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

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
I write 240 fps because that is more than enough fps to differientiate everyday objects in the day with plenty of sunlight. My video of the rod in the moth comparison has plenty of natural light shining towards the rod.

Not really, as we can see that the scene the camera "sees" has not that much light. Also, seeing the light doesn't mean it was enough to capture images in a short time, as shorter exposure times/faster shutter speeds get less light in the image and vice-versa, so if you point a camera to a scene under the trees, like in that video, although we can clearly see the scene, the camera could not have enough light to capture an image in a short time, so it would use a longer time. I'm not sure, as I have very little experience with video, but I think (based on videos I have seen) that sometimes cameras use more than one frame to capture a full image, turning the video, in fact, in a slower frame rate version.

No one has yet posted a daytime video of insects appearing as rods at 240fps. That is because there isn't one. That in itself is pretty good evidence suggesting the reality of rods.

It's not, lack of evidence is not evidence of any thing, only that nobody has found it yet. Before you joined ATS I didn't have any evidence of your existence, but you existed. If anyone had asked me for evidence that you existed I wouldn't be able to provide it, and that wouldn't prove that you didn't exist.

I admit that I am not a camera engineer, but I have 3-4 years of recording random areas outdoors from different locations, and seeing various insects and unidentifyable objects fly through. I dont understand how you are trying to explain the rod and moth comparison.

The rod has two clear sets of appendages or wings at each end of its body. There is absolutely no insect or bird known that has wings like this. The area had plenty of lighting, nearly perfect for a slow motion video with strong lighting, background, and no lens flares or glare. The rod was in focus for the speed and the body remained consistent in every frame besides the wing things. The body looked partially transparent in some frames. I estimate the rod to be at least 6-12 inches long and around 15 to 20 ft away. This would be plenty enough room and conditions to record any known flying object in focus at normal speed, especially 240. I posted videos of small, erratic, fast insects that do not turn into rods at 240 fps. If the small fastest ones dont change, why would large slower ones change?

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
No night video should be used for an experiment because of artificial light source needed. Quality is also poor at night. Why would you need something of lesser quality?

Many videos of rods are taken in the night, using artificial light.

Anyone doing any real experiment would try all the possibilities, not only the ones that only prove their point but also the ones that may disprove it.

Many night videos are infrared and have much lower resolution and fps with long exposure, so they are not as credible as day video. I looked for insects on youtube that turned into rods at 240fps in attempt to disprove my point, I didnt find any.

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
What would you consider evidence to believe, a physical speciman?

That would be a good start.

What if they had no speciman to present because they are too fast and intelligent to catch, so all they have is video?

Then I would not believe them, as video cannot be evidence of what any thing is or from where it comes.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
What would you consider evidence to believe, a physical speciman?

That would be a good start.

What if they had no speciman to present because they are too fast and intelligent to catch, so all they have is video?

Then I would not believe them, as video cannot be evidence of what any thing is or from where it comes.

What if they claimed that they are infinite or that they disentigrate upon death? No matter how many claimed facts the government and science came up with, you wouldnt believe without the speciman? I think it would be logical to assume a possible unearthly origin if the object can be shown to have unearthly characteristics.

originally posted by: Neechavela
As much as I want to believe rods are real, there is much more evidence debunking them. When it comes to the paranormal, it’s usually an open topic because you can’t debunk or find evidence explaining truth.

My true question is this and while it may seem silly take it to heart: If there are UFO crashes and cover ups, unless you’re implying that rods are extra-dimensional beings without a physical body, how come there hasn’t been one found on a windshield, or remnants of one that has smack me in the face flying at god-knows how fast.

To my knowledge, this is a UFO that there isn’t even a documented story about a crash. That’s a first in my book.

Where is the Roswell Rod crash info?

I don't want to believe they are real and I dont know why anyone else would, especially if they are true ufos and we don't know their intentions. I can easily see why the government wouldnt want people to know these are real.
I do not look into many things like the Roswell crash. I only focus on things with video evidence. I do lean towards the rods being transparent, I dont know if that makes them extra-dimensional or not. They could possibly be some advanced form like ocean life that is transparent.

a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

What if the government came out and said the rods are true ufos or alien, would you believe them?

of course not!
they are the same guys that said to respect them

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
I admit that I am not a camera engineer, but I have 3-4 years of recording random areas outdoors from different locations, and seeing various insects and unidentifyable objects fly through. I dont understand how you are trying to explain the rod and moth comparison.

