Author Topic: Ted Connors - Alabama  (Read 158253 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ominoustruth

  • Major Dronie
  • ******
  • Posts: 247
  • Karma: +17/-0
  • aka Ted Connors
Re: Ted Connors - Alabama
« Reply #60 on: May 17, 2010, 06:37:49 PM »
Quote
A4. The camera equipment we were using in 2007 was state of the art Level 4 Infra Red Video Cameras. This was brand new technology at the time and was available to both the Military and Civilian market. In October of 2007 i received a memo at work from our supplier of this equipment that as of Jan.1st 2008 we would no longer be able to purchase Level 4 IR equipment for civilian use as ordered by the United States Government per the attached directive from the DOD and FCC. This equipment would only be available to the Military and U.S. Government agencies. In November 2007 i was informed by my superiors at work that we would be changing all our equipment back to Level 3 IR. This change took place in late November 2007. It has remained the same since. Did the Level 4 equipment allow for my DRONE sighting?? I have a suspicion but no proof that it did. I tried to get more information from my supplier on this issue but with no success. I also reported this to LMH by email and she responded with her thoughts as well.

From the training i received, the big difference between Level 3 and Level 4 as i understood it was the clarity and detail of the images it provides. Level 4 IR provided a much sharper image using lower level IR lamp emmiters and has enhanced optics at a much further distance than Level 3. If you are familiar with most comercial IR cameras the image tends to become less detailed at long distances even if it has a zoom option. this is due mostly to the IR lamps illumination and the frequency of the IR emmiters used. The technology used in Level 4 enhances the light spectrum as well as having a much higher level of clarity from the lens of the camera itself. The difference for me was very noticeable. Images could be recorded at a much longer range with a much clearer image than the Level 3 cameras could possibly provide. Again, my training was mostly limited to the usage of this equipment rather than the overall knowledge of the Level 4 technology. I did ask a lot of questions of the person sent to provide our team training and the information i am giving is based on a combination of the training i received and the questions i asked.

Ted, I have a number of questions on the surveillance system you describe, especially the 'very expensive infrared cameras' that you state you were using in 2007, that were 'available to both military and civilian markets'.

You mention using 'expensive infrared cameras', with 'emitters and lamps'. However, typical "infrared cameras" are used in consumer and business applications because IR emitter range is limited (typically long range units are good for a max of 100 ft), and of course they are easily detected by anyone with a camera phone. Such infrared cameras are not very expensive and even a name brand IR camera with a Sony CCD is under a thousand dollars, with IR emitters running a few hundred dollars.

High grade commercial and military security of the type you imply you are working at almost exclusively uses thermal cameras (e.g. FLIR, Xenics, Cantronics, EMX) which are not generally called "infrared' and do not use emitters. Thermal cameras are also typically thousands of dollars and can range up to five figures.  (Reference: "Using Thermal Cameras to Secure the Homeland" http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=40915)

Q1. Are you stating that your facility uses infrared cameras and emitters, or true thermal cameras without emitters? If the object you saw was 30-40 yards away, it would have been out of the range of most IR camera/emitter systems. The description sounds like thermal but your terminology is inconsistent. You already stated that you were unwilling to name the manufacturer, but can you provide a clearer description?

Quote
From the training i received, the big difference between Level 3 and Level 4 as i understood it was the clarity and detail of the images it provides.

Q2.  I have worked around the high tech security business for 20 years and have never heard of these "Level 3" and "Level 4" terms used to describe cameras. I cannot locate any such term usage on Google either. Where did these terms "Level 3" and "Level 4" originate?

Quote
In October of 2007 i received a memo at work from our supplier of this equipment that as of Jan.1st 2008 we would no longer be able to purchase Level 4 IR equipment for civilian use as ordered by the United States Government per the attached directive from the DOD and FCC.

