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

a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

People can write whatever they want, doesnt make it true.

exactly, just look at the title of the thread.

Is that all the evidence it takes to prove or disprove something to you, written speculation?

speculation?

why not discuss and ask the guy that made the video and also shot the wedding scene where a bee was buzzing around to prove it was bee?

The line of thinking you are displaying is you cannot take the word of the guy filming which would indicate you believe the whole video is a hoax.

If you cannot accept his claim it was bees because bees were around at the time of filming and need proof its up to you to get in touch with the video maker and debate your stance with them.

Bees with some motion blur. Where do you see rods?

The image is of bees in and around a hive. not a good video to compare with 1 bee out in the open.

You speculated it was close to the lens, I am just asking you to back up your speculation about the last rod.

again

try following whats said.


Let me hold your hand and walk you through it seeing as you are having trouble.


You said this

The rods turn at straight angles.

my reply to this was

Have you actually watched the video. The insects behave exactly how insects behave, no turns were straight angles in the video linked. The video mentions the s shape the bee travels in and its quite visible even at full speed, straight angles? One clip of a straight line which is likely an insect flying past the lens at very close range but no where were there an straight angles, all the clips with turns had a curved turn.

Read this above and read it again.

the video consists of 3 clips.

The only straight thing (replying to your straight angles comment) I saw was the 2nd clip in which I said that could have been very close to the lens.

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
Proof and evidence are very subjective words.

No, they are not.

Evidence is used to create a theory or idea.

Proof is used to show that the theory or idea is true.

Not subjective at all. Unless they conflict with your opinion, of course...

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

People can write whatever they want, doesnt make it true.

exactly, just look at the title of the thread.

Is that all the evidence it takes to prove or disprove something to you, written speculation?

speculation?

why not discuss and ask the guy that made the video and also shot the wedding scene where a bee was buzzing around to prove it was bee?

The line of thinking you are displaying is you cannot take the word of the guy filming which would indicate you believe the whole video is a hoax.

If you cannot accept his claim it was bees because bees were around at the time of filming and need proof its up to you to get in touch with the video maker and debate your stance with them.

Bees with some motion blur. Where do you see rods?

The image is of bees in and around a hive. not a good video to compare with 1 bee out in the open.

You speculated it was close to the lens, I am just asking you to back up your speculation about the last rod.

again

try following whats said.


Let me hold your hand and walk you through it seeing as you are having trouble.


You said this

The rods turn at straight angles.

my reply to this was

Have you actually watched the video. The insects behave exactly how insects behave, no turns were straight angles in the video linked. The video mentions the s shape the bee travels in and its quite visible even at full speed, straight angles? One clip of a straight line which is likely an insect flying past the lens at very close range but no where were there an straight angles, all the clips with turns had a curved turn.

Read this above and read it again.

the video consists of 3 clips.

The only straight thing (replying to your straight angles comment) I saw was the 2nd clip in which I said that could have been very close to the lens.

You think by asking the guy his opinion is proof of a bee? That is not how proof works. Why do i need to contact the guy? You contact him, its you using his video to make your point. You dont trust my conclusions, but you trust conclusions that agree with yours. According to your logic, you are calling my video a hoax.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

Why was the video not good, you have much higher chances of seeing a bee appear as a rod if theres more of them. Another video of bees with motion blur, no rods.


What kind of bees do you think look like rods?

originally posted by: noonebutme

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
Proof and evidence are very subjective words.

No, they are not.

Evidence is used to create a theory or idea.

Proof is used to show that the theory or idea is true.

Not subjective at all. Unless they conflict with your opinion, of course...

All evidence and proof require subjective interpretation. What is proof to you may be bunk to me. I show objective video of rods, but it requires interpretation to analyze how the camera functioned to record the video. If video and pictures cant be trusted, why would anything else be trusted without subjective interpretation?

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
Why was the video not good, you have much higher chances of seeing a bee appear as a rod if theres more of them.

A video that was made to show bees is not a good video to look for bees appearing as rods because the person that made the video wanted to show bees, so things were done in a way to show bees as best as possible.

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
All evidence and proof require subjective interpretation.

How so? Do you dispute 1+1=2? Or that gravity exists? Or that the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West?

All of these 'claims' are backed up by evidence which prove they are true. Regardless of whether you 'believe' in them or the evidence used as proof.