First of all, something I haven't said before: using a slow, large winged insect like a moth is never going to give results like those of a "rod". If, like I think, rods are insects, they are fast, small winged insects like flies.

The area had plenty of lighting, nearly perfect for a slow motion video with strong lighting, background, and no lens flares or glare.

What affects the camera is how much light enters the lens, not how much light there is in the area. In that rod video we can see that although the Sun is shining on the trees, the scene captured by the camera is not that bright, as we can see that the leaves are overexposed and we can see to some distance between the trees, where there is much less light. To me, that points to the camera having a relatively slow shutter speed, and that's what makes a fast moving object appear as a long object, not frame rate.

The body looked partially transparent in some frames.

That is one characteristic of a slow shutter speed, the moving object appears translucent when compared with the fixed background. Also, it doesn't look sharp as it should if it was on focus and without motion blur.

I estimate the rod to be at least 6-12 inches long and around 15 to 20 ft away.

Was that video shot by yourself?

This would be plenty enough room and conditions to record any known flying object in focus at normal speed, especially 240.

As I have been saying, shutter speed is not all there is to capture a sharp video. I hope the video below explains it better than I have been trying. In it you can see that slower shutter speeds result in motion blur and more light entering the camera, so if the camera is left to choose the shutter speed based on the available light and there isn't enough light for a fast shutter speed then the camera will choose a slower one, resulting in more light and motion blur.

a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

You could film rods with a potato cam.

A reason they vanished after about 2006ish

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
Many night videos are infrared and have much lower resolution and fps with long exposure, so they are not as credible as day video.

I'm not talking about infrared videos, if I was I would say it.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
I admit that I am not a camera engineer, but I have 3-4 years of recording random areas outdoors from different locations, and seeing various insects and unidentifyable objects fly through. I dont understand how you are trying to explain the rod and moth comparison.

First of all, something I haven't said before: using a slow, large winged insect like a moth is never going to give results like those of a "rod". If, like I think, rods are insects, they are fast, small winged insects like flies.

The area had plenty of lighting, nearly perfect for a slow motion video with strong lighting, background, and no lens flares or glare.

What affects the camera is how much light enters the lens, not how much light there is in the area. In that rod video we can see that although the Sun is shining on the trees, the scene captured by the camera is not that bright, as we can see that the leaves are overexposed and we can see to some distance between the trees, where there is much less light. To me, that points to the camera having a relatively slow shutter speed, and that's what makes a fast moving object appear as a long object, not frame rate.

The body looked partially transparent in some frames.

That is one characteristic of a slow shutter speed, the moving object appears translucent when compared with the fixed background. Also, it doesn't look sharp as it should if it was on focus and without motion blur.

I estimate the rod to be at least 6-12 inches long and around 15 to 20 ft away.

Was that video shot by yourself?

This would be plenty enough room and conditions to record any known flying object in focus at normal speed, especially 240.

As I have been saying, shutter speed is not all there is to capture a sharp video. I hope the video below explains it better than I have been trying. In it you can see that slower shutter speeds result in motion blur and more light entering the camera, so if the camera is left to choose the shutter speed based on the available light and there isn't enough light for a fast shutter speed then the camera will choose a slower one, resulting in more light and motion blur.

youtu.be... The flies like in this video look nothing like the rods and they are at probably around 30 fps and a normal preset shutter speed. youtu.be... Moths are the main argument for the so called experiment that debunked rods. Flies wings can rarely be seen on lower quality high speed video when the camera is a few feet away.

I think the scene is the best possible because it has both well lit areas and shaded areas. That offers a chance to see how the object appears against different backgrounds giving a better perspective. How would the camera have a low shutter speed recording at a high frame rate in slow motion? The whole point of slow motion setting is to capture faster objects in greater detail, not slower. The flies in the video remained a dark color the entire time, even the out of focus flies didn't match the size, speed, and color of the rod. I don't know that the rods appearance could be matched in slow motion filming insects even you deliberately tried by creating motion blur.