Q3. You mention a DOD and FCC directive from late 2007 restricting civilian use of 'Level 4' infrared cameras. Can you please provide further information about this directive? Also, what department of the FCC regulates cameras? I can find no information about their involvement in this industry at all, and I've certainly never heard of it. I searched the entire FCC site and found zero relevant references, so I'm skeptical such a memo exists, since the FCC does not regulate such devices in the way you describe. The DOD also has no authority in this area. It's actually the Department of Commerce Export Administration Regulations that sets technology restrictions, and I've never seen a case where they restrict domestic use of cameras in the way you describe. Are you claiming this is some sort of classified government operation that is undocumented?

Quote
Also, i have been asked if we got any images on our Digital Video Recorder?? the answer is no because all the cameras are set at a maximum level of the horizon and would not elevate any further. This is to keep from accidently burning out these very expensive cameras by pointing them directly at the sun.

Modern thermal cameras made in the last decade are not susceptible to sun damage in the way you describe. Most thermal cameras are dual "day/night use" and are widely used by military and law enforcement where direct exposure to the sun is very common (e.g. the traditional helicopter chase filmed from the air). Most vendors advertise that their thermal cameras can look directly into the sun in order to see movement in shadows, which is one of the key benefits of thermal surveillance (e.g. see http://www.flir.com/uploadedfiles/Eurasia/MMC/Tech_Notes/TN_0006_EN.pdf) . You claim that this was not possible with your cameras which seems to defeat much of the purpose of having a thermal camera in the first place.

Q4. Can you clarify why you think your cameras are susceptible to sun damage?

Thanks,

Boatswain
Thanks for the questions. I will try to clarify and explain each of them.

A1. Both infra red and thermal cameras are in use at my workplace. The area of my sighting however was only covered by infra red cameras at that time. Some of the cameras have IR emitters and lamps, others do not.I cannot elaborate on the nomenclature of these devices without risking a breech of security and privacy agreement.  As of 2009 it is now covered by both Thermal and IR equipment as well as other Audio,Video, and Motion sensing devices which i am unable to discuss due to security restrictions.

A2. The term "LEVEL" was used by the manufacturer of the equipment we were being trained on and was also referenced in the documents we received at work in regards to the purchase of this equipment. In regards to the difference between Level 3 and Level 4, I only know what i have been told and related here previously on the forum. Also, we received documents from Dept.of Homeland Security, The Department of Defense, and The Federal Communications Commission using the term "LEVEL" in describing these types of IR cameras. These i read and signed off on as i am required to do by my duty requirements.

A3. I am not at liberty to discuss the overall purpose of my mission or my work, but as i stated in A2., the documents i received were from the agencies i have listed. After i had read these documents at work i took it upon myself to investigate further on my own and at the time, found nothing on the Internet other than some vague undocumented statements about a "BAN" on Level 4 IR cameras posted. At the time i contacted Linda Moulton Howe and she also undertook an investigation of her own with similar results.

A4. We,(our team) were told by our superiors that the infra red cameras, ( not the thermal cameras and equipment) were set at horizon level to prevent any damage to the lens, iris, and electronics of these devices by eliminating the chance of them being pointed directly at the sun at any particular level as well as not being pointed at the direct Eastern or Western horizon. The area where these cameras are located are in depressed regions so that the have the best overall field of view without the danger of excessive sunlight.
Thanks again for the questions,                                             Thanks, Ted

Offline onthefence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #3
  • **********
  • Posts: 1045
  • Karma: +50/-0
Re: Ted Connors - Alabama
« Reply #61 on: May 17, 2010, 08:34:46 PM »
In regards to the Level 3 and Level 4 nomenclature; I recall looking  that up in 2008 and it seemed to be a distinction used to sell IR cameras at some web sites. I cannot find that any longer.


In regards to the camera ban, while not a reliable source, here is some anecdotal evidence regarding that subject from GLP:
Quote from: GLP
  I'll Explain this for you real quick, seeing as how I just purchased one.
  THese cameras are for sale, but you need to prove who you are and why you
  need one. Only art photographers, forensic experts, law enforcement,
  military, etc can purchase these with verification of ID. The reason is
  that these cameras can sometimes see through certain types of clothing
  and that is something that could be bad news in the hands of
  pedophiles/paparazzi. I had to fill out an application to buy and it was
  quickly approved and shipped out to me.