I show objective video of rods, but it requires interpretation to analyze how the camera functioned to record the video. If video and pictures cant be trusted, why would anything else be trusted without subjective interpretation?

Because you are completely wrong in your analysis and interpretation of what you are observing. Better videos with better equipment have categorically proven your claim wrong.

Yet you want to hold out and try to argue semantics about what words may or may not mean to you.

That's fine. It doesn't change the fact that your are completely wrong in your beliefs of 'rods'.

originally posted by: noonebutme

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
All evidence and proof require subjective interpretation.

How so? Do you dispute 1+1=2? Or that gravity exists? Or that the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West?

All of these 'claims' are backed up by evidence which prove they are true. Regardless of whether you 'believe' in them or the evidence used as proof.

I show objective video of rods, but it requires interpretation to analyze how the camera functioned to record the video. If video and pictures cant be trusted, why would anything else be trusted without subjective interpretation?

Because you are completely wrong in your analysis and interpretation of what you are observing. Better videos with better equipment have categorically proven your claim wrong.

Yet you want to hold out and try to argue semantics about what words may or may not mean to you.

That's fine. It doesn't change the fact that your are completely wrong in your beliefs of 'rods'.

Lets keep the subject centered on rods rather than math, gravity and the sun. All of the things you listed along with all science requires subjective interpretation, theres no way around it.
What is your proof that my analysis is wrong? No equipment has proved me wrong. Its ok if I am wrong, but you have offered no reason for me to believe so. I find it disturbing at how many people claim I am wrong while offering no evidence besides their opinion. I have attempted to prove myself wrong far more than anyone else has on the thread. I even offered ways that anyone else could debunk the day time rods.

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
Lets keep the subject centered on rods rather than math, gravity and the sun.

Right - let's keep it away from known, provable facts using scientific method, and move back to your incorrect analysis. Ok...

All of the things you listed along with all science requires subjective interpretation, theres no way around it.

So, it's only your subjective opinion that the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west or that 1+1=2. Ok. Fascinating...

What is your proof that my analysis is wrong?

The video posted earlier which showed what looked like a "rod" flying past, using equipment similar in slow recording speeds to the one you also listed. But then when slowed down further with higher fps, you could VERY CLEARLY see it was a bug and it was an issue with the older slow motion tech that caused the "rod" effect.

No equipment has proved me wrong.

Actually yes, yes it did. In the video where more advanced slow motion showed it was very clearly a bug.

Its ok if I am wrong, but you have offered no reason for me to believe so.

Apart from evidence. Oh wait - I forgot. 1+1 != 2 for you. Doh!.

I find it disturbing at how many people claim I am wrong while offering no evidence besides their opinion.

If modern technology showing you are wrong is their opinion, while you stick to outdated, legacy equipment that gives you the impression you're right because it is wrong - sure. Why not...

originally posted by: noonebutme

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
Lets keep the subject centered on rods rather than math, gravity and the sun.

Right - let's keep it away from known, provable facts using scientific method, and move back to your incorrect analysis. Ok...

All of the things you listed along with all science requires subjective interpretation, theres no way around it.

So, it's only your subjective opinion that the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west or that 1+1=2. Ok. Fascinating...

What is your proof that my analysis is wrong?

The video posted earlier which showed what looked like a "rod" flying past, using equipment similar in slow recording speeds to the one you also listed. But then when slowed down further with higher fps, you could VERY CLEARLY see it was a bug and it was an issue with the older slow motion tech that caused the "rod" effect.

No equipment has proved me wrong.

Actually yes, yes it did. In the video where more advanced slow motion showed it was very clearly a bug.

Its ok if I am wrong, but you have offered no reason for me to believe so.

Apart from evidence. Oh wait - I forgot. 1+1 != 2 for you. Doh!.

I find it disturbing at how many people claim I am wrong while offering no evidence besides their opinion.

If modern technology showing you are wrong is their opinion, while you stick to outdated, legacy equipment that gives you the impression you're right because it is wrong - sure. Why not...

You are using the failed experiment of a T.V. show called "Monsterquest" to base your belief on and you think that is scientific? They don't have any video of day time rods. They didn't identify what kind of moth they thought the rod is. They created the myth that a super high frame rate is needed to capture insects without extreme motion blur. What kind of cameras were they using on the Monsterquest show to do the experiment. What were the shutter speeds and frame rates?

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
No equipment has proved me wrong.

No equipment has proved that rods are real either.

