It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Rods How Much Is Known About Them??

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 12:59 PM
Detritus is dirt/dust/insulation pieces/what have you...

and regarding the other pics...
They are no more convincing... especially after hearing how they were "called" by a particular meditation...

I could try to explain how these dont justify rods, but instead, would rather have you post the pics, and see what others say.

My feeling is that a long blimp looking thing in the upper atmosphere is not a "rod" and i dont have an expanation as to what it is... but it isn't a rod, because it has no "wings" as all other rods do... (unless cruel little kids pull them off)
By the very explanation of it hovering, means it is not the same thing as a "rod" also... as they flit about...


posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 04:56 PM
Those other "rods" long black things are not looking the same as the insect rods.

But I would still have to put it down to a photographic effect of something that was infront of the camera. The "rod" over wolverhampton was only noticed after developing the picture. which suggests developing error or it was one or another bird which is flying past.

The ones which the cropcircle site have are all seen after developing the picture which indicates to me it is something small which flew past "in shot". The one above the woman in the crop circle looks like bird wings on each end so it might have been a pasing bird. the sky is quite dark on the picture so the photographer might have put a longer shutter time on the camera to get a better picture, this helped also to get a blurred bird flying past.

[edit on 23/12/2005 by Wig]

posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 02:49 PM
any 1 know how you go about catching them on film as i have a film sony handycam witch films motion not just stills i want 2 see them for my self

posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 06:24 PM
wern't rods debunked a while back?

posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 07:19 PM

some of them travel at supersonic speeds possibly flowing with biogravity network ... They are known as sylphs, like to digest chemtrails ...
the "spiritual" variety belong to the spiritual realm as well as occasional appearance to the physical realm..

I theorize that they are fourth-density spermatozoa for either the grays or the shape-changing reptoids.

And they have been around for millennia; they are even mentioned in the King James Version of the Bible:

Exodus 4:2
Numbers 17:5
Psalm 23:4
Proverbs 13:24
Revelation 11:1

posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 12:11 PM
I've just happened to have a New King James Version Bible in my hands right now:

Exodus 4:2 = So the Lord said to him, "What is that in your hand?"
He said, "A rod."
And He said, "Cast it on the ground." So he cast it on
the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled
from it.

Numbers 17:5 = And it shall be that the rod of the man whom I choose
will blossom; thus I will rid Myself of the complaints of
the children of Israel, which they make against you.

Psalm 23:1-4 = The Lord is my sheperd; I shall not want.
He makes me to lie down in green pastures;
He leads me beside the still waters.
He restores my soul;
He leads me in the paths of righteousness
For His name's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow
of death, I will fear no evil; Your rod and Your staff, they
comfort me. (btw this is one of my fav lines)

Proverbs 13:24 = He who spares his rod hates his son,
But he who loves him disciplines him promptley.

Revelation 11:1= Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And
the angel stood saying, "Rise and measure the
temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there."

Basically, all of these "rods" which you are referring to are not the rods that are being discussed in this thread. The "rods" that you say are mentioned in the Bible are nothing but wooden staffs.
I think you may have just used an online Bible and searched the word "rod" which may have given your theory more backbone. If you still don't think that rods are simply insects which are deformed by video cameras, then smack yourself over the head with an actual rod.

posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 12:42 PM

Originally posted by TheBlueSoldier
The "rods" that you say are mentioned in the Bible are nothing but wooden staffs.

If the rod is a wooden staff, then why does the bible say “thy rod and thy staff?”


posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 12:43 PM

Originally posted by matrix 333
any 1 know how you go about catching them on film as i have a film sony handycam witch films motion not just stills i want 2 see them for my self

It works best in the summer.

Go out at night. Find a bright light source.

Film the bugs flying around.

posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 02:33 PM
to be more specific,
find a place with an overhang that shadows you, with the sun behind you...
then look/film up... (i used my porch overhang myself)

it gets the most bugs..erm... i mean rods...
yeah, rods...

posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 03:34 PM
HowardRoark.... w-was that a serious question? First of all it says Your rod and Your staff, which refers to a sheperd's tools to tend to his sheep. He uses two main tools, which are his staff and rod:

As you can see, he has both a rod and staff. In the bible, these are of course, metaphors for God's love and protection which "comfort thee". I seriously doubt that God's comfort would come from small flying entities. If I sounded too offensive then I apologize, I just wanted to get my point through.

posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 12:33 AM
I was just goofing on ya.

But here is a great video of rods and wierd fishing.

posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 01:55 PM
ROFLMAO. Those fish were either possessed or thought that that light was a giant lightening bug at nighttime.