  Sgt D.
  USMC

Here is another story on the IR camera ban from OMF:
Quote from: AP
2 arrested at LAX over Chinese camera shipment
The Associated Press
Article Launched: 04/05/2008 10:10:19 AM PDT

LOS ANGELESâ??Two men were arrested Saturday after they tried to board a
plane to China with sensitive infrared cameras in their luggage, a
federal official said.

Yong Guo Zhi, a Chinese national, and Tah Wei Chao, a naturalized U.S.
citizen, were stopped by federal agents on the jetway as they were
preparing to board the flight to Beijing, said Rick Weir, assistant
special agent in charge of the Los Angeles office of the Department of
Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security.

The men, who had been in the United States for about a week, were
arrested for investigation of trying to take thermal imaging cameras with
potential military use to China without the proper export licenses, Weir
said.

Julie Salcido, a supervising agent with the Bureau of Industry and
Security, said one of the men purchased the cameras, assuring the seller
repeatedly that they were only for domestic use.

"He repeatedly said he wouldn't export," she said.

Ten of the cameras, which measure about 2 inches square and cost about
$5,000 each, were found in the men's checked luggage, Weir said. Salcido
said it appeared they split the shipment up between them.

The cameras have both commercial and military uses but they are "very
expensive, highly sensitive," Weir said. "They're not something you could
buy off the shelf."

The men were taken to the downtown Metropolitan Detention Center and
could not immediately be reached for comment.

Offline onthefence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #3
  • **********
  • Posts: 1045
  • Karma: +50/-0
Re: Ted Connors - Alabama
« Reply #62 on: May 17, 2010, 08:52:22 PM »
I'm still looking into Level 3 and 4 terminology, and so far found this description discussing "Generation" differences:

Quote from: OPGAL
Detector size
Four distinct generations of thermal imagers have been designed, based on IR detector technologies developed during the last 30 years, and classified according to the number of elements contained in each group.
  • 1st generation thermal imagers contain single element detectors, or detectors with only a few elements. A two-dimensional mechanical scanner was usually used in order to generate a two-dimensional image.
  • 2nd generation thermal imagers are vector detectors, usually containing 64 or more elements. The two-dimensional scanner was somehow simplified in the vertical direction, to include only the interlace motion.
  • 3rd generation thermal imagers contain two-dimensional arrays with several columns of elements. These thermal imagers still scan in one direction and perform a Time Delay Integration (TDI) of the signal in the scanning direction in order to improve the signal-to-noise ratio.
  • 4th generation thermal imagers contain two-dimensional array detectors that do not require any scanning mechanism for acquiring the two-dimensional picture.

Offline boatswain

  • Newbie Dronie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ted Connors - Alabama
« Reply #63 on: May 17, 2010, 09:10:29 PM »
A3. I am not at liberty to discuss the overall purpose of my mission or my work, but as i stated in A2., the documents i received were from the agencies i have listed. After i had read these documents at work i took it upon myself to investigate further on my own and at the time, found nothing on the Internet other than some vague undocumented statements about a "BAN" on Level 4 IR cameras posted. At the time i contacted Linda Moulton Howe and she also undertook an investigation of her own with similar results.

So you saw official FCC and DoD documents discussing a ban on these "Level 4" cameras, but no such FCC document has ever surfaced?

I'm really struggling to see how the FCC could possibly be involved with this. Can you provide a copy of such a document? Can you provide any reference to it that can be checked by a third party?

