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
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.
but your to bizi ranting and arguing with ppl to do that,i have backed everything up
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.
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
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.
& i am fully aware of the law i received a production charge 10yrs ago, i learned the hard way,
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 think you will find it seems to be you lacking knowledge as was stated earlier dont doubt there ability's
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.
& a Sargent can grant a warrant and they give they out for fun over here
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.
& im not being hostile & there is no misconception the info you are providing is dated and wrong but you cannot except that,
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.
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
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.
It is a fine thing to be honest, but it is also very important to be right.
Winston Churchill
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.
