I saw this today and thought I'd share. Not sure how many (if any) errors are in it, but it's entertaining if nothing else.

I never knew my hometown was so instrumental in the birth of night vision.  Kind of cool.

This video was truly abysmal. He got *most* of it either wrong or confused, mixed up technologies constantly throughout, doubled back on himself several times to say something different the second time, missed opportunities to explain what actually changed to progress technology and generally couldn't match the pictures to what he was talking about. No understanding of the differences between Gen0/Gen1/Gen2/Gen3/Gen4 etc, Metal vs Semiconductor, Cooled vs Uncooled ( not even mentioned ), And pretty much none of this could be reused by anyone else.

A good example of what happens when an influencer tackles something he knows nothing about and doesn't bother to do his research.  I'm guessing someone just threw random elements in this without any planning, including writing the script.

Notes I made while watching.
Well, he keeps confusing the IR bands, fails to understand the differences between NIR, SWIR, MWIR, LWIR etc, radiation transmission, atmopsheric absoption, emissivity.

800 to 1500nm for humans? When based on what he was saying, he should have said 8000 to 15000nm, ie, 8 to 15 micron, and what's wrong with micron? And why no spectral description of the wavelength?

Also, IR doesn't magically stop after the 850 to 1000nm band, which isn't quite NIR, but close enough... And cars aren't ultraviolet at 140nm, and I assume he's saying "Cars have colored paint" because 400 to 800nm is the visible band, not infrared.

There's some interesting historical research in there, but he doesn't seem to have any idea of the difference between infrared and visible, and thermal vs intensification based systems.

There's some serious innaccuracies, like claiming the Germans were using viewers in the SWIR-MWIR bands, and I'm not sure you can illuminate targets with MWIR radiation... I mean, you'd get some emissivity effect, but it's not going to have the effects he's talking about.

Some positive points for mentioning passive film based detector scope NV using charged technology. However then he goes on to confuse technologies.

He got the source of the US NV development wrong. They were based on German technology which was well ahead of US technology ( The germans discovered intensification by cascading tubes ).

Completely got the M3 wrong ( should have been AN/PVS-3 ) and completely initially missed the PVS-1 and PVS-2 and goes straight onto the PVS-4, yet misses the opportunity to explain what changed between poor quality WW2 optics vs Korean/Vietnam era optics outside
of an upgrade, no understanding of the shift from active to passive technology, the parallel history of development of multialkali photocathodes, or what they had to do to use available light. And, of course, completely ignored that Germany developed
the starlight scope during WW2 and the US copied it ( the real technological improvement was fiber plate, also not mentioned ).

Then goes on to talk about how they can't work without ambient light (unlike earlier active systems? ) ignoring they could use much lower levels of illuminator light and often did, doesn't understand absolute darkness, and misses cascade systems entirely.

Finally gets around to the cascade tubes (PVS-1, PVS-2 and PVS-3 ) but doesn't go into details and how they got a lot smaller (PVS-3 )

Often puts the wrong image on screen ( ie, has little idea which model he's talking about - confuses PVS-4 with PVS-2 )

Oh boy, then he uses my images ( which I don't mind ) but he completely misunderstands the different between Gen1 and Gen2, and that the PVS-4 was Gen2.... Wow... That's a major technical error. And nothing said about the diifference between wafer tubes
(which were lighter ). and the ESI Gen2 tube. Finally mentions it, and then doesn't understand that he's already been talking about the PVS-4 as Gen1.

Doesn't get the Gen3 change correct ( thinks it was the FO inverter, which was developed and used in Gen2 MX9916's ).

Shows pictures of fiber optics, not fiber plate. Doesn't seem to know the difference. And it wasn't a bundle of optical fibers flipped 180 degrees.

Shows a Gen2 PVS-7A ( might have been Gen3, but likely Gen2 ).

Doesn't understand Gen2 is still the current technology for some military applications ( most, outside of the US ) and Then doesn't even mention what Gen4 is/was... Confuses Gen4 and Autogating. Doesn't mentiom where autogating came from.

Shows a fusion image and calls it thermal "FLIR" - Misses that these use the Bolometer he mentioned earlier, thinks they are CCD devices. Goes back to the bolometer, doesn't understand the difference. Mentions glass won't allow IR through, then confuses
this with intensifier lenses, which are glass. Then thinks more modern thermal scopes now require coolers... Then completely confuses himself and says "Cannot be used in total darkness" immediately while talking about thermal scopes.

Final Score. D. Disjointed, factually incorrect many times, lacks context when correct and confuses technologies. Fails to follow a coherent thread and generally, don't let people watch this video with the sound up. It's better with the sound turned off. A primary school kid could have done a better job that this.

Worse, he has the question "Why is it green" up as bait, and never answers the question, so I'm going to lower this grade to a "F".

Oops. that was a M3 pictured. But it didn't have a connection to the AN/PVS_4 as claimed.