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

a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

Finally a thread I can get my teeth into! I am an official Rods Investigator and christened by Jose Escamilla as TVRodMan back in the '90s. I've been featured in a rods documentary that was shown all over Europe but not in the U.S. I supplied footage to a southern California TV station when they did a multi-part series on rods. I have seen a rod in real life because I can see them with naked eyes. The ton of footage that I've accumulated has been strictly off TV programming of all kinds. Among the footage I have a rod flying right over 2 leopards and they react obviously to the sound they heard right above their heads. I have footage of an eagle reacting to something below it and, sure enough, you see the rod approaching the eagle. I have footage of magician David Blaine while he was standing on a (The 29-year-old magician had spent almost 35 hours standing on top of a 27-metre (90ft) metal pole in Bryant Park, an elegant lawn surrounded by trees in the shadow of the New York Public Library.).

One of the best footage is a tank being fired and while the shells are arcing in the air a rod shoots by before the shells hit the ground. Thousands of people showered Jose with their videos of rods. You see them singly or en masse as I have on tape. I have footage of a Bangladesh man who climbed a pole and a rescuer touches a cable and is electrocuted. When that happens a large, sky-high rod is seen. I have footage of a sky "diver" above one of those fan-driven facilities that allow doing it above the building and here comes a rod. A rod shooting by a sky-high hot air balloon, and so on.

Possibly the best known rod is called the Albany rod shown in the video below and discussed in the article below that. Finally, there are no rod experts. The rod criticisers are all full of it, they have no concept of what they're criticizing.

And, folks, rods are simply an unknown species of flying insects. Nothing to do with UFOs or "aliens".

I haven't read any of the replies 'cause chances are that the majority of replies will be from the loudmouths who know about rods as much as they think they do about UFOs and "aliens", nothing!



National UFO Reporting Center Case Brief
October 20, 2002
FBI Grabs Fox UFO Video - Expert Certifies Object Genuine
www.nuforc.org...

originally posted by: fleabit

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. : )

How do you know they were moths before they were rods? Please show video to prove your observation.
After working with bugs for over a decade and observing them fly on video, they are not any identified bugs and show many differences. You have no valid experiment without daytime video showing rods being insects. Rods appearing as rods is no type of valid debunk.

originally posted by: Lathroper
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

Finally a thread I can get my teeth into! I am an official Rods Investigator and christened by Jose Escamilla as TVRodMan back in the '90s. I've been featured in a rods documentary that was shown all over Europe but not in the U.S. I supplied footage to a southern California TV station when they did a multi-part series on rods. I have seen a rod in real life because I can see them with naked eyes. The ton of footage that I've accumulated has been strictly off TV programming of all kinds. Among the footage I have a rod flying right over 2 leopards and they react obviously to the sound they heard right above their heads. I have footage of an eagle reacting to something below it and, sure enough, you see the rod approaching the eagle. I have footage of magician David Blaine while he was standing on a (The 29-year-old magician had spent almost 35 hours standing on top of a 27-metre (90ft) metal pole in Bryant Park, an elegant lawn surrounded by trees in the shadow of the New York Public Library.).

One of the best footage is a tank being fired and while the shells are arcing in the air a rod shoots by before the shells hit the ground. Thousands of people showered Jose with their videos of rods. You see them singly or en masse as I have on tape. I have footage of a Bangladesh man who climbed a pole and a rescuer touches a cable and is electrocuted. When that happens a large, sky-high rod is seen. I have footage of a sky "diver" above one of those fan-driven facilities that allow doing it above the building and here comes a rod. A rod shooting by a sky-high hot air balloon, and so on.

Possibly the best known rod is called the Albany rod shown in the video below and discussed in the article below that. Finally, there are no rod experts. The rod criticisers are all full of it, they have no concept of what they're criticizing.

And, folks, rods are simply an unknown species of flying insects. Nothing to do with UFOs or "aliens".

