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.
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:
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?
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.
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).
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]
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.
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.
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...
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.
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 _______________"
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.
originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
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.