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: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2018 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
I don't think it has to be that fast, I think there are more than enough video on youtube that shows insects flying at a normal preset shutter speed and in focus at 24 - 30 fps.

In automatic mode there's no such thing as "preset shutter speed", the shutter speed is adjusted in connection with the aperture, according to the amount of light available.

It's possible to have a sharp image (no motion blur) with slower shutter speeds, but that depends on how much light there is, as more light results in the possibility of capturing an image in a shorter amount of time.


My phone records clear insects at 24-30 fps with little to no motion blur of insects as small as wasps.

At what distance? There are two things that make an object appear as fast in a video: the speed at which the object is moving (obviously) and the distance the object is from the camera. An object moving at 30 cm per second will appear to move much faster if it passes just 20 cm from the camera than if it passes 1 metre away from the camera. The speed of the object is the same in both cases but the apparent angular speed of the object as seen through the lens is completely different, as the closer object will cross the whole field of view in a much shorter time.


I would imagine that the preset shutter speed is around 1/60th since double seems to be the standard for frame rate.

Again, it depends on how much light there is, if there is less light than the light expected for the normal setting the camera needs to either use a bigger aperture or a slower shutter speed or both.




posted on Mar, 11 2018 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP
In automatic mode there's no such thing as "preset shutter speed", the shutter speed is adjusted in connection with the aperture, according to the amount of light available.



Do you know of a source that covers this information? I can't find any information on what a note 5 or any of the iphones shutter speed is when they record using the slow motion feature. I would assume that a lot of the smartphones are like the note where the shutter speed is automatic with no ability to adjust it while using the slow motion feature.



posted on Mar, 11 2018 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=23220127]ArMaP
At what distance? There are two things that make an object appear as fast in a video: the speed at which the object is moving (obviously) and the distance the object is from the camera. An object moving at 30 cm per second will appear to move much faster if it passes just 20 cm from the camera than if it passes 1 metre away from the camera. The speed of the object is the same in both cases but the apparent angular speed of the object as seen through the lens is completely different, as the closer object will cross the whole field of view in a much shorter time.



I agree with this that the speed in relation to distance. I can usually catch wasp flying by at full speed in focus enough to determine what they are if they are at least 4 -6 ft. away possibly closer. Recording at the slow motion setting, the details are a lot easier to make out on a wasp from the same distance. The only thing I have trouble picking up are the smaller insects such as gnats or mosquitos.


edit on 11-3-2018 by Thoseaintcontrails because: edit



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 04:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
Do you know of a source that covers this information?

No. Most of the times the makers only publish the minimum and maximum values, but in automatic mode the camera chooses what to use, so the only way of knowing is by trying to read that information from the EXIF data that the camera may have recorded in the video file.

I usually use ExifTool (with ExifToolGUID to make it's use easier) to show the metadata stored in photos and videos. I just tried it on a video taken with my camera and the result was a surprisingly low 1/3 of a second, making the shutter speed dependent on the frame rate, that in this case was 30 fps.



posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
Do you know of a source that covers this information?

No. Most of the times the makers only publish the minimum and maximum values, but in automatic mode the camera chooses what to use, so the only way of knowing is by trying to read that information from the EXIF data that the camera may have recorded in the video file.

I usually use ExifTool (with ExifToolGUID to make it's use easier) to show the metadata stored in photos and videos. I just tried it on a video taken with my camera and the result was a surprisingly low 1/3 of a second, making the shutter speed dependent on the frame rate, that in this case was 30 fps.


I couldn't get this to run right on my computer, I will try again. Are there any other options to extract the data?



posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails




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.




Do you know that one of the fastest insects in the world is a species of moth that can fly up to 33 miles per hour?

How can a moth be a slower flying insect when certain moths are the fastest or almost the fastest recorded insects?




As seen below, the moth shares little to no characteristics with the rod recorded at the same frame rate.



there are over 160,000 yes that is 160 thousand different species of moths.



posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 10:45 AM
link   
So.. it's been proven that insects CAN produce the exact same.. IDENTICAL effect that make them look like "rods," but.. people still think rods exist? Common sense, c'mon now.