I haven't read any of the replies 'cause chances are that the majority of replies will be from the loudmouths who know about rods as much as they think they do about UFOs and "aliens", nothing!

National UFO Reporting Center Case Brief
October 20, 2002
FBI Grabs Fox UFO Video - Expert Certifies Object Genuine
www.nuforc.org...

I agree with a lot of what you wrote. I wouldnt write them off as possibly alien because of how they fly and how they are hidden from the public. I see them as ufos until a valid debunk or their origins and purpose are known.

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails

originally posted by: Lathroper
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

Finally a thread I can get my teeth into! I am an official Rods Investigator and christened by Jose Escamilla as TVRodMan back in the '90s. I've been featured in a rods documentary that was shown all over Europe but not in the U.S. I supplied footage to a southern California TV station when they did a multi-part series on rods. I have seen a rod in real life because I can see them with naked eyes. The ton of footage that I've accumulated has been strictly off TV programming of all kinds. Among the footage I have a rod flying right over 2 leopards and they react obviously to the sound they heard right above their heads. I have footage of an eagle reacting to something below it and, sure enough, you see the rod approaching the eagle. I have footage of magician David Blaine while he was standing on a (The 29-year-old magician had spent almost 35 hours standing on top of a 27-metre (90ft) metal pole in Bryant Park, an elegant lawn surrounded by trees in the shadow of the New York Public Library.).

One of the best footage is a tank being fired and while the shells are arcing in the air a rod shoots by before the shells hit the ground. Thousands of people showered Jose with their videos of rods. You see them singly or en masse as I have on tape. I have footage of a Bangladesh man who climbed a pole and a rescuer touches a cable and is electrocuted. When that happens a large, sky-high rod is seen. I have footage of a sky "diver" above one of those fan-driven facilities that allow doing it above the building and here comes a rod. A rod shooting by a sky-high hot air balloon, and so on.

Possibly the best known rod is called the Albany rod shown in the video below and discussed in the article below that. Finally, there are no rod experts. The rod criticisers are all full of it, they have no concept of what they're criticizing.

And, folks, rods are simply an unknown species of flying insects. Nothing to do with UFOs or "aliens".

I haven't read any of the replies 'cause chances are that the majority of replies will be from the loudmouths who know about rods as much as they think they do about UFOs and "aliens", nothing!

National UFO Reporting Center Case Brief
October 20, 2002
FBI Grabs Fox UFO Video - Expert Certifies Object Genuine
www.nuforc.org...

I agree with a lot of what you wrote. I wouldnt write them off as possibly alien because of how they fly and how they are hidden from the public. I see them as ufos until a valid debunk or their origins and purpose are known.

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails

originally posted by: Lathroper
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

I agree with a lot of what you wrote. I wouldnt write them off as possibly alien because of how they fly and how they are hidden from the public. I see them as ufos until a valid debunk or their origins and purpose are known.

Good to have you aboard. Rods are as natural as you and I, nothing alien about them. They are not hidden from the public, not everyone has the facility to become aware of them that's why cameras that are set on high shutter speeds can record their reality. Some people, such as me have the optical acuity to see highly speedy objects and be aware of them. The one I saw was more of a blur but when it approached a seagull and made an angular change of direction did I realize I saw a rod. They are UFOs but not in a nuts and bolts sort of way. No one is going to "debunk" because no one is involved in solving their genesis. What purpose could this type of creature but to just exist as all normal creatures do.

I need to consolidate all of my vhs videotapes into one, dub it to digital and put the video on YouTube. No one will question what they're seeing. I'll find the tape with the two leopards, create a freeze frame when the rod is right above their heads and the leopards' heads bent down. I'll need time and I'll find this thread again and post the photo.

I agree with a lot of what you wrote. I wouldnt write them off as possibly alien because of how they fly and how they are hidden from the public. I see them as ufos until a valid debunk or their origins and purpose are known.

