left of the plane to just below it and then off to the right straight and fast and made no sound. at first i thought i was being distracted by a bird, but a split second later i was like wtf was that? i checked pubic info radar sites about air traific over head and the "ufo" was not listed. i know its sometimes hard to judge depth and therefore speed of an object but this thing was silent, fast and flew perfectly straight until it was too small to see and this was at 1am. i looked up what sort of birds fly at night and landed on nothing. i want to see what a small dji drone looks like through thermal, but man it felt like it was too fast for that, and was evenly lit up, not at the four corners like id think a drone would be. also, i see a lot of air craft and satellites with IR that are not listed anywhere that can find. im guessing us military on the air craft, and chinese or russian satellites on the other stuff
@MawcDrums3 ай бұрын
Amazing footage! I've been trying to explain this phenomenon to my friends since seeing it in 2004, but seeing it again a few nights ago I knew I wasn't crazy. It was actually visible to the naked eye in CT and clear once your eyes were night adjusted. It looks like a VERY quick very subtle increase of white light pulsating and flashing along the paths of the rays almost simultaneously across massive distances. It's so cool to see this in IR where it's MUCH more visible. Thanks for the footage!!
@xlle6Ай бұрын
I also saw it in WA on may 10-11. Today I finally found what it was 🎉
@brianshissler32633 ай бұрын
I m in Northern wa and was supposed to be able to see it way further south then I was. Drove 30 min out of town and still just looked like a glow on the horizon. Pretty bummed. Anyway, cool shots!
@ThatThermalGuy3 ай бұрын
Oh man!! I’m so sorry! It wasn’t a constant thing, like, the first two hours I was out there I honestly had trouble being able to tell what was clouds and what was Aurora. Both white. Both hazy, both moving slowly. Both in the sky. I actually went back inside and grabbed a thermal camera. Because Aurora are charged particles, while clouds are moisture. The clouds imaged in thermal camera. The Aurora did not. For two hours of sitting out there, that’s how I could tell which was which they looked so similar. I finally gave up and went back inside, only to have a friend text me and tell me to go back outside. When I did, I looked up and it was purple and green. And that lasted for like, 10 minutes. Lol. So they are very finicky picky things and are very much dependent on being in the right place at the right time. I’m sorry it was a low pan out for you. Next time maybe. I know I’ve been waiting since last October/November. My neighbor got a purple and green picture right over my house and I missed the whole thing. I was very upset and I’ve been waiting half a year for this one, and almost missed it too. :)
@-wood-40673 ай бұрын
Thanks!
@ThatThermalGuy3 ай бұрын
Thanks for watchin'!
@fritz19903 ай бұрын
That's awesome. Another thing you can do is, look at the sky on a clear night. You may see things that move faster than satellites but slower than meteors. When you see them change direction, it really makes you think.
@jeffkardosjr.38253 ай бұрын
I've seen something questionable that was higher than typical airliner altitude during the daytime.
@ThatThermalGuy3 ай бұрын
Yeah, I've seen that stuff too. More often than I expected. There are satellite tracking maps that HAM radio guys use, free use, on the internet, so you can map everything in the sky above you at a certain time. There are also air traffic control map you can access for free to show flight paths over your place at a certain time. Whats really interesting, is when you capture odd things on scope, and then go and cross check those maps, and there was nothing officially there!!
@fritz19903 ай бұрын
@@ThatThermalGuy yep, and here in Alaska the flight paths are few and fairly static so it's easy to tell something is out of the flight path. The sweeping turns and right angle turns at that speed make me think. Drone? Black project craft? Or actual UFO?
@debyoungwirth3 ай бұрын
Love, love, love this! Great job on capturing these dancing lights! 😊
@ThatThermalGuy3 ай бұрын
Thanks! Its fun seeing the world through a new perspective. :D
@richbattaglia53503 ай бұрын
Thank you!
@ThatThermalGuy3 ай бұрын
Love finding neat things. :)
@larrymarsico40593 ай бұрын
And one for the AlGoreRhythym 💪 🤙 🇺🇸
@larrymarsico40593 ай бұрын
Awesome my guy!