I suppose there could be that one in a billion chance a mythical creature that can only be caught on camera but not seen by the naked eye, has a surprising clone-like appearance.. from flying insects caught on camera? Naw.. going with insects here.

Here is another tip - when people get videos of "rods" - obviously their camera / lighting / speed is catching thousands of insects. Otherwise they'd get some insects.. some rods. The video of "thousands" of rods is obviously insects in a place where there -should- be thousands of insects.

Unless.. -gasp-.. the rods ate them all. o.o



posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails




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.




Do you know that one of the fastest insects in the world is a species of moth that can fly up to 33 miles per hour?

How can a moth be a slower flying insect when certain moths are the fastest or almost the fastest recorded insects?




As seen below, the moth shares little to no characteristics with the rod recorded at the same frame rate.



there are over 160,000 yes that is 160 thousand different species of moths.



The species of moth you are referring to that flies that fast is pretty rare in the areas that I record. I don't think many species are anywhere close to the speed of a hawk moth. I am speculating on moths because that was the monsterquest claim. Besides other failures of their so called experiment, they failed to mention the type of moths they were claiming the rods to be. Most commonly seen moths have wider wings that makes them appear slower compared to thinner winged insects.



posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit
So.. it's been proven that insects CAN produce the exact same.. IDENTICAL effect that make them look like "rods," but.. people still think rods exist? Common sense, c'mon now.

I suppose there could be that one in a billion chance a mythical creature that can only be caught on camera but not seen by the naked eye, has a surprising clone-like appearance.. from flying insects caught on camera? Naw.. going with insects here.

Here is another tip - when people get videos of "rods" - obviously their camera / lighting / speed is catching thousands of insects. Otherwise they'd get some insects.. some rods. The video of "thousands" of rods is obviously insects in a place where there -should- be thousands of insects.

Unless.. -gasp-.. the rods ate them all. o.o


It has not been proven, if so please provide video that proves it. To my knowledge, there is no daytime video that debunks rods.
On the videos that many rods are seen, you are assuming they are insects. I challenge you or anyone else to get daytime video of an insect appearing as a rod, but can be verified to be an insect.
As stated before from over 3 years of random outdoor recordings, it's fairly simple to catch insects or birds speeding by with auto shutter settings.



posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails




I don't think many species are anywhere close to the speed of a hawk moth. I am speculating on moths because that was the monsterquest claim. Besides other failures of their so called experiment, they failed to mention the type of moths they were claiming the rods to be.


I was just pointing out a few things.

I was also going to ask whether the type of moth was mentioned, which it wasn't as you say.


So trying to make comparisons on something that has 160000 different kinds is .....

sorry to say stupid unless there is an approach to identify exactly what type of moth is being used to do these tests.


Good for you for trying to figure it out and replicate things doing your own practical work.


However, any one interested in the subject of UFOs would have come across RODS.

A few hours of reading is enough to conclude these are not alien but simply earth life.




It has not been proven, if so please provide video that proves it. To my knowledge, there is no daytime video that debunks rods.



hey you may get there one day or get stuck like a few other ATSers that cant let go of their favored conspiracy.


Like I said it obvious after a few hours of research and reading, watching youtube vids that the whole thing is based on ignorance of how cameras differ and operate and the big one being how perspective plays a big part especially when something seems to move extremely fast.



posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 11:58 AM
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


yup, and the sad part is, these people are allowed to vote.....maybe besides of having a test for citizenship to vote, they should also have to pass a "reality" test to vote



posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails




I don't think many species are anywhere close to the speed of a hawk moth. I am speculating on moths because that was the monsterquest claim. Besides other failures of their so called experiment, they failed to mention the type of moths they were claiming the rods to be.


I was just pointing out a few things.

I was also going to ask whether the type of moth was mentioned, which it wasn't as you say.


So trying to make comparisons on something that has 160000 different kinds is .....

sorry to say stupid unless there is an approach to identify exactly what type of moth is being used to do these tests.


Good for you for trying to figure it out and replicate things doing your own practical work.


However, any one interested in the subject of UFOs would have come across RODS.

A few hours of reading is enough to conclude these are not alien but simply earth life.