Offline ominoustruth

  • Major Dronie
  • ******
  • Posts: 247
  • Karma: +17/-0
  • aka Ted Connors
Re: Ted Connors - Alabama
« Reply #64 on: May 17, 2010, 09:23:21 PM »
A3. I am not at liberty to discuss the overall purpose of my mission or my work, but as i stated in A2., the documents i received were from the agencies i have listed. After i had read these documents at work i took it upon myself to investigate further on my own and at the time, found nothing on the Internet other than some vague undocumented statements about a "BAN" on Level 4 IR cameras posted. At the time i contacted Linda Moulton Howe and she also undertook an investigation of her own with similar results.

So you saw official FCC and DoD documents discussing a ban on these "Level 4" cameras, but no such FCC document has ever surfaced?

I'm really struggling to see how the FCC could possibly be involved with this. Can you provide a copy of such a document? Can you provide any reference to it that can be checked by a third party?
The only documentation i ever had was a memo that i received at work from the equipment manufacturer stating that after January 1st, 2008 that Level 4 equipment would no longer be available for purchase by the Civilian Sector or the General Public due to new government regulations. I contacted my representative at the manufacturer to find out more. He directed me to review the DOD memo that i had previously signed and forwarded to my superiors. For reasons i can't go into here, i may still be able to obtain that manufacturers memo. I am continuing to work on that process.

                                                                                                                   Thanks, Ted

Offline onthefence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #3
  • **********
  • Posts: 1045
  • Karma: +50/-0
Re: Ted Connors - Alabama
« Reply #65 on: May 17, 2010, 09:43:31 PM »
More about restrictions, from Moro Vision Night Vision:
Quote from: MORO-VISION
Export of GEN-3 night vision equipment from the United States without a valid export permit issued by the U.S. Department of State, Office of Defense Trade Controls is strictly prohibited and is a federal crime.

More about various "levels", I am pretty sure now that it must the the term "Generation". Also from Moro Vision Night Vision:
Quote from: MORO-VISION
Myth vs. Fact: Generation 4
Some say that generation (Gen) 4 is the most advanced night vision you can buy. This is not the case. To dispel this myth, let's start with the basics. There are four Generations of night vision; however, they are Gen 0-3, not Gen 1-4. Historically, the U.S. Army has defined each Generation of night vision. In the late 90's the Army did define Gen 4 as the removal of the ion barrier film creating a "filmless" tube. This new advancement was to reduce halos while increasing sensitivity, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and resolution, for overall improved performance. While performance was improved, the lack of an ion barrier in Gen 4 tubes led to high failure rates, ultimately leading the U.S. Army to recant the existence of Gen 4 definition. Recognizing the high failure rates of Gen 4 tubes, ITT chose to improve upon the existing Gen 3 technology and create a "thin-filmed" tube. By keeping the protective ion barrier, but greatly reducing its thickness, ITT was able to maintain the reliability of Gen 3 while�at the same time�delivering on the Army's performance requirements intended for Gen 4. This innovation resulted in the production of the Gen 3 thin-filmed tube, which is now the highest performing Gen 3 tube available.

Offline ominoustruth

  • Major Dronie
  • ******
  • Posts: 247
  • Karma: +17/-0
  • aka Ted Connors
Re: Ted Connors - Alabama
« Reply #66 on: May 17, 2010, 09:45:07 PM »
A3. I am not at liberty to discuss the overall purpose of my mission or my work, but as i stated in A2., the documents i received were from the agencies i have listed. After i had read these documents at work i took it upon myself to investigate further on my own and at the time, found nothing on the Internet other than some vague undocumented statements about a "BAN" on Level 4 IR cameras posted. At the time i contacted Linda Moulton Howe and she also undertook an investigation of her own with similar results.

So you saw official FCC and DoD documents discussing a ban on these "Level 4" cameras, but no such FCC document has ever surfaced?

I'm really struggling to see how the FCC could possibly be involved with this. Can you provide a copy of such a document? Can you provide any reference to it that can be checked by a third party?
In regards to the official government documents, not only did i see and read these, i also affixed my signature to them. I feel i have a right to know just as we all want to know whats going on. It has been 3 years and i put all this behind me because i was not aware of a forum such as this. Now i am trying to start from scratch again and document everything that took place. Many of the items i have discussed i documented after my sighting and some are from memory. Also any documents are still the property of my employer even the ones with my signature.