Of the rod in the moth comparison, yes.

originally posted by: Lysergic
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

You could film rods with a potato cam.

A reason they vanished after about 2006ish

They vanished because of the poorly done monsterquest experiment. Why would you think they are disproven with no daytime video as evidence?

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
Many night videos are infrared and have much lower resolution and fps with long exposure, so they are not as credible as day video.

I'm not talking about infrared videos, if I was I would say it.

The night videos still aren't credible because most of them are pointed at a light. That would be like me shining my camera at the sun and trying to claim the video is clearer and better.

Edit: Some night videos do show actual rods, but they aren't considered credible as daytime footage that isn't pointed at a light source.

youtu.be... I think these are some of the best rods caught on video. This video seems to be shot with a fast shutter speed and high frame rate. I dont think any daytime insects can replicate the appearance.

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
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...

Typical non-HD television cameras run 30 fps.
HD ones run 60fps.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
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...

Typical non-HD television cameras run 30 fps.
HD ones run 60fps.

Harte

Those T.V. cameras also use a fast shutter speed to ensure the best quality and prevent any motion blur, is this correct? If the shutter speed is fast, there should be no reason for insects to appear as rods like these.
youtu.be...

www.youtube.com...
Go pro 3 from 2013 and you can clearly see the greater detail and lesser motion blur at the higher frame rate/slow motion. The note 5 is 2015 technology with better quality / higher resolution. The shutter speed has to be faster to catch fast movements with less motion blur. No one designs a camera with preset slow shutter speeds to blur or distort an image, that would be ridiculous.

a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

Comparing rods to moths is laughable.

You seem to be jumping ahead in the thread, are you saying this is funny because it is predictable?

originally posted by: Cauliflower
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

Comparing rods to moths is laughable.

You seem to be jumping ahead in the thread, are you saying this is funny because it is predictable?

I find it amusing that the monsterquest claim rods are moths because moths are some of the slower flying insects compared to others, especially with the larger and wider wings than compared to something like a fly. It is usually pretty easy to capture moths flapping their wings at a normal preset frame rate and shutter speed. The show leads to the myth that expensive high frame rate cameras are needed to record slow flying moths in focus. As seen below, the moth shares little to no characteristics with the rod recorded at the same frame rate.

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
youtu.be... The flies like in this video look nothing like the rods and they are at probably around 30 fps and a normal preset shutter speed.

"Probably"? If you don't know then it's useless to use it as an example.
In fact, the light conditions point to a fast shutter speed.

Moths are the main argument for the so called experiment that debunked rods.

I'm talking for myself, not about what other people say.

Flies wings can rarely be seen on lower quality high speed video when the camera is a few feet away.

I didn't say they are flies, I used flies as an example of an insect that has smaller wings than moths (usually) have and is (consequently) faster.

I think the scene is the best possible because it has both well lit areas and shaded areas.

If we can see the shaded areas then that means that the camera is using a slower shutter speed, a normal shutter speed would show those shaded areas as too dark for us to see any detail.

How would the camera have a low shutter speed recording at a high frame rate in slow motion?

The camera doesn't record in slow motion, the playing can be done in slow motion with any video, you just have to play it slower than it was filmed. As for using a slow shutter speed, as I don't have any video camera I cannot try it for myself, I only have a photo camera that has a video mode but it's fully automatic.

The whole point of slow motion setting is to capture faster objects in greater detail, not slower.

True, but how cameras capture an image (or a series of images) depends mostly on two things: aperture and shutter speed.

The flies in the video remained a dark color the entire time, even the out of focus flies didn't match the size, speed, and color of the rod.

Obviously, the conditions were different. Dark insects against a blue sky will always appear darker than insects of any colour against a darker background, specially if those insects are getting some direct light.

I don't know that the rods appearance could be matched in slow motion filming insects even you deliberately tried by creating motion blur.

Forget slow motion, slow motion is done on playback, what matters is aperture, shutter speed and (in the case of video) frame rate. High frame rates allow us to play back the video at slower speeds, but the capturing of the images still depends on the other two parameters that you are ignoring.