It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Flying Rod UFO's, The book should still be open

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I am looking for an honest and logical debate on Rod Ufo's. I feel I have done a fair bit of research on them, I have over 10 years experience working outside in the pest control industry. I have also sent some of my videos to experts to get their opinions. I have around 3 or 4 years experience of outdoor recording. I now record all of my videos in slow motion at 240 frames per second. You do not need a $30,000 camera to record Rods and differentiate between them and insects or birds.
I have concluded that Rods are indeed real and they are being hidden from the public. I created a video to sum up some of my thoughts on them. Please share your thoughts on whether Rods are real or just insects and why you think so. Thank you.
youtu.be...

These videos show how easy it is to see birds and insects in focus at 240 frames per second.
youtu.be...
youtu.be...




posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

This has been an old and debunked subject. You need to compare a high frame rate of 1000 FPS, with that of a frame rate of 30 FPS to see the real cuprits.....BUGS!

Check out this clip from the 35 second mark to the 1 minute mark:

edit on 3/7/2018 by shawmanfromny because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/7/2018 by shawmanfromny because: added info



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

This has been an old and debunked subject. You need to compare a high frame rate of 1000 FPS, with that of a frame rate of 30 FPS to see the real cuprits.....BUGS!

Check out this clip from the 35 second mark to the 1 minute mark:


You obviously did not watch my video or you would see that I already used clips from what you posted. You do not need 1000 Fps to record insects as they are as I showed in the next videos that I posted. It is extremely unscientific to claim something is disproven from 1 T.V. episode. Please provide proof of insects being too hard to accurately capture at 240fps. Why would you think that you need 1000 fps to record an insect?



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
Please provide proof of insects being too hard to accurately capture at 240fps. Why would you think that you need 1000 fps to record an insect?

Go ahead an believe that rods are something other than a camera artifact. You'll just be wrong.
edit on 7-3-2018 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
Please provide proof of insects being too hard to accurately capture at 240fps. Why would you think that you need 1000 fps to record an insect?

Go ahead an believe that rods are something other than a camera artifact. You'll just be wrong.


I asked for a logical debate, simply telling me that I am wrong is not a debate. Please provide proof of insects being too difficult to record at 240 fps or why you would need to record at 1000 fps to see an insect or bird as it truly is. 1000fps is absurd to anyone that has recorded in slow motion or has any basic camera knowledge. Please show a daytime experiment that debunks rods existing.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Interesting stuff OP.
Nothing scientific or constructive to add asides from this subject has got my attention again.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

What the heck are you talking about? I saw your video and in my opinion, it doesn't prove nothing. The clip I put up from "a TV show" showed an actual scientific experiment and the result was bugs! You can't persuade people to buy into your delusional theory, just because YOU think there are flaws in these experiments. What are your credentials? Here are just a few of NUMEROUS articles on the subject matter. Are these "scientific" enough for you? This thread belongs in the HOAX bin.


Doug Yanega, an entomologist at the University of California at Riverside, not­ed that a rod is “a videographic artifact based on the frame capture rate of the videocam versus the wingbeat frequency of the insects. Essentially what you see is several wingbeat cycles of the insect on each frame of the video, creating the illusion of a rod with bulges along its length. The blurred body of the insect as it moves forward forms the rod, and the oscillation of the wings up and down form[s] the bulges. Anyone with a video camera can duplicate the effect, if you shoot enough footage of flying insects from the right distance” (quoted in Carroll 2003).

www.csicop.org...



The Straight Dope columnist Cecil Adams called rods a hoax "where unscrupulous people are exploiting a gullible public for profit", and said that investigators have shown that rods are mere tricks of light which result from how images (primarily video images) of flying insects are recorded and played back. In particular, the fast passage before the camera of an insect flapping its wings has been shown to produce rodlike effects, due to motion blur, if the camera is shooting with relatively long exposure times.[2] In August 2005, China Central Television (CCTV) aired a two-part documentary about flying rods in China. It reported the events from May to June of the same year at Tonghua Zhenguo Pharmaceutical Company in Tonghua City, Jilin Province, which debunked the flying rods. Surveillance cameras in the facility's compound captured video footage of flying rods identical to those shown in Jose Escamilla's video. Getting no satisfactory answer to the phenomenon, curious scientists at the facility decided that they would try to solve the mystery by attempting to catch these airborne creatures. Huge nets were set up and the same surveillance cameras then captured images of rods flying into the trap. When the nets were inspected, the "rods" were no more than regular moths and other ordinary flying insects. Subsequent investigations proved that the appearance of flying rods on video was an optical illusion created by the slower recording speed of the camera.[3]

en.wikipedia.org...(optics)