                                                                                                                      Thanks, Ted

                                                                                                                 

Offline ominoustruth

  • Major Dronie
  • ******
  • Posts: 247
  • Karma: +17/-0
  • aka Ted Connors
Re: Ted Connors - Alabama
« Reply #67 on: May 17, 2010, 09:57:17 PM »
More about restrictions, from Moro Vision Night Vision:
Quote from: MORO-VISION
Export of GEN-3 night vision equipment from the United States without a valid export permit issued by the U.S. Department of State, Office of Defense Trade Controls is strictly prohibited and is a federal crime.

More about various "levels", I am pretty sure now that it must the the term "Generation". Also from Moro Vision Night Vision:
Quote from: MORO-VISION
Myth vs. Fact: Generation 4
Some say that generation (Gen) 4 is the most advanced night vision you can buy. This is not the case. To dispel this myth, let's start with the basics. There are four Generations of night vision; however, they are Gen 0-3, not Gen 1-4. Historically, the U.S. Army has defined each Generation of night vision. In the late 90's the Army did define Gen 4 as the removal of the ion barrier film creating a "filmless" tube. This new advancement was to reduce halos while increasing sensitivity, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and resolution, for overall improved performance. While performance was improved, the lack of an ion barrier in Gen 4 tubes led to high failure rates, ultimately leading the U.S. Army to recant the existence of Gen 4 definition. Recognizing the high failure rates of Gen 4 tubes, ITT chose to improve upon the existing Gen 3 technology and create a "thin-filmed" tube. By keeping the protective ion barrier, but greatly reducing its thickness, ITT was able to maintain the reliability of Gen 3 while�at the same time�delivering on the Army's performance requirements intended for Gen 4. This innovation resulted in the production of the Gen 3 thin-filmed tube, which is now the highest performing Gen 3 tube available.
My understanding from my training is that there is Level 3 and 4 Night vision equipment such as goggles and scopes and Level 3 and 4 IR camera equipment, such as we use. In training we were informed the the technology was almost the same for both. Therefore i assume that it is the same principles. I use both items in my work.
                                                                                                                   Thanks, Ted

Offline boatswain

  • Newbie Dronie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ted Connors - Alabama
« Reply #68 on: May 18, 2010, 12:53:06 AM »
The quote from onthefence is talking about military night vision equipment for firearms, which is ranked as Gen 0 thru Gen 3, and is export restricted. That's a long stretch from talking about surveillance equipment used domestically in the US, which is not restricted.

I don't see any evidence of:

- "Infrared" cameras (to use Ted's own words) or thermal cameras being rated as "Level 1" through "Level 4".

- The FCC having any role or power in restricting the sale of such cameras as stated by Ted. If the FCC had taken such an action, it would be easy to identify, unless you are willing to indulge conspiracy theories. It would be interesting to talk to someone at FLIR and see what they think of this story.

In my opinion, these minor details along with the lack of any corroboration at all puts a serious hole in the credibility of this testimony. It's the sort of detail that you would expect someone to get wrong if they were making it up.


Offline ominoustruth

  • Major Dronie
  • ******
  • Posts: 247
  • Karma: +17/-0
  • aka Ted Connors
Re: Ted Connors - Alabama
« Reply #69 on: May 18, 2010, 01:55:45 AM »
The quote from onthefence is talking about military night vision equipment for firearms, which is ranked as Gen 0 thru Gen 3, and is export restricted. That's a long stretch from talking about surveillance equipment used domestically in the US, which is not restricted.

I don't see any evidence of:

- "Infrared" cameras (to use Ted's own words) or thermal cameras being rated as "Level 1" through "Level 4".

- The FCC having any role or power in restricting the sale of such cameras as stated by Ted. If the FCC had taken such an action, it would be easy to identify, unless you are willing to indulge conspiracy theories. It would be interesting to talk to someone at FLIR and see what they think of this story.

