1. Name Calling or general rude behavior is no longer acceptable in the Cafe, We are adults which means that we should be able to debate without resorting to name calling. Warnings will be given out if users fail to act appropriately.

Beat Thermal Imaging

Discussion in 'Legal Edge' started by RickWhite, Jul 18, 2009.

  1.  
    W Dragon

    W Dragon Well-Known Member

    Again they can only see heat if it transfers to something i.e your joists, tiles, slate or is escaping somewhere they cannot see the heat source directly through your roof tiles or slates, all they can see is if they are warmer than the air surrounding them, this really isn't hard to grasp and i don't see how you don't understand this, do you think if i sealed a heat source into a box and vented that heat source properly they would still be able to see it through the box? if so you really need to watch some flir videos, this subject has been covered many times in the past
  2.  
    blueberry2012

    blueberry2012 Member


    clearly the houses in the bbc link ie @ 1min 18 seconds you can see 3 heat source that brought attention to them,again its all if buts and mayb with you & they do say they patrol the skys several times a month to look for cannabis factory,s and as it says in the vid they then get warrant to search,if you both going to argue about it at least watch the vid properly with the sound on
  3.  
    blueberry2012

    blueberry2012 Member

    watch 2mins 8 seconds on the bbc link if you think excess heat from you home is not a probable cause for a warrant,You will find you are wrong !
  4.  
    blueberry2012

    blueberry2012 Member


    as you wish it has been sent
  5.  
    gargantuanganja

    gargantuanganja Active Member

    I personally know for a fact that they can see through walls at close distances. Maybe the fly overs can only see so much, but I spent some time with a guy who got busted from a more portable ground unit the officer used. He used his to find the heat signature through the walls at a closer distance.

    Any way you look at it, I think I'd want the aluminum. Obviously, the technology is used to catch cannabis cultivators and I wouldn't doubt their abilities if I were you.
  6.  
    blueberry2012

    blueberry2012 Member

    at last someone with a brain :bigjoint:
  7.  
    W Dragon

    W Dragon Well-Known Member

    I give up, honestly does stupidity know no bounds.............i'm out
  8.  
    blueberry2012

    blueberry2012 Member

    thank fk for that ~ some how i doubt with your 1459 posts i have a feeling ul be back word warrior



  9.  
    mindphuk

    mindphuk Well-Known Member

    BBC= BRITISH Broadcasting Company, IOW, the UK which may have different laws AFAIK. I was specifically referring to the law in my own country where I grow my medicine.

    Re: the comment at 2m8s, the commentator clearly says "with thermal images AND INTELLIGENCE ON THE GROUND, police drug squads can then request a warrant..."

    My post clearly said that thermal imaging can be used as part of the investigation to establish probable cause but is insufficient BY ITSELF. Just because cops request a warrant does not mean one is automatically granted, a judge must first determine if the burden of probable cause has been met. If you have trouble understanding this, then you need to read more about our legal system and how it works.

    I really don't know why you have to be so hostile to people that are merely trying to correct misconceptions that many people, including you seem to have. Your authority and evidence on these matters are a few youtube videos and you think you are an expert while many people here actually have law degrees and other knowledge that you discount because they are disagreeing with your 5 whole minutes of education on the subject.
  10.  
    mindphuk

    mindphuk Well-Known Member

    You don't need to give up because of a single punk-ass know-it-all kid, there are many others that read these forums and never post. If the bad information isn't countered, they will leave here believing the bullshit. At least by us posting the facts, a reader can decide for him or herself who is more credible.
  11.  
    mindphuk

    mindphuk Well-Known Member

    Good. Now I hope they respond back to you explaining how debate works and that posting on-topic rebuttals to your posts is not in any way trolling. I can see how you would want to silence opposition as is often the typical solution for people with inadequate support for their arguments seem to like to do.

    'The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.'
    ~Dr. Carl Sagan
  12.  
    blueberry2012

    blueberry2012 Member

    I think you will find the last link i posted and the info on that post was from a British police forces own site,you would know that if you bothered to look but your to bizi ranting and arguing with ppl to do that,i have backed everything up i have said with proof not here say like you & as you would know if you watched the youtube vid it did give them probable cause & i am fully aware of the law i received a production charge 10yrs ago, i learned the hard way, i think you will find it seems to be you lacking knowledge as was stated earlier dont doubt there ability's & a Sargent can grant a warrant and they give they out for fun over here & im not being hostile & there is no misconception the info you are providing is dated and wrong but you cannot except that, i have provided up to date FACT from a police forces site & a vid made by the bbc, the equipment the police use it top of the range and state of the art,half the vids thats are on youtube and a lot of the info on the web is old very old