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 01:49 AM
It is now 2008. I have not found the most recent posts on this yet, but I do enjoy the category under which this is in, and what I am currently watching seems to lean towards an ancient bug or a different dimensional being. I am watching a History Channel special, that is brand new, on the show MonsterQuest...the special being called "Unidentified Flying Creatures" and is all about different video footage of rods. My favorite part is they have enlisted the help of Iowa State University (and they're own "Dr. Who") to investigate the possible aerodynamical ability the rods must have. They create different models and test them. What I find interesting is on this thread there are many people talking about the debunking of rods, yet none show links or proof. Why is this History Channel special being made if it has been officially debunked? Many people disagree with any insect theory on this special and I think that anyone interested in rods should see these new scientific studies (also high-speed camera tests of all types) in this special.

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 05:27 AM

Originally posted by TheEmilitist
What I find interesting is on this thread there are many people talking bout the debunking of rods, yet none show links or proof.

Go to YouTube. Search for Rods. After seeing loads of bunk, you will find a video, where the author claims to have the clearest pictures of rods so far.

Then he changes the shutter speed and you see it's insects flying around a porch light.

Why do we just say they're insects, without linking the proof? Because rods are boring! Why waste even more time on them?

I already wasted enough time on YT before i found this video. But if you're interested in finding the truth, you should be able to find it too.

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 05:39 AM
reply to post by TheEmilitist

Ok, i went back and searched for it.

Here it is:

Now how do you think i feel, after spending even more time on blurred insects?

The reason they only appear on slow shutter speeds, is that slow shutter speeds allow more exposure time and make the insects spread along the flight path.

Choose a higher shutter speed, and you see them for what they really are.

Unless you believe people who think slow shutter speeds can make cameras see into another dimension. In that case... Oh well..

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 05:49 AM
It's funny, how birds don't seem to care too much about rods being so spiritual or extra terrestrial.. They just chase them and eat them.

Bad birds!

Unfortunately, after a bird catches one and lands to eat it, the rods trigger their post mortem cloaking device, which makes them look like a random insect. Just so we would all be fooled and their species can continue living unmolested by humans.. Now if only they could find a way to fool the birds as well....

[edit on 10-1-2008 by deezee]

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 02:04 PM
It was really unnecessary to spend any time out of the ordinary to find a link for that YT video. I guess I should've edited my post after watching the end of the History Channel special. I ended up just finding the other threads more closely related to the actual special and reading/posting there. Thanks for this vid, and at the end of the special on History Channel, they concluded that almost every rod can be reduced down to blur from low shutter speed of some fast moving object (insect, bird, space debris)...there were a few posts in the thread about that the special didn't really touch on what exactly Jose was talking I'm off to research more -- sorry to not provide links to that thread, just getting the hang of discussion boards.

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 02:39 PM
reply to post by TheEmilitist

I completelly understand.. It can be quite disillusioning, when you get all worked up about something, only to fund out it's nothing more than bugs in this case.

But if it helps anyone find the truth, i'm more than happy to contribute. I'm sorry if i was cranky before..
I had a headache.

I myself got pretty interested in this "phenomenon" in the beginning, but that's what happens, when you see many people believing something.

If Jose was a real researcher, he would have to arrive to the same conclusion himself. In fact i'm pretty sure he did. But if he admitted it, he would have one less thing to sell.

Trying to pass insects off as UFOs/invisible prehistoric creatures is simply stupid. No wonder he was banned from ATS in the end.

Another thing he was trying to sell as interstellar starships turned out to be nothing more than shaken long exposure photos of stars.

Low shutter speeds and long exposure times are not methods that can bring reliable pictures of ANYTHING, especially when any kind of movement is involved.

I think this guy hasn't really contributed any usefull thing to UFOlogy. When the motive is book/video sales, you can't really trust the claims.

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:05 AM
man I really thought they were somekind of alien BS but, man was i wrong....

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:25 AM

Originally posted by andre18
man I really thought they were somekind of alien BS but, man was i wrong....

I know what you mean... I'm not a wanna-believer, but these rods had me thinking for a while. Especially after seeing all those "scientists" say they don't know what they are and how they're NOT insects...

I mean, how could so many people confuse insects with "rods"?

I was intrigued. But then i heard they can only be captured with slow shutter speeds.... Motion blur anyone?

What i don't understand is, how people after seeing conclusive proof, like in the video above, can still continue believing in extradimensional UFO skyfish...

Oh well....

[edit on 11-1-2008 by deezee]

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in