In my opinion, these minor details along with the lack of any corroboration at all puts a serious hole in the credibility of this testimony. It's the sort of detail that you would expect someone to get wrong if they were making it up.
The term Level 3 and Level 4 were used by the Representatives of the company providing our equipment and in the documents that i received from the Manufacturer and the Government agencies i mentioned. I agree it would be beneficial to speak with someone at FLIR or some other experts on this technology. Maybe they could define and describe exactly what LEVEL really means and the difference between LEVEL and GENERATION, if any. I can only relate what i know to be fact on my behalf and only give what information that will not jeopardize the mission of my work and the safety of my teammates. I am searching for an answer, i hope to find in my lifetime.
                                                                                                                       Thanks, Ted   

Offline majicbar

  • Major Dronie
  • ******
  • Posts: 226
  • Karma: +24/-3
Re: Ted Connors - Alabama
« Reply #70 on: May 18, 2010, 05:11:14 AM »
From what I understand, the level 4 IR sees a longer wavelength that allows the user to see through walls and is therefore useful as a sniper scope for target within buildings which normally blind the target from the shooter. Watching a show on History Channel on snipers I was shocked to see how effective a large caliber round is at shooting through a wall and deliver kill shots. Presumably this capability is known to our own snipers, but largely unknown otherwise and we must have become alarmed at giving this capability to others.

Offline boatswain

  • Newbie Dronie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ted Connors - Alabama
« Reply #71 on: May 19, 2010, 12:04:46 AM »
From what I understand, the level 4 IR sees a longer wavelength that allows the user to see through walls and is therefore useful as a sniper scope for target within buildings which normally blind the target from the shooter. Watching a show on History Channel on snipers I was shocked to see how effective a large caliber round is at shooting through a wall and deliver kill shots. Presumably this capability is known to our own snipers, but largely unknown otherwise and we must have become alarmed at giving this capability to others.

What is your source for this info? History Channel?  ::)

Offline DroneTeamNews

  • Administrator
  • Founding Dronie
  • **********
  • Posts: 104
  • Karma: +16/-2
Re: Ted Connors - Alabama
« Reply #72 on: May 19, 2010, 01:56:48 PM »
Ted did you observe the craft through the image generated by an infrared camera? From your current testimony, I understand this is not the case. So are you thinking that the infrared camera's self-emitted electromagnetic radiation may have somehow interfered with the cloak and this allowed you to see the craft (in the visible light spectrum using your own eyes, unaided by a camera of any sort)?

The FCC allocates spectra use below 300GHz in the radio wavelengths. Infra-red goes above 300GHz frequency up to that of visible light - and yes, there is cross-over with terrahertz frequenices which will be used in security applications to see through walls etc. Now the FCC also oversees devices which intentionally or unintentionally emit radiation which may compromise communication. Part 15 (.47.) of FCC regulations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintentional_radiator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_allocation

I suspect that OTF is correct - the term generation seems more plausible for a manufacturer. Ted's trainer possibly confused training terminology {qualifications in thermography (level) or surveillance (level) or system application -security (level)} with device terminology as shown here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_camera

 Alternatively, the manufacturer could have categorised according to a sensor response division scheme which divides up the band based on the response of various detectors:

  • Very-long wave infrared (VLWIR): 12 to about 30 micrometers, covered by doped silicon.
  • Near infrared: from 0.7 to 1.0 micrometers (from the approximate end of the response of the human eye to that of silicon).
  • Short-wave infrared: 1.0 to 3 micrometers (from the cut off of silicon to that of the MWIR atmospheric window. InGaAs covers to about 1.8 micrometers; the less sensitive lead salts cover this region.
  • Mid-wave infrared: 3 to 5 micrometers (defined by the atmospheric window and covered by Indium antimonide InSb and HgCdTe and partially by lead selenide PbSe).
  • Long-wave infrared: 8 to 12, or 7 to 14 micrometers: the atmospheric window (Covered by HgCdTe and microbolometers).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared
 