One question: what do you think is easier, prove that rods are bugs or proving that rods are not bugs?

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
No equipment has proved me wrong.

No equipment has proved that rods are real either.

One question: what do you think is easier, prove that rods are bugs or proving that rods are not bugs?

I think it would be easier to prove they are bugs because most people are biased to assume they are bugs. As seen in the thread, many believe the monsterquest video is proof that rods are bugs. Everyone has a different opinion of what justifies proof.
Proof to me is in the video. I need video proof of insects and birds replicating the rods, specifically day time video, preferably at 120 fps compared to a normal speed with a 3rd camera as we mentioned earlier. That would be thorough proof or debunk.

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
I think it would be easier to prove they are bugs because most people are biased to assume they are bugs.

People being biased means nothing, reality is what counts.

I think it's easier to prove they are bugs because proving that they are something else would mean proving what they are, and to me it's harder to prove something is something new than to prove they are the same as something else.

Proof to me is in the video. I need video proof of insects and birds replicating the rods, specifically day time video, preferably at 120 fps compared to a normal speed with a 3rd camera as we mentioned earlier. That would be thorough proof or debunk.

Didn't the Monsterquest video used a high frame rate camera and a normal speed camera?

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
I think it would be easier to prove they are bugs because most people are biased to assume they are bugs.

People being biased means nothing, reality is what counts.

I think it's easier to prove they are bugs because proving that they are something else would mean proving what they are, and to me it's harder to prove something is something new than to prove they are the same as something else.

Proof to me is in the video. I need video proof of insects and birds replicating the rods, specifically day time video, preferably at 120 fps compared to a normal speed with a 3rd camera as we mentioned earlier. That would be thorough proof or debunk.

Didn't the Monsterquest video used a high frame rate camera and a normal speed camera?

I see your point about proving something new.
They used a high speed camera at 1000 fps i think, but didnt tell the shutter speed. The bug they used didnt look like something paused in a video, it looked like a snapshot with slow shutter speed. They also didnt tell the shutter speed to the normal speed video. They should have used a 3rd camera to show their process of recording the bug they claimed.

a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails



This shows their setup for the high speed camera. Its inside and the 30fps camera looks like it is outside. They should show the cameras set up side by side.

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
You are using the failed experiment of a T.V. show called "Monsterquest"...
What kind of cameras were they using on the Monsterquest show to do the experiment.
What were the shutter speeds and frame rates?

I don't know, I've never heard of that show.

This might be a surprise to you but not everyone on the internet lives in America or has seen the same American TV shows you are talking about.

a reply to: noonebutme


"The video posted earlier which showed what looked like a "rod" flying past, using equipment similar in slow recording speeds to the one you also listed. But then when slowed down further with higher fps, you could VERY CLEARLY see it was a bug and it was an issue with the older slow motion tech that caused the "rod" effect."

There have been many videos posted, please specify which video you are referring to. Where did I make the assumption that you are from America and how would that be relevant to anything on the thread? Even if not from America, you would have access to American T.V. shows and internet content.

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
They used a high speed camera at 1000 fps i think, but didnt tell the shutter speed.

Yes, 1000 FPS, and no information about the shutter speed, but the slowest shutter speed at 1000 FPS is 1/1000.

The bug they used didnt look like something paused in a video, it looked like a snapshot with slow shutter speed.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

They also didnt tell the shutter speed to the normal speed video. They should have used a 3rd camera to show their process of recording the bug they claimed.

Closer to the start of the episode, when they try to film hummingbirds during the day they show both cameras.

originally posted by: noonebutme
I don't know, I've never heard of that show.

I never heard of that show either, but by reading the thread and making a quick Google search I could see that the video posted on page 2 was taken from a History Channel show called "Monster Quest".

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
They used a high speed camera at 1000 fps i think, but didnt tell the shutter speed.

Yes, 1000 FPS, and no information about the shutter speed, but the slowest shutter speed at 1000 FPS is 1/1000.

The bug they used didnt look like something paused in a video, it looked like a snapshot with slow shutter speed.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

They also didnt tell the shutter speed to the normal speed video. They should have used a 3rd camera to show their process of recording the bug they claimed.

Closer to the start of the episode, when they try to film hummingbirds during the day they show both cameras.

I will show what I mean about the video later. Can you post the link to the original video of this episode? Did they provide any reason why no daytime footage was included to debunk the rods?