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

a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

You say I am the one not following

yes,

take a look below

I had already viewed and commented on the video months before you posted it here.

This is the 3rd post where you completely post stuff that makes no sense.




Try reading slowly.


I didn't post any video.


Do you understand, You even quoted me saying that I am not using any videos to make my point and then go on again in your next post to say I have posted it.

Is this some sort trolling technique or is your attention span that short?

Even if responded, it wouldnt be proof of a bee or not, so what would be the point?

There would be no point, any proof would be either forgotten or just tossed aside and you would keep repeating the same nonsense like with me posting a video.

Like a few days ago saying I said the 3rd clip in the video was bee flying close to the lens when I was talking about the 2nd clip in the video and suggested it was an insect flying in straight line close to the lens because you mentioned straight angles.

if you need proof of the claim that in the 3rd clip there was a bee flying around and that was what was captured that looked like a so called ROD, then this indicates you have no ability to think past things that are fed to you that confirm your beliefs.


The claim is a bee in the 3rd clip.

One watches the scene and observes the time of day, weather and the environment.

When observing these 3 things in the short clip is it really so hard to accept that a bee could be flying around in an environment and weather that would be very suitable and attractive to bees?

a reply to: InhaleExhale


He made a comment on the youtube video on youtube.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
Correction, it has been suggested that rods are the result of shutter speed, not shown.

If you consider the video I posted on my previous post as showing a rod then, in that case, I am sure that that specific rod was a result of shutter speed, as I was seeing the fly while I was filming it.

Someone that may be a professional taking pictures is hardly qualified in insect identification and motion blur.

Maybe not in insect identification, but is qualified in motion blur.

What I have seen so far leads me to believe the many rods are in focus without blur.

Motion blur still shows sharp edges, although they appear translucent.

Motion blur most often results in objects appearing longer than they are, but lack detail on the objects like wings.

True, unless you there's a light shining on the wings and the wings are big enough to be seen in the video.

I know how I would make a test to see if I could recreate a typical rod: I would need an insect with relatively big wings and reflective (a moth is good, specially if it's a fast one), a closed room (so I wouldn't lose my test subject and I could control the light) and a good camera. Finding the first is somewhat easy, the second I already have, but I am missing the third, as I only have access to low (or even bad) quality cameras.

I think your video shows similarities with a rod because the body looks elongated. The wings or apendages on rods looks completely different though.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

I think a professional would be well aware what motion blur is so that is a BS claim.

Here on the video a so called insect expert claims the wing motion cant be an insect from 2:59 on one of the images given as an example looks like the moth image on the standard camera.

There are many times experts on a subject are mistaken because of a lack of knowledge on how photography/video actually works the classic example is no stars in Apollo shots which is due to exposure, how images are captured and stored on digital video explains how small objects moving relatively fast against the field of view can end up looking the way they do.

Watch this around the 4 min mark

Rods appearing on video security camera a net set up watch the video showing to so called rod whats in the trap normal insects.

At 4 minutes, they dont show the process of catching rods, all she does is make the claim. Am i supposed to just take her word for it? I need to see something such as what Armap is doing.

a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails


Your the insect man why don't you go prove it by catching some rods I bet you don't

a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

Here is another link for probably the most famous mislead rod believer



The guy is deluded look how many shots are shown on that video taken at night why so you get a nice slow shutter speed to create the rod effect plain and simple.

Posted in 2016 equipment of choice a Canon 700D that gave me a good laugh.

How about this one

a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

I think your video shows similarities with a rod because the body looks elongated.

could simply be a different species of ROD. even though it was fly according to ArMaP.

The wings or apendages on rods looks completely different though.

could simply be because the RODs you are comparing to could be another insect and not flies.

Am i supposed to just take her word for it? I need to see something such as what Armap is doing.

ArMap just said in the post you quoted that the video they uploaded was a fly because they saw it while filming.


Does this sound familiar to you?


Its almost like the claim that it was bee in the video.


Are you doubtful of ArMaP that said it was fly because they saw it while filming like you are doubtful of the claim in the video it was a bee because a bee was seen while filming?