@vevenaneathna3 ай бұрын
hmm good to know. thermal cameras can basically see the temps you can feel with your fingertips. i bet most lasers that are hot enough to be seen on thermal would be blindingly bright on night vision unless theyre IR lasers?
@ThatThermalGuy3 ай бұрын
Exceptionally strong/hot lasers would likely show rapidly in thermal, but they would definitely show on night vision as well. Very strong lasers are bright enough to damage night vision, and there are actually filters designed to screw into the housing to prevent damage to night vision by accidental exposure to bright green lasers (strong targeting lasers, like, for marking targets like tanks). As for IR aiming lasers, they are routinely used in conjunction with, and are designed for use with, night vision. So yes, they will be very detectable with night vision. Night vision and thermal both operate within what is considered the IR spectrum. IR is a relatively large band, and the two devices may operate with IR, but they produce very different results as they are on opposing ends of the IR spectrum which visualize differently from each other. 😁
@gughffhhghgghghgg16904 ай бұрын
Is thermal vision the same as irr?
@ThatThermalGuy4 ай бұрын
Thermal vision is a specific subsection of the IR band. Depending on where you are at in the IR band, what and how you see is drastically different.
@martinwashington31524 ай бұрын
Amazing video, I wonder if I could purchase some of that material too, where did you purchase from exactly.. I also wonder if they allow export to the UK, I've tried to purchase a thermal ghillie system from the UK where I reside but they won't allow sales to civilians, only UK armed forces and alliance forces.
@donnyhartanto85975 ай бұрын
Have anyone try to zero their thermal scope with a blue laser using bore sight method ?
@ThatThermalGuy5 ай бұрын
I have not. Since I had no indication of a laser showing on thermal in any capacity (red, green, or IR), I stopped trying with them. I can see if anyone I know has a blue laser to try with, but I don’t think the difference in light wavelength will matter much. But it is an interesting question.
@DaveSmith-cp5kj5 ай бұрын
I just use a tripod and a regular green laser and hold my thumb against the spot for a few second then go back to the scope and adjust it. The official army doctrine for zeroing a TWS is to just boresight and have a buddy hold two fingers on either side of the boresight spot and then dial the sight in. The army uses TWS on machine guns that have tracers, so they aren't concerned with super high accuracy in zero like we are.
@ThatThermalGuy5 ай бұрын
@@DaveSmith-cp5kj I like that. Good simple method!
@inspectorseb28875 ай бұрын
Im still confused with ITAR regulations... To my understanding gen 3s can't be exported or used by non US persons. What about the gen 2s?
@ThatThermalGuy5 ай бұрын
It has been a couple years since I looked into this, so I am not positive, and I’m certainly not providing legal advice. Lol. But from what I remember, you are correct. Gen 3 is banned from exportation. But Gen 2 is not. And you can get a very good Gen 2 that will darn near rival most Gen 3 tubes in the UK (I know because several in my audience were in the UK and sought my advice prior to purchasing). The higher end Photonis Gen 2 tubes thst cost as much as Gen 3, have similar performance to Gen 3. The biggest difference between Gen 2 and Gen 3 is their light concentrating capability (gain). Some of the high end Gen 2 tubes darn near match or exceed the low end Gen 3 tubes in gain. And they are available overseas and in use by UK police forces and the like to my understanding. My video here was a comparison of a budget NVG ($1500 today) and a top shelf NVG ($5000 today). A top shelf Gen 2 will give you really good performance. It’s just not a budget device. So don’t let this video dissuade you from buying Gen 2.
@greglisco5 ай бұрын
Very cool video. With all of those layers on, how comfortable is it to walk say a quarter mile? I can't imagine those layers are breathable. Thanks for making these videos, I learn a lot from them.