Good to have you aboard. Rods are as natural as you and I, nothing alien about them. They are not hidden from the public, not everyone has the facility to become aware of them that's why cameras that are set on high shutter speeds can record their reality. Some people, such as me have the optical acuity to see highly speedy objects and be aware of them. The one I saw was more of a blur but when it approached a seagull and made an angular change of direction did I realize I saw a rod. They are UFOs but not in a nuts and bolts sort of way. No one is going to "debunk" because no one is involved in solving their genesis. What purpose could this type of creature but to just exist as all normal creatures do.

I need to consolidate all of my vhs videotapes into one, dub it to digital and put the video on YouTube. No one will question what they're seeing. I'll find the tape with the two leopards, create a freeze frame when the rod is right above their heads and the leopards' heads bent down. I'll need time and I'll find this thread again and post the photo.

originally posted by: Lathroper

I agree with a lot of what you wrote. I wouldnt write them off as possibly alien because of how they fly and how they are hidden from the public. I see them as ufos until a valid debunk or their origins and purpose are known.

Good to have you aboard. Rods are as natural as you and I, nothing alien about them. They are not hidden from the public, not everyone has the facility to become aware of them that's why cameras that are set on high shutter speeds can record their reality. Some people, such as me have the optical acuity to see highly speedy objects and be aware of them. The one I saw was more of a blur but when it approached a seagull and made an angular change of direction did I realize I saw a rod. They are UFOs but not in a nuts and bolts sort of way. No one is going to "debunk" because no one is involved in solving their genesis. What purpose could this type of creature but to just exist as all normal creatures do.

I need to consolidate all of my vhs videotapes into one, dub it to digital and put the video on YouTube. No one will question what they're seeing. I'll find the tape with the two leopards, create a freeze frame when the rod is right above their heads and the leopards' heads bent down. I'll need time and I'll find this thread again and post the photo.

If no mainstream science or media sources acknowlege them as real and claim they are moths, I consider that hidden from the public. 99% of everyone that claims rods are debunked reference the monsterquest episode.
Then again, I don't think it would be good if the majority of the public knew they existed.
I would like to see your video when it's uploaded.

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails

originally posted by: Lathroper

I agree with a lot of what you wrote. I wouldnt write them off as possibly alien because of how they fly and how they are hidden from the public. I see them as ufos until a valid debunk or their origins and purpose are known.

Good to have you aboard. Rods are as natural as you and I, nothing alien about them. They are not hidden from the public, not everyone has the facility to become aware of them that's why cameras that are set on high shutter speeds can record their reality. Some people, such as me have the optical acuity to see highly speedy objects and be aware of them. The one I saw was more of a blur but when it approached a seagull and made an angular change of direction did I realize I saw a rod. They are UFOs but not in a nuts and bolts sort of way. No one is going to "debunk" because no one is involved in solving their genesis. What purpose could this type of creature but to just exist as all normal creatures do.

I need to consolidate all of my vhs videotapes into one, dub it to digital and put the video on YouTube. No one will question what they're seeing. I'll find the tape with the two leopards, create a freeze frame when the rod is right above their heads and the leopards' heads bent down. I'll need time and I'll find this thread again and post the photo.

If no mainstream science or media sources acknowlege them as real and claim they are moths, I consider that hidden from the public. 99% of everyone that claims rods are debunked reference the monsterquest episode.
Then again, I don't think it would be good if the majority of the public knew they existed.
I would like to see your video when it's uploaded.

Many years ago when I discovered rods I tried, unsuccessfully, to get scientists at the American Museum of Natural History, just a couple of blocks from my residence, to show just curiosity at what I was proposing and to let me visit them and introduce them to the new aerial phenomena. I did not receive a reply. This is not something that can be approached by entomologists because they are at a loss for product to research. I don't know if it's possible to catch a rod, those that are smaller than the sky-high large speed demons. They don't seem to crash into anything so acquiring a "body" may be impossible. Since thousands of videos of rods exist, it would be no more than news of the latest UFO video which people now just take for granted and no one gets up in arms. There are still lots of undiscovered creatures. One of these days...