    It is a fine thing to be honest, but it is also very important to be right.
    Winston Churchill
  13.  
    sfttailpaul

    sfttailpaul Active Member

    FLASH FEBRUARY 14, 2012 Cyberspace somewhere past "Pluto"...
    I sincerely am not trying to be a blow hard, but this got ridiculous. This thread started out several years ago (7-18-09) by a nice person trying to help others with what he thought was a good thing. Thank you very much for taking the time, Sir. More compassion for others is what will drive a site like this to have value. I mean a value to its members as well as the public at large (hello Federal L.E.). Everyone contributes; sometimes good, sometimes bad; everyone has a right to express their opinion as its' in our Constitution (if U R young, Wikipedia it); this forum is dear to me, a valuable asset in my arsenal against pest & other irritants and that war; against bad people, bad advice, quality in advice (includes real experience), product information and review, strain and genetics, etc. etc, etc.... I remember the first seed I germ'd a while back. I knew nothing what-so-ever and somehow, ended up the proud father of what turned out to be a healthy and vibrant, almost godlike, what turned out to be, a Male plant (took me several months B4 I knew).
    Somehow the thread died off a few weeks after inception having several dozen replies. Then 2+ years after the last reply, several guys started it up rebutting first by BB then, mind... came on-board followed soon thereafter, by WD...
    Now you guys all sound like you have far more knowledge in this area of technology and the law, etc. but spent a $hitload of your good energy, pissing on each other and basically occupied the banter back and forth for 4-5 days yet took 4+ pages!
    I really appreciate all the information you' all passed on. Something I, once again, didn't think about and could save my a$$. I would love to see you guys banter over something like "how do you prep. your cuttings 4 cloning?" or "great ways to make your own grow equipment: ballasts, reflectors power circuits & controllers; etc. This would be such great value to everyone not just new persons. We all have the capacity to learn. Thanks you for your valuable input, I certainly do not want to offend anyone nor upset anyone nor start anything; simply tossing in my 2 c's. ,and remember it's worth that which it is written on.
    "Opinions are like a$$holes... everyone's got one..." "unknown"
  14.  
    mindphuk

    mindphuk Well-Known Member

    Yes, your last link was from a Surrey Police website. So what? It didn't say anything about being able to see into houses but that it can detect a fire under a roof. Well duh. That's what thermal imaging does, the roof gets heated up by the fire, the camera doesn't "see" the fire under the roof.
    I and other people disagree. You have provided no evidence, let along 'proof' that thermal imaging has somehow made leaps and bounds in technology that allows them to see inside walls that have been insulated from the heat source within. For clarity sakes one more time. The ONLY heat that cameras can see is heat that has convected, radiated or conducted to someplace on the external surfaces of a building, windows, walls, chimneys, etc. If you disagree with that, then provide some evidence as your links so far haven't shown anything different than that. If you don't understand why, then go back and re-read the other thread where I explain the technology behind thermal imaging cameras.

    As you claim but you still haven't provided the evidence to back it up either from a legal source or even from a quote from a BBC commentator because he didn't say that heat signatures by themselves give police probable cause, as I demonstrated by quoting him accurately.
    That really sucks but that doesn't mean your claims about FLIR are true. People convicted for crimes are not always fully aware of the law or even details about how the police make a case against them.
    I don't doubt 'their' abilities. However, I am not going to believe they can magically look beyond a wall that is well-insulated from the heat source inside without more evidence than you have provided. I am open-minded. I am fully aware how fast technology evolves but I also rely on evidence, something that your video does not provide. If you disagree, then it is you that hasn't been detailed enough about what we are supposed to have seen.
    Again, I am not familiar with UK law, only US. Over here, a judge is required for a search warrant and the police must meet the standard of probable cause as outlined in the 4th Amendment of our Constitution. If the UK has similar definition of probable cause, i.e. a reasonable person would believe that a crime is being committed or has been committed, then IDK what to say except that heat detected on the outside of a building is insufficient for a vast number of reasonable people to believe a crime is being committed because there are many things besides grow lights that create heat.

    I can and will 'accept' it once you provide substantial evidence to support your claims. You claim my sources are dated but the video pictures look virtually identical to the ones you presented and there was nothing in your videos or links or anything that tells me that police are using new technology that has surpassed standard thermal imaging used here in the US by police, border patrol agents, DEA or anyone else. My knowledge about this technology is up-to-date and we even have a hand-held thermal camera here at the university where I work. Read my posts in other threads, I am a scientist. I care nothing about claims unless they can be supported by evidence. You haven't provided enough to support your claim, therefore it is rejected pending new evidence. It really is as simple as that. If you want other people to believe you, then provide the evidence.