@ThatThermalGuy5 ай бұрын
Ha! Breathable? Not much. Its a lot harder to beat thermal in cold weather. the smallest amount of heat leaking through gives you away, so I have to layer up like that when its below freezing. You stay warm. But yes, prolonged activity, especially vigorous activity, can get uncomfortable. Its like wearing a sweater when its 80 out. Its bearable, you can do it and be okay. You'll sweat faster with less activity, and you'll be uncomfortable. But its not bad. its just like that. The other side is you don't have to seal it up until you believe there is active threat / tracking. meaning, more airflow, and more comfort, until you actually need to seal it up. The other positive, is you can lay directly in the snow for extended periods of time without any discomfort at all. It blocks the cold. Which is great for recon / sniper / hide observations where you need to stay low and motionless for long periods of time. So ups and downs. In the summer you need less layering / blocking as the sun heats up the environment around you. A normal ghillie suit without any additional layering can be enough depending on surroundings. The background clutter can be so intense in some locations that if you can just block about 60% of your signature (normal ghillie) you'll disappear. :)
@greglisco5 ай бұрын
Awesome video. I have a question. your videos are mostly filmed looking horizontally. I imagine a guy could make a head covering to mask you to anyone looking from above?
@ThatThermalGuy5 ай бұрын
Absolutely. Looking top down can be easier to mask. Smaller target cross section. You need to ensure the tops of legs (front thigh) and bottoms (rear from knee to heel) have some kind of protection as well, those areas would flash out from under the protective cover while moving. Otherwise, a good thermally lined hooded cape or poncho could do the trick nicely. Especially if wearing a backpack and a helmet. The helmet would keep heat from head from direct contact with poncho/hood, and backpack would keep poncho/cape from direct contact with body as well. You could roll up a sweater and wrap it around the backpack straps over the shoulders to create an additional stand off to keep the cape/poncho from contact with the body. The name of the game is air gap. The more distance you keep between your hot body and whatever you put over the top of you, and the thicker the material you use, the slower the migration of heat up through the poncho/cape, and the smaller your signature remains. Personally, I like umbrellas for thermal screening from above. Umbrellas block rain from above just as well as thermal signature observation. Like I said, you’ll want to be careful with movements to ensure legs stay concealed or employ additional protection. See my umbrella vid here: m.kzfaq.info/get/bejne/g62PjZl1tLu9mKc.html
@guyinthewrinkledwrangler6 ай бұрын
Dude, this is excellent. Totally useable as a comparison. Excellent job man. Thank you. God bless you and yours.
@ThatThermalGuy5 ай бұрын
Thanks for the feedback! I'm always happy when someone finds my stuff useful. :)
@jeffshlayen79086 ай бұрын
Thank you for this video! I was wondering if you could point me to a thermal camera that has timelapse capability either on the camera itself or on the PC software that works with the camera? My budget is around $500. Thank you!
@ThatThermalGuy5 ай бұрын
I wish I had something for you, but that budget is a killer when it comes to thermal. But regardless, I'm not sure of any timelapse thermals that are under $10k. I'm sorry. You can always just run a thermal camera for a long period of time, and then condense the video in post using video editing software. Thats the best Ive got for ya.
@jeffshlayen79085 ай бұрын
Thank you very much for the information.
@jsk8drummer6 ай бұрын
For most people, a gen 2 or 2+ with a built in illuminator will still suffice perfectly fine for what 95% of people actually use their nods for. If you're prepping for violent conflict where you expect the enemy to have and use night vision against you, that is the only time where you'd really want the gen 3 to still be able to get around while avoiding IR detection (and if you have a lower end gen 3 unit it's not going to perform like this L3 did and you'll likely need some type of IR anyways if the conditions are this dark). It's a rather niche and low probability scenario. So if you can afford gen 3, get it. If a used gen 2 or gen 2+ is all you can scrape up enough funds for don't let that stop you from buying night vision at all.
@ThatThermalGuy6 ай бұрын
I pretty much agree with you across the board. I’ve used lower end Gen 3 and yeah, you still need IR illuminator in exceptionally dark instances. It’s not a common occasion where the benefit of a high end Gen 3 really shines through. Gen 2+ would suffice for most people, like you said, and serve well for the majority of situations people would use it in.
