niteowl wrote:bigpete wrote:Wapiti wrote:Apart from all the conspiracy theories, after reading the competition over who's got the best thermal device and knowledge, I can't help but thinking,
After the other night me and a mate attended a thermal product night in Warwick, and saw the latest, and definitely greatest European made thermals out there for hunters. Definitely the best out there right now. No Chinesium there.
One thing is still the same, if you record some video of an animal at a decent range, then enlarge it to see detail, that's what happens if it's way out there. No matter how fat your wallet. It's not a true optical image.
Can anybody definitely say they know at what range that video was taken? Nope.
Pretty much the point I was trying to make lol
No problem with that above, I was being a little cheeky, but at the same time still genuine in my view point.
Now, trying not to be too much of a pompous sod, I will attempt to explain rather than duck for cover after my comments.
I do stand by my comments, BUT we do NOT use Chinese or any other "cheaper" thermals at all, and have in our safe 6 scopes (varying models) at just over $98,000 plus $28,500 being 1 bino and 1 monocular.
I / we will never discredit a shooter for what he / she can afford, but at the same time will try to explain that there
is better if they can.
Lets be honest, a normal shooter can NOT justify that sort of expense, as mentioned we do a lot of contract Govt work but this is a different ball game.
On the original subject, Thylacines. I personally feel that there are none left, mainland or Tassy, but one can never guarantee this as there is SO MUCH dense scrub, bush etc on all of our land, that people have never really penetrated to be really sure.
Now that should start something here ??
Nightowl, I was only tongue-in-cheek smart-arsing with my comment about Chinesium, merely putting up the point myself that even with the best European stuff out there now, with STILL only up to 4x base optical magnification before zooming digitally - and now even with a pixel range nobody would ever put up with in a good digital camera nowadays, zooming right in on a distant, elusive target makes for a pretty subjective image in the best thermals we can get.
I will never hang crap on anyone for buying what they can afford.
To me, that video is either hugely zoomed in to the point of crappyness, or taken with one of the very economical and therefore crudely pixelated (and still zoomed in to screen size) early bits of gear.
Either way, anyone who has observed animals with long coats at night (like foxes can have in varying seasons for example) will know that longer range when zooming in, you don't see much of the animals hair on the outine, only the body underneath. The resolution of the device just can't represent this.
A feral dog is different, it has short hair, which the sensors can usually pick up it's complete true outline so it's easier to determine what it is.
So back to the animal supposed to be a Thylacine, some points that tell me it aint one.
Unless my ears are painted on, this video was from the "mainland", not Tasmania. Probably Victoria. With the forests there crawling with hunters, and game cameras, better definitive evidence of a thylacine would've been captured by now.
Second, with most hunters being obsessed with social media i.e. showing anyone and everyone what they are up to in the bush for personal elevation, any of this video would've been out there by now and making news. Heck, they even publish online cruelty and illegal acts. Any Thylacine shot, or video's would be headlines.
Third, these hunters just can't bear to own a device that doesn't record the shot, or what they are looking at, to again relive the moment, refer to the above. Simple units that just inform the user are not first choice because social media profile comes first. So again, evidence aplenty.
Forth, with all the proliferation of feral dogs in Vic and a government and self-important supporters of the laws protecting them allowing so many natives being killed regularly, Thylacines have no chance. That is, if the stories that they are under feral dogs/dingoes in the food chain as is said by the uni experts.
Fifth, that video is almost definitely a fox, shown at distance, minus the fur that doesn't show up.
I'd like to think that these animals still exist, but I doubt it. Like Port Arthur conspiracies, people's imaginations run wild when they are bored.