I don't remember the first time I saw Jose Escamilla's "rods" on TV, but it was one of those "mysterious videos" shows with stories about UFOs, crop circles and the such. Mr. Escamilla appeared with video of base jumpers — sky divers who jump from earthbound objects — parachuting into a vertical cave. In real-time the video shows swarms of bugs around the cave opening. There was nothing out of the ordinary except when he showed individual still frames of the video, the bugs became blurry streaks, their wings appearing as sinusoidal gossamer streamers along their sides. Mr. Escamilla saw the resemblance of these blurs to some marine worms and declared he had found a new life form, that he calls "rods", invisible to the unaided eye and visible only in still frames of videos. I thought this show must have had a significant shortage of ideas; they were really stretching for it with this one. At least with some "unexplained" videos, even though you don't believe for a moment that they show something extraterrestrial, you can at least have a lively debate about what they really show. The "rods" were just plain stupid. A few months later Mr. Escamilla appeared on my local CBS affiliate, KFMB, Channel 8 of San Diego. KFMB milked the story for all it had. They presented it as a serious mystery and even managed to get an entomologist at the local natural history museum to declare that the images could not be insects.

www.amsky.com...



Investigators have shown that rods are mere tricks of light which result from how images (primarily video images) of flying insects are recorded and played back. In particular, the fast passage before the camera of an insect flapping its wings has been shown to produce rodlike effects, due to motion blur, if the camera is shooting with relatively long exposure times.

listverse.com...
edit on 3/7/2018 by shawmanfromny because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

What the heck are you talking about? I saw your video and in my opinion, it doesn't prove nothing. The clip I put up from "a TV show" showed an actual scientific experiment and the result was bugs! You can't persuade people to buy into your delusional theory, just because YOU think there are flaws in these experiments. What are your credentials? Here are just a few of NUMEROUS articles on the subject matter. Are these "scientific" enough for you? This thread belongs in the HOAX bin.


Doug Yanega, an entomologist at the University of California at Riverside, not­ed that a rod is “a videographic artifact based on the frame capture rate of the videocam versus the wingbeat frequency of the insects. Essentially what you see is several wingbeat cycles of the insect on each frame of the video, creating the illusion of a rod with bulges along its length. The blurred body of the insect as it moves forward forms the rod, and the oscillation of the wings up and down form[s] the bulges. Anyone with a video camera can duplicate the effect, if you shoot enough footage of flying insects from the right distance” (quoted in Carroll 2003).

www.csicop.org...



The Straight Dope columnist Cecil Adams called rods a hoax "where unscrupulous people are exploiting a gullible public for profit", and said that investigators have shown that rods are mere tricks of light which result from how images (primarily video images) of flying insects are recorded and played back. In particular, the fast passage before the camera of an insect flapping its wings has been shown to produce rodlike effects, due to motion blur, if the camera is shooting with relatively long exposure times.[2] In August 2005, China Central Television (CCTV) aired a two-part documentary about flying rods in China. It reported the events from May to June of the same year at Tonghua Zhenguo Pharmaceutical Company in Tonghua City, Jilin Province, which debunked the flying rods. Surveillance cameras in the facility's compound captured video footage of flying rods identical to those shown in Jose Escamilla's video. Getting no satisfactory answer to the phenomenon, curious scientists at the facility decided that they would try to solve the mystery by attempting to catch these airborne creatures. Huge nets were set up and the same surveillance cameras then captured images of rods flying into the trap. When the nets were inspected, the "rods" were no more than regular moths and other ordinary flying insects. Subsequent investigations proved that the appearance of flying rods on video was an optical illusion created by the slower recording speed of the camera.[3]

en.wikipedia.org...(optics)



I don't remember the first time I saw Jose Escamilla's "rods" on TV, but it was one of those "mysterious videos" shows with stories about UFOs, crop circles and the such. Mr. Escamilla appeared with video of base jumpers — sky divers who jump from earthbound objects — parachuting into a vertical cave. In real-time the video shows swarms of bugs around the cave opening. There was nothing out of the ordinary except when he showed individual still frames of the video, the bugs became blurry streaks, their wings appearing as sinusoidal gossamer streamers along their sides. Mr. Escamilla saw the resemblance of these blurs to some marine worms and declared he had found a new life form, that he calls "rods", invisible to the unaided eye and visible only in still frames of videos. I thought this show must have had a significant shortage of ideas; they were really stretching for it with this one. At least with some "unexplained" videos, even though you don't believe for a moment that they show something extraterrestrial, you can at least have a lively debate about what they really show. The "rods" were just plain stupid. A few months later Mr. Escamilla appeared on my local CBS affiliate, KFMB, Channel 8 of San Diego. KFMB milked the story for all it had. They presented it as a serious mystery and even managed to get an entomologist at the local natural history museum to declare that the images could not be insects.

www.amsky.com...



Investigators have shown that rods are mere tricks of light which result from how images (primarily video images) of flying insects are recorded and played back. In particular, the fast passage before the camera of an insect flapping its wings has been shown to produce rodlike effects, due to motion blur, if the camera is shooting with relatively long exposure times.

listverse.com...