One question: does anyone know what is the oldest photo of a "rod"?

a reply to: ArMaP

"Photo" could be misinterpreted as needing no manual intervention.
I'm pretty sure the priestesses at the Newgrange Ireland observatory marked the cave walls to record the changes in sun and moon positions as the seasons and years passed by 5200 years ago.

a reply to: Cauliflower

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that.

originally posted by: ArMaP
One question: does anyone know what is the oldest photo of a "rod"?

To answer your question first, a good source to look for early photos of rods are movie lobby cards from the '20s of black and white westerns as they featured lots of outdoors with lots of clear uninterrupted sky.

Good question. When I first got involved with the subject I did a bit of research but not into photos. The emulsion film 35mm SLR that I was using before I got my first digital camera couldn't handle recording the speed of rods. And since rods were unknown, it didn't matter. It's ironic that before I got introduced to rods via Jose Escamilla, using a videotape camcorder I did tape a rod which I finally saw after viewing the tape a few times.

Being a movie enthusiast, on TV I saw movies from the '20s, '30s and so on. Since I watched silent westerns I began to be aware of rods, similar to the movie "Braveheart". Not part of the film, but a documentary was made showing Mel Gibson between takes, in costume and holding a script. A photo from the doc. shows Mel and a big, dark rod in the sky behind him. I just tried to find the photo, as I've seen it, without success. I guess it's time I watched the movie 'cause I really don't like "costumers" of that genre.

But I did find an article mentioning the above you may find interesting. The Jeff Ferris mentioned is a rod compadre and he is the one that supplied me with a copy of the rods documentary in which I'm included 'cause the doc. producer failed to send me a copy.

Check out any movie that has lots of outdoors scenes, especially westerns that feature horses as I think rods are attracted to them.

Rods: The Update
PETER GILSTRAP | OCTOBER 24, 1996
www.phoenixnewtimes.com...

Braveheart--Mel Gibson: A Film Maker's Passion is the name of this tape, a short documentary on the making of the Oscar-winning film Braveheart. But it is so much more than that. Especially if you possess the Rod-spotting capabilities of Ferris. There is one scene of Gibson standing there in his ancient Scotsman outfit, bullhorn and script in hand, against a brilliant blue sky. But if you play it back in slow motion, you see that Mel has a co-star in this particular shot. A Rod, plain as, well, plain as Rods get, flies by in the corner of the screen.

At YouTube a search for "sky rods" lets you access 148,000 videos, not all pro, of course.

a reply to: Lathroper

I do a lot of random sky recordings and caught this ufo.youtu.be...
I mislabeled it a disk, it is more shaped like a rod or cigar. Do you believe this is a rod? If its a rod, I think it could be one of the largest ever recorded.

Another interesting difference that I see between rods and insects is that I have never seen a rod hovering on video, they are always moving at a fast speed. Their shape does not change between frames when looking at the total length. I have analyzed a number of out of focus insects and birds and the length changes between movement and wing flap.

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
Another interesting difference that I see between rods and insects is that I have never seen a rod hovering on video, they are always moving at a fast speed.

If rods are a result of a common insect moving fast then it's natural that they do not appear hovering, as when hovering we can see them as common insects.

Their shape does not change between frames when looking at the total length.
If they are insects captured with a long exposure then they will appear with the same size in every frame if they keep a constant velocity, a change in velocity would result in a change of length.

I have analyzed a number of out of focus insects and birds and the length changes between movement and wing flap.

Out of focus? You are doing the wrong comparison.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
Another interesting difference that I see between rods and insects is that I have never seen a rod hovering on video, they are always moving at a fast speed.