Offline ominoustruth

  • Major Dronie
  • ******
  • Posts: 247
  • Karma: +17/-0
  • aka Ted Connors
Re: Ted Connors - Alabama
« Reply #73 on: May 19, 2010, 03:20:19 PM »
Ted did you observe the craft through the image generated by an infrared camera? From your current testimony, I understand this is not the case. So are you thinking that the infrared camera's self-emitted electromagnetic radiation may have somehow interfered with the cloak and this allowed you to see the craft (in the visible light spectrum using your own eyes, unaided by a camera of any sort)?

The FCC allocates spectra use below 300GHz in the radio wavelengths. Infra-red goes above 300GHz frequency up to that of visible light - and yes, there is cross-over with terrahertz frequenices which will be used in security applications to see through walls etc. Now the FCC also oversees devices which intentionally or unintentionally emit radiation which may compromise communication. Part 15 (.47.) of FCC regulations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintentional_radiator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_allocation

I suspect that OTF is correct - the term generation seems more plausible for a manufacturer. Ted's trainer possibly confused training terminology {qualifications in thermography (level) or surveillance (level) or system application -security (level)} with device terminology as shown here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_camera

 Alternatively, the manufacturer could have categorised according to a sensor response division scheme which divides up the band based on the response of various detectors:

  • Very-long wave infrared (VLWIR): 12 to about 30 micrometers, covered by doped silicon.
  • Near infrared: from 0.7 to 1.0 micrometers (from the approximate end of the response of the human eye to that of silicon).
  • Short-wave infrared: 1.0 to 3 micrometers (from the cut off of silicon to that of the MWIR atmospheric window. InGaAs covers to about 1.8 micrometers; the less sensitive lead salts cover this region.
  • Mid-wave infrared: 3 to 5 micrometers (defined by the atmospheric window and covered by Indium antimonide InSb and HgCdTe and partially by lead selenide PbSe).
  • Long-wave infrared: 8 to 12, or 7 to 14 micrometers: the atmospheric window (Covered by HgCdTe and microbolometers).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared
The Sighting was visual only. Yes, exactly correct. I believe that the IR equipment that was in operation may have defeated the cloaking effect of the craft. However, this is only speculation on my part as i have no definite proof that this is the case. The IR cameras were first to come to mind as the possible cause due to the technology involved and their close proximity to my sighting. I also thought of the Thermal imaging devices in use, but ruled those out because their were none of these in the area of the sighting. The nearest Thermal Imaging Device was several hundred yards from the point of my sighting, But as i said , I can't be sure what or if the equipment in use played any part in the ability to see this craft. Yes i think the overall confusion stems from the TERMS "LEVEL" and "GENERATION". Our trainer continually used the term LEVEL. Also the Manufacturer referred verbally and in a written memo to LEVEL. I have also heard the term GENERATION used in conjunction with our Night Vision Goggles and other non camera equipment. Again,my training was primarily in the use and on site maintenance of this equipment rather than the overall technical specs and nomenclature. I am left puzzled by fact that none of this equipment picked up anything, including Video, Audio, IR, Thermal, Motion and other classified detection devices. Considering it is my job to insure there is no unauthorized intrusion in the area, it is very disturbing, to say the least.
                                                                                                                Thanks,      Ted

Offline onthefence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #3
  • **********
  • Posts: 1045
  • Karma: +50/-0
Re: Ted Connors - Alabama
« Reply #74 on: May 19, 2010, 06:08:17 PM »
Sounds have now been added to the animated re-creation of Ted's experience. With Ted's help, the following points have been incorporated:
  • Time and number of cell-phone camera shots attempted
  • Starting of buzzing noise
  • Frequency, volume, and type of buzzing/static noise just after photo attempts

Ted Connors, AL, Drone sighting reconstruction (with sound).
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 02:47:57 PM by onthefence »