Proof and evidence are very subjective words. I would say it proves a lot to catch a daytime rod at 240 frames per second the never once appears as a bird or an insect. I think it proves Rods are real until other video of insects and birds being unable to be identified at 240fps. Please stick to video evidence, anyone can write anything in an article, an article is hardly evidence of anything and doesn't come close to the validity of video evidence. You wanting my video in a hoax forum is completely irrational until you can provide evidence as to why my video is invalid. Something should ring a bell when so many people base their beliefs of Rods on 1 monsterquest episode. It should be easy to post videos of blurred insects at 240 fps if it's a common camera mistake. Cameras are pretty good these days with the quality at the higher frame rates.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 06:33 PM
link   
If everyone tested rods for themselves recording at 240 frames per second, the insect comparisons would be laughable and become extinct. I believe some debunkers rely on laziness and ignorance for the audience to rely on T.V. and articles, rather than testing it for themselves.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
If everyone tested rods for themselves recording at 240 frames per second, the insect comparisons would be laughable and become extinct. I believe some debunkers rely on laziness and ignorance for the audience to rely on T.V. and articles, rather than testing it for themselves.

We're not going to go out and test something that has already been thoroughly debunked by many researchers. If you think you're onto something, you have to prove it. Not us. Nobody can prove a negative. Go out and do a proper scientific test with all the appropriate controls and let us know what you come up with.

Here, I'll help you state your thesis:
"Rods: Camera Artifact or _______________"



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 07:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
If everyone tested rods for themselves recording at 240 frames per second, the insect comparisons would be laughable and become extinct. I believe some debunkers rely on laziness and ignorance for the audience to rely on T.V. and articles, rather than testing it for themselves.

We're not going to go out and test something that has already been thoroughly debunked by many researchers. If you think you're onto something, you have to prove it. Not us. Nobody can prove a negative. Go out and do a proper scientific test with all the appropriate controls and let us know what you come up with.

Here, I'll help you state your thesis:
"Rods: Camera Artifact or _______________"


Logical people test things before having such a strong opinion on a subject. It's not logical to rely on others for your information that you have easy access to. You haven't provided 1 piece of video evidence that shows modern cameras having trouble identifying birds and insects at 240 fps. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Show the researchers videos, articles are not science, they are propoganda. Show objective video.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 07:08 PM
link   
I've seen proof that rods are insects, the OP did not show proof.

There are also people who still insist dust in photos and videos are spirits despite proof to the contrary, and there are some who believe the earth is flat



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: vlawde

Can you post the video proof?



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: vlawde
I've seen proof that rods are insects, the OP did not show proof.

There are also people who still insist dust in photos and videos are spirits despite proof to the contrary, and there are some who believe the earth is flat


Not all orbs in photos and videos are dust. There is plenty of evidence to show that, but if you believe otherwise that is your choice.


Rods on the other hand do look like insects captured because of the speed of the camera being not quite fast enough to catch the object without motion blur, although some people say that some captures were using very high speed shutters, but no one has ever shown this with evidence or data that I have ever seen.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

Sure:






posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

The cameras not being fast enough is a myth. Any modern camera phone can record insects and birds at normal speed and many can show exceptional detail at 240 fps.
There are many $100,000 or more T.V. cameras that record rods as well.
youtu.be...



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 07:37 PM
link   



Not all orbs in photos and videos are dust. There is plenty of evidence to show that, but if you believe otherwise that is your choice.




I have done paranormal investigating for 12+ years now, and to an extent you are correct. True orbs are very rare. The difference is a real one emits it's own light, so you'd be able to see it with your naked eyes, not just in the photo/video as it is with dust motes being in the sweet spot in relation to the camera lens and light source. These tend to be flat-looking as well. I have seen quick sparks a few times as a precursor to paranormal activity, but no orbs per se.

I friend of mine runs his own paranormal group back east, he's been a consultant for some TV shows on the topic as well as having several of his group's investigations on TV. He has seen at least one real orb with his eyes that showed up on camera that had a totally different appearance than a dust orb.

What I'm saying is the majority or orbs you see on TV and paranormal sites are dust, but there can be paranormal orbs, but they are just not common



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: vlawde

Rods are clearly not moths. This video is invalid as a scientific experiment. They don't have any daytime footage and they dont even bother to explain why most of todays cameras can clearly pick up birds, insects, and rods. Comparing rods to moths is laughable.
youtu.be...



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
The cameras not being fast enough is a myth.

It's not, the speed needed changes with the light conditions. With a strong light the cameras can use faster speeds, with low light levels they need to use lower speeds, unless you are talking of high speed, high sensitivity cameras.


Any modern camera phone can record insects and birds at normal speed and many can show exceptional detail at 240 fps.

Why 240 fps? Depending on the conditions even a 1000 fps may not be enough.


There are many $100,000 or more T.V. cameras that record rods as well.

The most expensive car in the world can also be stationary, those two things are not directly related.



posted on Mar, 7 2018 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

If it's something happening at dusk or night how can they have daytime footage?

To be able to make a real comparison we would need to have a known insect, film it in the day and filming it in the dusk/night and then compare the videos.
Filming a moth during the day means nothing if what we see in a night video is a different insect, faster and with smaller wings.

PS: the above applies also to anyone trying to prove that rods are insects.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join