@ajfraser6 ай бұрын
Finally a video where i can see a real difference between the 2, i guess the Gen 3 is worth the higher price if you got it
@ThatThermalGuy6 ай бұрын
It’s all about difficulty of conditions. My Gen 2 does a great job 70% of the time, a acceptable job another 10% of the time, but the last 20% is where the Gen 3 really shines and the Gen 2 falters. It’s under exceptional conditions / difficult conditions that the difference really shows up in a glaring way. And this difference can be mitigated with IR illuminators under most conditions, or by staying closer to the city or staying out in open spaces where the ambient light helps. But if you really have to be out in nasty weather in exceedingly remote locations, or under dense tree cover, yeah, Gen 3 definitely has the edge.
@cringeyidiotterry6 ай бұрын
Sir, you are amazing! I never knew burlap would outdo mylar, and from watching 10:43 : we can see your thermal camouflage actually works unlike the space blanket, my respect & admiration for your ingenuity can't be explained in words, thank you for your awesomeness
@ThatThermalGuy5 ай бұрын
Thats some serious praise! much appreciated! I will admit, I was surprised at the results too. I didn't have high hopes for such a commonly available, cheap and abundant material. I was pleasantly surprised when I watched the footage... :)
@tjworld8963Ай бұрын
A company called Fibrotex created a special suit called nightwalker. Could you do a review?
@cringeyidiotterry6 ай бұрын
Thank you for making this. I admit wrong & that I'm an idiot
@ThatThermalGuy6 ай бұрын
No no no. No one’s an idiot. If this video made you think about or question something you believed, that’s a good thing. Learning something new, that you never had the ability to know before, does not ever make someone an idiot. And in fact, the willingness to see another possibility and be open to alternatives shows you absolutely are not an idiot. It’s good. We’re good. No worries.
@bomen3306 ай бұрын
Corridor Crew did a video on mud vs thermals and results were drastically different. Now i’m confused.
@ThatThermalGuy6 ай бұрын
I just pinned a previous comment and reply under that video that addressed this very thing. I’ll copy and paste portions of my reply here, as it’s a lot to type, and nothing has changed. -- Three heavy criticisms of their footage. 1) Distance. 2) Focus. 3) Obscurants. 1) They did not replicate the predator movie camera distances, or they would have had results just like mine. They filmed from dozens to hundreds of feet away (depending on which part of their video you watch). See their video timestamp at 7:18. They are completely across the pond and probably about 80 feet or so away likely further. Even the vehicle, a full size 4 door pick up truck, is small and takes up only a quarter of the viewfinder screen. They are at a minimum 60 feet away (if magnification is 1x, which most thermals are higher than), and they are probably closer to 80 to 100 feet away. So an entire persons signature is tiny on that thermal screen and already blunted by distance and volume of thermal clutter (background) in the viewfinder with them. The volume of thermal clutter in the viewfinder has A LOT to do with how strongly a thermal resolves a signature. The further back you film, the more junk is in the viewfinder, the more thermal variation the unit has to assign colors to and it blunts resolving a signature. Filming from 5 feet away (like the movie, like my video, like the Iran myth) to filming from 80 feet away (like corridor crew) is a HUGE difference. A typical leather jacket would probably blunt your signature the same amount as the mud at that distance. Maybe better. In the back half of the video, they are hundreds of feet away walking through woods. In the predator movie, the alien (the thermal imager) was right on top of Arnold, at roughly 5 to 10 feet away tops. These guys did not run their tests at the distances shown in the movie (the distances I filmed). At their timestamp 7:41 to 7:45, for that brief moment, you can see what filming at a reasonable distance (roughly 20 feet) looks like. The individual is absolutely COVERED in mud, and yet, you can see them in perfect detail, the folds of their clothing, their arms, legs, head, skin, the areas of mud that have heated up, etc. The person is undeniably obvious. These four seconds out of their entire 15 minute long video are also the only in-focus video we get to see. I don't know why they cut this clip short and instead went on to present largely blurry, out of focus, and distant shots to justify a claim that mud defeats thermal. But regardless, it takes us to criticism number 2. 