If rods are a result of a common insect moving fast then it's natural that they do not appear hovering, as when hovering we can see them as common insects.

Their shape does not change between frames when looking at the total length.
If they are insects captured with a long exposure then they will appear with the same size in every frame if they keep a constant velocity, a change in velocity would result in a change of length.

I have analyzed a number of out of focus insects and birds and the length changes between movement and wing flap.

Out of focus? You are doing the wrong comparison.

I noticed that when I try to record at the slowest shutter setting possible during the day, I can only slow the exposure down so much or the image becomes too bright to see anything. I also saw that most, if not all videos that I could find on youtube with slow shutter speeds were done at night. It is nearly impossible for me to slow the shutter speed down enough to blur an insect in the daytime and have it appear as a rod.

Here is a zoomed and out of focus wasp flying close past the camera at near full speed. If I wanted to try and make insects appear as rods, how would I go about making them appear like the rods posted in the OP? I have analyzed in focus and out of focus insects, none appear as the rods. I have caught birds when the shutter speed was lacking, they had some interesting appearances, but still not close to the rods.

a reply to: ArMaP

I use slow shutter speed and out of focus kinda the same because the slow shutter speed makes the fast objects appear out of focus.

a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

As I promised in a reply I have placed a video at YouTube showing a leopard in the wild being startled by a rod that zooms by just above their heads. When I first saw the nature documentary, the lead leopard's sudden shoulders dip caught my attention and then I saw the rod flying over their heads. The doc. was scheduled to repeat a couple of hours later so I taped the sequence. VHS videotape records at low resolution, even in SP. For this offering, I set up my Canon PowerShot SX1 IS which records in high definition. So while the resultant video is not super-sharp it is adequate and since I play the tape first in real time which will allow you to see the rod, if you have quick eyes, then I play the tape in slo-mo so you have a better chance to pick out the rod and, finally, I play the tape in frame-by-frame and I go to the TV and point out the rod so you can see that it is a real rod. After you play the YouTube video to the end watch it again and again and train your eyes to spot it in real time. I've always been able to see rods in real time.

In case the video shows up as an error message, just go to YouTube and type Rod Startles Leopard

What do you think?

originally posted by: ArMaP
One question: does anyone know what is the oldest photo of a "rod"?

I got this one. While watching the footage of rods I've accumulated, in a documentary featuring Jose Escamilla it seems he is asked your question. Jose replies "1910" and shows a black and white photo showing a large, black rod. To find out more about this photo Jose would need to be contacted. I'll try and if I can get through to him, as an old friend, I'll query him about the photo and if he still has it I'll ask him to email me a copy which I'll post here for your benefit.

originally posted by: Lathroper
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

As I promised in a reply I have placed a video at YouTube showing a leopard in the wild being startled by a rod that zooms by just above their heads. When I first saw the nature documentary, the lead leopard's sudden shoulders dip caught my attention and then I saw the rod flying over their heads. The doc. was scheduled to repeat a couple of hours later so I taped the sequence. VHS videotape records at low resolution, even in SP. For this offering, I set up my Canon PowerShot SX1 IS which records in high definition. So while the resultant video is not super-sharp it is adequate and since I play the tape first in real time which will allow you to see the rod, if you have quick eyes, then I play the tape in slo-mo so you have a better chance to pick out the rod and, finally, I play the tape in frame-by-frame and I go to the TV and point out the rod so you can see that it is a real rod. After you play the YouTube video to the end watch it again and again and train your eyes to spot it in real time. I've always been able to see rods in real time.

In case the video shows up as an error message, just go to YouTube and type Rod Startles Leopard

What do you think?

I think it's a rod, but I don't think it is equivalent to videos showing rods in higher resolution with newer camera technology. Even with the resolution, I don't think rods can be replicated by insects under slow shutter speed. The only way to really prove them to a skeptic would be to catch them on 2 or 3 different cameras at the same time with them recording at different shutter speeds.