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

I think your video shows similarities with a rod because the body looks elongated.

could simply be a different species of ROD. even though it was fly according to ArMaP.

The wings or apendages on rods looks completely different though.

could simply be because the RODs you are comparing to could be another insect and not flies.

Am i supposed to just take her word for it? I need to see something such as what Armap is doing.

ArMap just said in the post you quoted that the video they uploaded was a fly because they saw it while filming.


Does this sound familiar to you?


Its almost like the claim that it was bee in the video.


Are you doubtful of ArMaP that said it was fly because they saw it while filming like you are doubtful of the claim in the video it was a bee because a bee was seen while filming?

They could be another species of insect, but one of the proof points is to identify the type. It would also be good to have the known shutter speed of any insect appearing as a rod so it can be tested and replicated. I believe armap, but not the wedding guy. I dont think the true rods fly slow enough to track with eyes or a camera.

a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

They could be another species of insect, but one of the proof points is to identify the type.

How so?


You are trying to prove Rods exist and saying the book shouldn't be closed not trying to identify insects.

You are saying that the many blurred insects caught on video or whats conduced as such by the majority are RODS.

You don't need to identify known insects but need to identify this unknown species called RODs.


Using video is just a waste of time, yes it gets you started on the idea of a unknown insect or whatnot but that's it, started as in 'could these be real?' after identifying and Proving RODs exist, done so by finding one dead or alive,

(unless RODs are supernatural and no physical evidence other than glimpses on YouTube video can be found)

Then you can compare and identify which videos are Flies, Bees, Moths and which ones are RODs.

You are doing this backwards.

It would also be good to have the known shutter speed of any insect appearing as a rod so it can be tested and replicated.

Yes, + the same insect and conditions like the insect flying at the same speed and same distance from the lens.

The only way this could be replicated is by chance, trail and error and hope you get the same conditions to be able to compare that is unless you can train insects to do things by command then you have no worries with replicating videos of insects that look like RODs.

I dont think the true rods fly slow enough to track with eyes or a camera.

Yet we are discussing claims that RODs are caught on camera and how this subject should still be an open book.

I believe armap, but not the wedding guy.

I was quite confident that if you were to answer that question that this is what your answer would have been.


I guess there may a be valid reason in your mind as to why you believe one but not the other

I hope you find the proof you are looking for

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

They could be another species of insect, but one of the proof points is to identify the type.

How so?


You are trying to prove Rods exist and saying the book shouldn't be closed not trying to identify insects.

You are saying that the many blurred insects caught on video or whats conduced as such by the majority are RODS.

You don't need to identify known insects but need to identify this unknown species called RODs.


Using video is just a waste of time, yes it gets you started on the idea of a unknown insect or whatnot but that's it, started as in 'could these be real?' after identifying and Proving RODs exist, done so by finding one dead or alive,

(unless RODs are supernatural and no physical evidence other than glimpses on YouTube video can be found)

Then you can compare and identify which videos are Flies, Bees, Moths and which ones are RODs.

You are doing this backwards.

It would also be good to have the known shutter speed of any insect appearing as a rod so it can be tested and replicated.

Yes, + the same insect and conditions like the insect flying at the same speed and same distance from the lens.

The only way this could be replicated is by chance, trail and error and hope you get the same conditions to be able to compare that is unless you can train insects to do things by command then you have no worries with replicating videos of insects that look like RODs.

I dont think the true rods fly slow enough to track with eyes or a camera.

Yet we are discussing claims that RODs are caught on camera and how this subject should still be an open book.

I believe armap, but not the wedding guy.

I was quite confident that if you were to answer that question that this is what your answer would have been.


I guess there may a be valid reason in your mind as to why you believe one but not the other

I hope you find the proof you are looking for

I am saying the book should be open until the rods are proven to be insects and that assuming all rods are insects is done without reasonable proof. I think the videos that show a lot of rods flying are extremely rare compared to videos showing insects that dont appear as rods. After 4 years of recording and reviewing video, I should have caught far more rods than I have if they were bugs. I have caught around 3 total after 4 years.

