X-ray cameras may be installed in UK lamp posts.

Tom Bedlam, are they trying to find technology that will create a 3d image of whats inside a room, is that what your getting at.

alsoi don't know if you seen phil schneider vids, but he claimed the military have some sort of infra red satelittes, that can build a picture of whats inside of your house, with infra red, from space. so you reckon, that cannot be. he said they could see a coin on your floor inside your home with the new satelittes, and this was 10 years ago.

if he did work at area 51, he may of seen such protatypes, in action or something, but anyway thats what he said.

Originally posted by bluesquareapple
I don't see why people are having huge issues with this. X-rays don't just see through clothing, they will also ignore any soft tissues.

Its toxic radiation.

The fact that they phrased it as 'it sees through clothing' makes me think that they're not x-ray cameras, but rather these other cameras that they've been using in airports that create a 'beneath the clothing' image.

Originally posted by andy1033
Tom Bedlam, are they trying to find technology that will create a 3d image of whats inside a room, is that what your getting at.

alsoi don't know if you seen phil schneider vids, but he claimed the military have some sort of infra red satelittes, that can build a picture of whats inside of your house, with infra red, from space. so you reckon, that cannot be. he said they could see a coin on your floor inside your home with the new satelittes, and this was 10 years ago.

if he did work at area 51, he may of seen such protatypes, in action or something, but anyway thats what he said.

Yep, that's what visibuilding is going to be. The goal is to get an image of what's inside a building from outside, probably from a vehicle or man-portable imager. Tremendously difficult.

On the other subject, Phil is full of crap. Sorry.

There are some basic laws of physics that prevent that. It just isn't true. If you've got some sort of physics or math background, the issue is that the maximum resolution in arc-seconds of any imaging system is limited by the fact that the imager has an aperture size less than infinity. The physical limits of the non-infinite aperture causes a diffraction effect. This diffraction blurs details below a certain size. Period.

The longer the wavelength of light you're imaging with, the worse the problem is. Thus, infrared light is much more problematic than far UV. If you like, go poke around for the terms "Airy's disc", "circular aperture diffraction", "Rayleigh's limit", "Sparrow's limit" and so on.

For ground imaging, the maximum detail that can be imaged is limited by Rayleigh's limit. If you're trying to distinguish between two point sources of light. like you might be with a telescope, you can do some mathematical hand-waving and do as well as Sparrow's limit, which is much more forgiving.

But no practical sized camera that could be carried by a satellite can ever "see the print on a dime". Especially in IR. Not only that, you can't especially see through a lot of building materials in IR, it's like looking through ground glass, it diffuses the light passing through it.

Now, imaging techniques that use synthetic apertures (visibuilding will be one) can get much better images than any a single camera could do, because you can mathematically diddle the aperture size to avoid the aperture limit. They tend to be very complex, and they don't really produce optical images like what you'd see through a camera. For example, the backscatter X-ray images you saw in the links were sort of pictures but not like you'd see looking at something, right?

Here's a ground image using an old 10cm synthetic aperture imager that's long been out of date but is still functioning, it's the parking lot of the museum up the road from Kirtland AFB:



That sort of looks like a photo but it isn't an optical image. The 3cm imager that came next can give you about a 10x close-up and doesn't have the sparkle and glint problems since they fixed that in the processing algorithms. It still can't see inside your house though, and if you could zoom in on someone, it would look more like that backscatter image than a photo.

So to recap, Phil is full of it, no optical image can do like what you see on the movies unless you have a 500 yard wide satellite. You can do NON optical images that have better resolution, but they don't really look like photos, they provide info but they're not like a big camera. Even with the very very best there is, you still can't "read the print on a dime". Phil's been looking at too many James Bond movies.

Oh, and if someone claims to have "seen it at Area 51" or Nellis Test Range, and it isn't some sort of airframe, they're most likely having you on. They don't test imaging systems at Nellis. NRO and NGIA have their very own imaging test ranges and it's not on the Air Force bases. A lot of people have found that they can sell any wacky story they like if they have it located at Area 51.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Its toxic radiation.

The fact that they phrased it as 'it sees through clothing' makes me think that they're not x-ray cameras, but rather these other cameras that they've been using in airports that create a 'beneath the clothing' image.