It has not been proven, if so please provide video that proves it. To my knowledge, there is no daytime video that debunks rods.



hey you may get there one day or get stuck like a few other ATSers that cant let go of their favored conspiracy.


Like I said it obvious after a few hours of research and reading, watching youtube vids that the whole thing is based on ignorance of how cameras differ and operate and the big one being how perspective plays a big part especially when something seems to move extremely fast.


I don't understand your position. What research convinced you that rods are bugs when there is no day video debunking rods? All of the debunking videos on rods are recorded at night for good reason, possibly because no one can fake a daytime rod.



posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

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


yup, and the sad part is, these people are allowed to vote.....maybe besides of having a test for citizenship to vote, they should also have to pass a "reality" test to vote


If you have nothing intelligent to post on the subject, please don't post. Your opinion of me or others who don't share your beliefs is no reason to slander others. I could turn your argument around and say that anyone who doesn't think insects can be recorded in focus, on normal cameras, shouldn't be allowed to vote. What would the point of that be?



posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
I couldn't get this to run right on my computer, I will try again. Are there any other options to extract the data?

ExifTool is the only one I know that shows all the data about the video.



posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
I couldn't get this to run right on my computer, I will try again. Are there any other options to extract the data?

ExifTool is the only one I know that shows all the data about the video.


Thank you, that is a great tool, I finally figured out how to use it. It does't show me the shutter speeds for any of my videos, only pics.



posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails




I am looking for an honest and logical debate on Rod Ufo's.


Rod UFO's have been around for a long time, the pictures of insects and smoke filled rooms have been replaced by modern digital sensors with photon time-tagging. Many of these evolving technologies were classified at some point and were the subject of the UFO lore (that some of us on ATS still love and cherish).

The problems occur when old UFO lore is recorded as historical fact and taught to the public.



posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cauliflower
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails




I am looking for an honest and logical debate on Rod Ufo's.


Rod UFO's have been around for a long time, the pictures of insects and smoke filled rooms have been replaced by modern digital sensors with photon time-tagging. Many of these evolving technologies were classified at some point and were the subject of the UFO lore (that some of us on ATS still love and cherish).

The problems occur when old UFO lore is recorded as historical fact and taught to the public.


I'm not sure that I understand your post. Are you saying that Rods have been recorded as historical fact and taught to the public?



posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

I found an interesting high school physics lesson online one of the questions asked was.


Motivation: How was the deciphering of the atom connected to espionage before and after World War II? Why is atomic security more critical in the 21 st century than it was in the 20th century?


Espionage?

But back on topic for flying Rod UFO's that involve insect photography. There was much speculation concerning photon energy and the speed of light back in the late 1800s early 1900s. The military "spy" camera technology was compartmentalized knowledge. There was a need for military personnel to operate in an environment where they might hear secrets that they would not have discovered on their own in high school. Some of them for example might think photon energy was all contained in a sphere shaped like a lead cannon ball.



posted on Mar, 13 2018 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

That's too bad, it probably means that the phone doesn't record that data or that it does record it but on a proprietary block of data that the program doesn't understand.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 08:49 AM
link   

On the videos that many rods are seen, you are assuming they are insects. I challenge you or anyone else to get daytime video of an insect appearing as a rod, but can be verified to be an insect.


That wasn't the point of my post. The point was that they absolutely 100% recreated the -exact- look of a "rod" with a moth. Knowing these two things, which seems more likely:

- Rods are just insects filmed under certain conditions, including light, speed, etc.
- Rods are invisible creatures to the human eye, but not invisible to cameras.. and they look IDENTICAL to insects caught on camera in certain conditions.

You can believe the 2nd if you like, but I'll choose to use common sense, and believe that since they were able to create a "rod" by filming a moth, down to to the length, swimming motion, etc. - will choose to believe they are in fact, insects caught on camera.

If they had in fact tried to recreate the look of a rod by filming an insect, and had only gotten something vaguely similar, hey.. maybe you'd have a case. But it was.. IDENTICAL. But hey.. who knows, maybe the earth is flat too, and I'm just wrong. : )



new topics




 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join