1 day video showing insects appearing as a rod at 120fps would probably convince me that all rods are bugs. But the
video needs to be clear enough to see the wings and compare them to the rods.

a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails


You wont get a video at 120fps because the shutter speed will be shorter than 1/120 th of a second and as its slow shutter speeds that cause the rods it wont happen.

Remember the moth video DOH

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

martin stubbs of NASA shuttle ufo video fame spoke about another anomaly he saw. they were colored very fast moving rods for lack of a better definition

he captured many of them and on one STS mission the hatch to the cargo bay got stuck shut and the crew can be heard talking about fast moving colored lights coming thru the door, and the cargo bay camera captured them from the outside.


related? maybe.

but most rod ufo's are bugs

Do you have a video of it?
I haven't seen any video evidence that proves daytime rods are bugs. I don't think anyone knows the shutter speed needed to catch insects on video in focus.

LOL,,, what a mystery. I'm sure someone knows

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails


You wont get a video at 120fps because the shutter speed will be shorter than 1/120 th of a second and as its slow shutter speeds that cause the rods it wont happen.

Remember the moth video DOH

How do you know the shutter speed will be lower than 1/120 when everything I read says to set the speed double the frame rate? Which moth video are you referring to? There have been multiple moth vids posted. How would anything appear without blur if they set the auto shutter to less than 120? What sense would it make to have a slow shutter for high frame rate recording?

originally posted by: torok67

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

martin stubbs of NASA shuttle ufo video fame spoke about another anomaly he saw. they were colored very fast moving rods for lack of a better definition

he captured many of them and on one STS mission the hatch to the cargo bay got stuck shut and the crew can be heard talking about fast moving colored lights coming thru the door, and the cargo bay camera captured them from the outside.


related? maybe.

but most rod ufo's are bugs

Do you have a video of it?
I haven't seen any video evidence that proves daytime rods are bugs. I don't think anyone knows the shutter speed needed to catch insects on video in focus.

LOL,,, what a mystery. I'm sure someone knows

Lol it is a mystery, how many people are experimenting with cameras to see at what point different insects will have or not have blur? There is no official set standards that I could find.

a reply to: wmd_2008

1/120th of a second is a relatively slow shutter speed, 1/1000th is considered the safe point at which all except the extremely fast objects appear without motion blur.

Obviously, there are no fixed rules, as many things can change the final result.

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
How do you know the shutter speed will be lower than 1/120 when everything I read says to set the speed double the frame rate?

I think you are misunderstanding what wmd_2008 meant. To appear with motion blur the camera needs to use a slow shutter speed, right? The fact that the frame rate is 120 fps means that the shutter cannot be opened for more than 1/120th of a second, so it's not a very slow shutter speed.

What sense would it make to have a slow shutter for high frame rate recording?

That's why rods do not appear where there's more light and the camera is well regulated or on automatic, we would need to use a camera that could change manually all the settings and set things in a way for the camera to use a slow shutter speed.

a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

Your reply shows you don't have a clue what you are talking about simple logic if the frame rate is 120 fps the shutter speed has to be quicker so shorter than 1/120 th of a second which would have less motion blur than 1/60th of a second.

Simple basic principle which you obviously don't understand I now know why you think rods are not insects.

a reply to: ArMaP

Partly correct speed,distance and direction relative to the camera are also factors.

On the skyfish video I linked to above you can clearly see many of the example photos are night shots you can see stars so slow shutter speed so nice blur on the objects.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

Your reply shows you don't have a clue what you are talking about simple logic if the frame rate is 120 fps the shutter speed has to be quicker so shorter than 1/120 th of a second which would have less motion blur than 1/60th of a second.

Simple basic principle which you obviously don't understand I now know why you think rods are not insects.

Where did I write that the shutter speed has to be less than frame rate?

a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

Are you acting dumb for the sake of it the rods are caused by motion blur due to the speed of the object/shutter speed you only get them with a slow shutter speed what you want to see wont happen.

Look at the horse fly video a few posts ago rods everywhere and we know they are horse flies .

Now wil that sink in