    As pointed out, those facts don't support your ultimate claim. If you still think they do, then you need to provide more detail, such as timestamps and quotes.
    Likewise, if you ARE right, it is important to be able to explain to others and provide the evidence showing you are right when you have been challenged. Repeating the claim and displaying the same videos lacking the evidence over and over is not sufficient to prove you are right.
    W Dragon likes this.
  15.  
    RawBudzski

    RawBudzski Well-Known Member

    Officer already had a hunch then that something illegal was going on & probably had other evidence as well. They cannot simply look for heat & say go getem ! Especially in a med-legal state, could you imagine how much trouble LEO would be getting in if they were kicking in Every door with heat buildup.. Even if they got 3 out of 5 illegal grows, the 2 of 5 legal grows lawsuits will rickroll them. they do more than just FLIR to catch ppl, that is 1 tool of many to finding evidence & I highly doubt it is a Wonder machine as some people here say. No way will only a FLIR provide the evidence needed to kick a door here in the US. Getting the FLIR up & running alone is a task that costs $. Especially for a hunch.
  16.  
    W Dragon

    W Dragon Well-Known Member

    @ mindphuk, That was put together brilliantly, I wish I had your level of education and patience +rep to you for not giving up and putting the right info out there.
  17.  
    blueberry2012

    blueberry2012 Member

    i give up i have said my bit its like pissing in the wind trying to inform some ppl ~ all i did was point out the vid and give a link to the police info, my info was clearly aimed at ppl in the uk, you ad bits like insulation to try and make what i say sound bad and avoid my good points like the you tube vid you can clearly see 3 hps in that roof & the info on the police site you disregard ~ when you get busted ul get a big i told you so if you come here moaning about it, this is fact i dnt really want to state but 3 of my friends in the past few month have been had in this was one friend lost over 1000 ladys so think what you like if this is the response you get from trying help ppl then fook it learn the hard way

    & mindphuk all you do is argue ~


    if you read back a bit i did ask why do you think so many ppl grow in basements :)
  18.  
    mindphuk

    mindphuk Well-Known Member

    So this seems like an admission that the points I have made are completely over your head. No one tried to make what you say look bad, only the claim about new tech that can see through walls. In the youtube vid you see three heat signatures. Tell me exactly where you found out that they were HPS lights. That's your problem, you make deductive leaps of reasoning without substantial evidence. Tell me how I disregarded your second link. What exactly did they say that I ignored that proves your position? You seem to be ignoring a great deal of information, like how to make logical links from premises to conclusions. It's find to try to help people, but giving them wrong information doesn't help, it hurts. You think my information about insulation and venting heat properly is making you look bad but in fact it's based on the true abilities of the thermal imaging cameras. The way to defeat thermal imaging is first knowing exactly how they work. By telling people that they see through walls rather than see heat that has been transmitted to walls makes defending against LE tactics that much harder. If they could see through walls, all of my insulation and ducting wouldn't do any good. That you can't even see or acknowledge this is your problem and why I keep getting reps and likes about my posts while you keep showing your ass.

    How about instead of just reposting the same stuff, you answer some of the question put to you. If you can't honestly answer them, how in the hell is anyone supposed to take you seriously?
  19.  
    blueberry2012

    blueberry2012 Member

  20.  
    mindphuk

    mindphuk Well-Known Member

    From your link:
    "Arguably, information collected by thermal imaging is unobtrusive because it is collected from outside, and it is slight as it concerns only heat emissions."

    Good summary of the current legal status in various countries, thanks for posting it.

    However, I found nothing in there that supports your contention that heat signatures by themselves constitute enough evidence to grant a search or arrest warrant. I do acknowledge that some heat signatures are more suspicious than others and police may offer testimony why a specific heat signature is more likely a cannabis grow than others. I saw an episode of DEA where they saw massive amounts of heat being exhausted through a hose coming from a window. He pointed the camera and showed it wasn't the dryer vent and considering how warm the weather was, it was a lot of heat. The next step was to investigate the home owner and watched the house. When they finally got the warrant, it was based on multiple lines of evidence, undoubtedly started by random FLIR investigation, but was not the sole piece of evidence. This is the what I'm trying to explain to you. Unless you provide some evidence to the contrary, my claim stands but also points to the need to control heat. If heat can be controlled and properly vented to where FLIR cannot give them enough information, which I assure you it can, then your initial claim about new technology is better than FLIR is just wrong.

Share This Page