A thermal imager detects surface temps as well as reflected heat (the same way you can measure heat from sunlight reflected in a mirror). Thermal imagers work the same way that your handheld thermal scanner works (in that it measures surface temps), but instead of one sensor, you have hundreds of sensors in an array. This array "paints" a thermal picture. Emissivity correction and reflected temperature correction (all capable in modern thermal imagers, and even older ones with software correction, values are T-RFL and E=) are two considerations that most thermal-toting ghost hunters don't think a thing about. Without these corrections, the thermal information can be incorrect, so it really is a matter of knowing your equipment if you want to use a thermal imager for qualitative analysis.

An example that readily comes to mind is the famous "ghost" caught on thermal during the GH investigation of the Crescent Hotel. This was nothing more than the reflected heat of either Jason or Grant. It would have likely been more noticeable if they had compensated by matching the emissivity value to the aluminum they were scanning. Heck I have seen thermal reflections in highly varnished woodwork, lol.

I have decided to get my level one thermographer's certification from FLIR's ITC program. At least I will be able to argue that my thermal capture's were taken correctly, lol… Honestly, I think anyone who wishes to use thermal equipment in this research should get this kind of training. Thermography is anything but point-and-shoot and the image that you see can be incorrect depending on many environmental variables.

Andy

Unless the "ghost" attracts enough particulate matter to it's form via static attraction or something else creating a "surface"to measure, you won't see it on thermal. Now if a cold spot affects surface temp of objects, then you could see it. If a cold spot were present sitting in a chair, you could see the change in temperature of the chair, but you would see nothing sitting on the chair. My goal is to implement reaction experiments where tactile contact is made and judge the surface temp. accordingly.

Oh yeah, and then there is bigfoot too. Run but can't hide, lol…

Great tool for…I hate this word….debunking. Certainly can and will find mammal intrusion into the research area /smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' />

The only thermal clip that I have ever seen that may actually be paranormal in origin is this one. It has me stumped, as if it is a ghost, you should not be able to see it at all with how these work…

http://argparanormal.com/evide…..e/thermal/…gine%20room.mpg

on the catwalk in the aft-turbine room of the queen mary

Andy

I really cant make anything out on that video, it's too jumpy for me.

Yeah, me too. All I see is the box on the rack. Whatever the image behind it might be loses a lot because of the jumpiness of the camera. So for me, it's irrelevant. Shame they weren't a bit more steady.

There is a dark figure walking on the catwalk behind the "box".

Here is the problem…. the delta T (temperature difference between two targets usually of comparable targets under comparable conditions) between a person and the metal catwalk rails should be enough that the person "pops" as a very bright target. Themographers recommend a ∆T value of +/-15 degrees to have good thermal definition from ambient. Only explanation is that the person would have to be within roughly +/-5 degrees of that surrounding environment to be rendered that "invisible" or cool. The measured scale indicates a top temp. of 72 degrees during the event. Even if emissivity value wasn't correct, I don't see how it would make that big of a visual difference (I don't know yet, that is why I can't wait to get mine). Also bear in mind this is a FLIR BX-320 that they are using, and it has the highest resolution array commonly available to the building inspection line. There is a lot less chance of temperature averaging due to distance on this imager (lower resolution imagers can average as distances increase).

Here is the only logical, non-paranormal explanation that I can think of to describe that anomaly. The figure is a temperature-acclimated mannequin or dummy. It would be consistent with it's measured temp value and the ∆T value of it's surrounding environment. Or it's a ghost, lol…

This is yet another instance where knowledge of technology and practice can vary, and why we need standards and protocols for thermography in the field. I hope to achieve that. At least with everyone on the same page we can see what is environmental, explainable, or anomalous.

Andy

Yeah, it's a lot more complex than "point and shoot" I should qualify myself in saying, I am not that smart, lol, I am just fascinated with thermography, so it is a very active interest of mine. That clip has me baffled, longwave IR shouldn't be capable of seeing something without a "surface", that is why it is choice for firefighters that need to see through smoke or drivers/mariners who travel through fog.

Andy

I watched the slower one, and honestly I dont really see anything still.

I can see what you're refering to, but it doesnt look human shaped to

me, it doesnt really have any descernable shape to me at least.

to me it looks like a person walking along the catwalk dragging their hand along the railing. At a certain point the camera dips and all you can see are the "legs" moving. Might just be stellar matrixing, lol…

Andy

i've looked at it again after reading your description, and i still dont see a person.

i see the darker spots that appear to move, but with the movement of the camera

it's hard to really tell. i didnt see anything that looked like someone dragging a hand

along the railing.

that being said, i almost never see what people claim to see in pics/videos haha

I never see stuff others do either, usually something either jumps out at me or I never can see it.

I just checked out the thread in question over at Syfy. I don't have an account with them to post, but I had to crack up at the "why are flames visible" post. Fire is a pretty efficient emitter of infrared radiation, lol. Heated water is visible but also is not a solid. The point I was trying to make is that open air anomalies will not be isible without sufficient mass or density.

The use of thermal imagers on GH is laughable, as they have no idea of function and theory. Even more laughable is Steve and Tango professing to be experts on GHA when it comes to thermal imaging. It is a mystery to me why they always insist on using the rainbow or more often the rainbow high-contrast palettes when using their imager. Those are diagnostic palettes meant to accentuate subtle temp differences in everything from moisture intrusion of structures to equine thermography. Not a suitable palette for any area larger than a few feet. Best is monochrome or ironbow, makes for a lot more natural looking scene and a lot easier to interpret what you are looking at. Just my opinion though…

I still maintain that if a spirit has the ability to affect temperature such as when we feel drastic temperature shifts on our skin, that should be visible to longwave IR. Tertiary changes measured on other objects are just as good to me as being able to see the anomaly itself. That is why I have a whole battery of tactile experiments planned when I get my imager. Which should be in the next 3 weeks (Gawd this waiting is KILLING me).

Andy

Edit, fixed critical typo, lol…

I never see stuff others do either, usually something either jumps out at me or I never can see it.

I just checked out the thread in question over at Syfy. I don't have an account with them to post, but I had to crack up at the "why are flames visible" post. Fire is a pretty efficient emitter of infrared radiation, lol. Heated water is visible but also is not a solid. The point I was trying to make is that open air anomalies will be invisible with sufficient mass or density.

The use of thermal imagers on GH is laughable, as they have no idea of function and theory. Even more laughable is Steve and Tango professing to be experts on GHA when it comes to thermal imaging. It is a mystery to me why they always insist on using the rainbow or more often the rainbow high-contrast palettes when using their imager. Those are diagnostic palettes meant to accentuate subtle temp differences in everything from moisture intrusion of structures to equine thermography. Not a suitable palette for any area larger than a few feet. Best is monochrome or ironbow, makes for a lot more natural looking scene and a lot easier to interpret what you are looking at. Just my opinion though…

I still maintain that if a spirit has the ability to affect temperature such as when we feel drastic temperature shifts on our skin, that should be visible to longwave IR. Tertiary changes measured on other objects are just as good to me as being able to see the anomaly itself. That is why I have a whole battery of tactile experiments planned when I get my imager. Which should be in the next 3 weeks (Gawd this waiting is KILLING me).

Andy

HUH? Invisible or visible? I'm a little confused by what you said there. How much mass and density? Because honestly, I have used TIC's in very heavy fire and smoke conditions, when the smoke itself was hot enough to burn (Like prior to a flashover), and I could still see through it. Is it something that seems more noticable with different models, or types?

Cool video! I never would have thought that I would say that about brewing coffee, but there it is…