No, it's a Compton backscatter x-ray imager, as described in the links I posted. It uses about 1/5000th the total X-ray energy needed for medical imaging, and it's at a higher frequency that doesn't tend to penetrate quite as well as a medical x-ray unit.

That's what the airport images are.

That doesn't mean it won't add up day after day. In the airport is one thing, you'll get less of a dose than the flight will give you. But on the street, I don't know how you'd limit it to something safe.

If you were to wear tin foil or some kind of metal clothing; would this block the x-rays?

Not going to happen, it is very impractical. Unless they hide the devices, or keep the positions of the devices secret, people can just avoid walking near the lamp posts. That's assuming the max range of these x-ray devices are no more than 5 feet.



[edit on 29-1-2007 by SWAT Life]

Erm i already posted this in the uk forum

www.abovepolitics.com...'

Why is it whenever i open a duplicate thread it gets closed and when someone has one the same as mine it doesn't?

Oh well i guess the mods will decide, mine was posted first but maybe i should have given it a title like yours.

[edit on 29-1-2007 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Big Brother Police State Oh My God My Rights Are So Infringed Im On Fire!!!!

Newsflash, doombringers. We've had cameras on our streets for a long time and I welcome it. We can't have a cop on every corner so we get the next best thing; a pair of eyes that can spot some idiot with a machete down his pants and direct real police to pull him.

OK, so I can't roll a joint (if I smoked in Covent Garden so I leave that stuff for the privacy of my own home.

An excellent example (if little late, I'll grant you): The very next day after the 7/7 bombing the newspapers were carrying photos of every single bomber almost as soon as they entered London.

Maybe I feel a little different because I live in such a big city that I know they are only watching the people they want to watch, but I do feel safer, even if someone can see my wang!!

yeah, the people in the UK are the true "sheeple." They have no rights, no privacy, no nothing. They seem to be merely slaves to their government.

Let this be a warning to all you lefties in the US. Look at britain, their government doesnt trust them at all and they are completely subjugated. I can forsee a time when we may have to prevent britian from being turned into a police state, as if they werent already.

I live in the UK and if this were to happen if would be quite worrying. But I don't think it will as the cameras would scan everybody and this would include veiled woman and that is sure as hell not going to happen. But just in case it does I have started knitting my chainmail suit.

Herrman, good point mate. No way would a country like the UK (where i live) which holds a lot of muslim, vail wearing women. Obviously they don't want to be seen behind the full length clothing and veil and in this country if it interferes with religion we're a bunch of sh1thouses. We roll over and play dead.

I for one don't want these things. I'm not a private person but i like to thnk that if i'm in the comfort of my own home, i can do whatever (within reason) i want.

Boooooo to the govt in th UK , get out. Can't believe i voted for the b@stard.

Remirah

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Erm i already posted this in the uk forum

www.abovepolitics.com...'

Why is it whenever i open a duplicate thread it gets closed and when someone has one the same as mine it doesn't?

Oh well i guess the mods will decide, mine was posted first but maybe i should have given it a title like yours.

[edit on 29-1-2007 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Sorry about that, did'nt look in the UK forum. I did do a search in the search facility, even did just now but for some reason nothing came up. Also looked in the current events and techno sections but could'nt see anything. Apologies again.

It would be good if the mods had a way of transfering the posts from this thread to your earlier thread on the same subject, rather than just deleting one of the threads. That way they could just snip off my original header post and add all these responses to your main thread.

Might be a lot of work though?

CX.

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
yeah, the people in the UK are the true "sheeple." They have no rights, no privacy, no nothing. They seem to be merely slaves to their government.

Let this be a warning to all you lefties in the US. Look at britain, their government doesnt trust them at all and they are completely subjugated. I can forsee a time when we may have to prevent britian from being turned into a police state, as if they werent already.

Actually I think the US strings are being pulled by the British government. We're all being 'played'...

The Bank of ENGLAND. The financial centre of the world is based in LONDON. They have the money, they have the power.

[edit on 30/1/07 by thebox]

Another thought on this. Who is going to monitor these x-ray cameras? I know someone said earlier on the cameras don't see soft tissue, but maybe they do. And then the monitor could be accused of being a right perv.