2), Their footage was extremely blurry in most of the shots. Let their video play from the timestamp indicated above and stop it at 7:19. I know those are additional vehicles in the viewfinder, but they look like someone smeared vasoline over the lens while pointing it at a couple burn barrels knocked over on their sides. Or like my kids fingerpainting when he was 3. That is ridiculous focus and should not be put out to the public as if that is representative of common thermal imagers or to use that footage as justification to claim mud defeats a thermal. For an example of how clear a thermal imager can be at extreme distances and under extreme circumstances, go look at my forest fire thermal video. ( kzfaq.info/get/bejne/d9uJqLCqmKfOlKM.html ) at timestamp 0:27 in my video. There is a pick up truck and a person standing next to it, filmed at roughly around 200 yards away, probably 7 times the distance these guys are filming, AND I have multiple gigantic blazing fires surrounding them in the viewfinder between me and the truck. A forest surface fire burns at 1,472 F to 2,192 F. So this is easily 1000 degrees of temperature disparity in my viewfinder, and yet my thermal can still produce a sharp edged image of a pick up truck clearer than their footage seven times closer and with no thermal interference. The level of blurry in their video is inexcusable and NOT representative of a thermal cameras ability to resolve an image. 3) Obscurants. They put a person behind a dense network of branches and obscurants. Literally placing large amounts of mass between the thermal camera and the target. This is no different than putting bricks in between the camera and the target. Or a wall. The more stuff you put in the way to block a target from being seen, the less you see it. This ain't rocket science. By the same token, this also is NOT using mud to defeat a thermal imager. Its using a third party mass to obscure the visibility of the target from the camera. No different than walking behind a wall. The mud has minimal to no impact when you literally block the target from view by sticking a bunch of junk in the middle. Then they claimed the mud defeated the imager. No. You threw a bunch of mass in between the imager and the target. That defeated the imager. It wouldn't make any difference if the target was wearing jeans and a t-shirt, or naked and covered in mud, if you throw a bunch of mass in the way, you can't see them. The mass obscures the signature. In their testing by the pond, they put the dude in a dense bunch of branches with huge sections of literal log (Its a downed tree!!) between the target and the camera, and then they walked around to the left to get as much of the wood mass, log/branches/twigs as possible in the viewfinder between the target and the camera. Then they presented this like it was mud masking him. No. It was wood mass masking him. At 8:34 they even say the quiet part out loud "however, a couple more branches and hes gone" they didn't say another handful of mud and he's gone. They said branches. Wood mass. Its the obscurants doing the work. Not the mud. And they even said it. And then they also state the other part I already called out above at 8:51, saying "at a long enough distance it might work". So... To summarize. They said literally to put a bunch of mass between the thermal and the target, and view it from far away, and it might work. Yeah, that means its not the mud working. Because that is NOT what the film portrays, and thusly what urban legend says. The film portrays a thermal imager being defeated from five feet away with a clear unobstructed view of the entire upper body simply by an extremely skimpy layer of mud. THIS is the fiction that is passed around as urban myth/legend. And its wrong. I'm disappointed with them, but not angry. Dont read the all caps as yelling, its emphasizing a point. I am actually subscribed to one of them, and I like their content usually. I'm just disappointed. In the end, they're popular, with millions of viewers, so their video will now get passed around like gospel by people who trust them, and it will go on to reinforce the incorrect myth. In fact, I've already found an article written in the last three days citing their video as undeniable proof that firmly finally puts the controversy to bed, that Arnold would have been safe from the predator (and all the naysayers were wrong), and therefore, a skimpy layer of mud will hide you from a thermal imager 5 feet away from you. Sigh
@whiteeye3453Ай бұрын
Exept all your points is bs They were close and obscurans were in movie