Before passing judgment, I think I'll wait until someone outside of The Sun has "seen" it.

But saying that, I don't see it happening. You get an X-Ray/"beneath clothes" image sent back to the control centre and then what? You would need CCTV cameras everywhere the X-Ray cams are so if you do decide to send a copper to the scene, you know what they look like. And if you think they are carrying a gun or bomb, how many times are the armed police going to get called out to search someone everyday? Or do we just arm every police officer? (God help us!) Also, what is the average response time for the police? If you capture someone maybe carrying a gun down a busy High Street on a Saturday night, how long before no-one knows where he/she is and you have a group of bemused armed officers standing around?

How long, how much, and how many people would it take to implement? Which lampposts? Just busy streets or one or two down every road with CCTV on the corners? What if a bomber is driving, does it still work then?

If you were going to do something like this then surely bus stops and train/tube stations would be where you start.

BTW, didn't see a BBC link yet so here it is. news.bbc.co.uk...

THIS WILL NOT WORK...


how many cameras...

how many street corners?

how many operators..

and just think of the sheer volume of data generated....


and any 1/2 wit terrorist can disguise the device...

and these devices can be disabled easily and detected also...
just like traffic cameras...
u can get detectors..

and how are going to investigate a suspect....


as soon as they see cops...they will set it of.....

they are suicide bombers after all....


i gaurantee this will not any terrorists..

in any case more people get killed crossing the street....




this is dumb and dumber..

Most, if not all, town centre CCTV schemes are paid for by the borough or county council. The monitoring stations likewise are run by the local council and may or may not have feeds directly to the local or county police stations.

Now then, taking into account privacy issues, we currently cannot be patted down by a security officer of the opposite sex, so these imagers would, I assume, be the nearest thing to electronic rape.
There's also the issue of vetting of people who will be authorised to monitor such systems and have access to recorded matter. It's a whole different ball game than the current CCTV systems.
The cost of these systems will be immense too. It's not like they are going to become as common as traditional CCTV cameras for a while but who will pick up the cost?
Well, the easy answer to that one is of course us, the taxpayer
We get to foot the bill to enable the government to watch us, track us and have us all catalogued and categorised.

but who will pick up the cost?
Well, the easy answer to that one is of course us, the taxpayer
We get to foot the bill to enable the government to watch us, track us and have us all catalogued and categorised.

Indeed...*

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
... maybe i should have given it a title like yours.

I like to pop in threads with titles that make me chuckle, and this one did. X-ray cameras on light posts. Ha!


Sounds like an electronics industry wanting in on the latest scare tactics govt giveaway. ***You're paying for this with your tax dollars, ya know.

Originally posted by bluesquareapple
I personally think this is a step in the right direction.

I personally think it's a scheme to provide jobs to electricians.

Kozmo's radiation issues ought to shut this down as hoax mighty quick. What about those pregnant ladies?

I have a feeling x-rays could distort all kinds of DNA, insects, bugs, your sperm, your wife's ovaries? Reproductive systems, brain waves, glandual function? What about cellphone coverage? Would it interfere with those waves also?


Please people, why are we taking pollution of our atmosphere to a whole new level when our past pollution problems have yet to be solved? Don't they have these in portable vans they can just runaround and spot check the public--not on an everyday basis?

Originally posted by manimal

If you were to wear tin foil or some kind of metal clothing; would this block the x-rays?

Now we know why all the shiny stuff is coming out in next year's fashions. Now they'll know who's not wearing underwear.

big whoop

[edit on 30-1-2007 by psyopswatcher]

That's just disgusting, so big brother gets to watch us in our skivies all day, worse - watch us under our skivies.

Sick bastards.


Stripping someone naked is a reliably employed powerful predicator in establishing authority and control.

I think that perhaps long term there may be a radiation issue however...........

What the heck I don't care, how long will it be before the first picures of all those honies appear?

All those discussions "Doe's she have a Brazilian?" will be answered.

Unfortunately in places like Manchester all those fat heiffers will be photographed as well. Still that could be good news with all the cells filling up. Make the Scousers do community service in Manc on the xray cameras, looking at all the Manchester, Mongy, Mingers. That should turn 'em from crime