They are bugs zipping in front of the camera...sometimes ones so small (i.e. no see ums...) that you can't see them with the naked eye, but the camera sees them.

That's why it's so easy to duplicate it....

Yup, I would classify these as the "rods", which have been debunked. They are still neat nonetheless. As technology improves more and more, I think we will see more strange behavior like this, things the naked eye cannot pick up.

Ha ha ha ha. This is just silly. Work with cameras for ten minutes and you will recognise this effect.


There is the one interesting moment in the whole video, at 2:40.

This seems different, it's not the same as the rest. Interesting.

They are 4d critters just becoming visible due to the bleedthrough of the two adjacent realms of 3 and 4d.

You can call them birds or bats or skitters or whatever?

I have read a lot of neat stories about them over the years with people observing them after then were struck down and watching them sort of dissolve or disappear right before their eyes.

Originally posted by Zzub
Ha ha ha ha. This is just silly. Work with cameras for ten minutes and you will recognise this effect.

Well, its a "silly" that has baffled everyone else it seems, including news camera people which I would think have done more than 10 minutes share.

If you know this, I would certainly like the name or the breakdown of the effect. I am certainly not attacking, but just curious as to why people have studied this for some time, and Fox News just made a special on this in June-July, yet here in ATS, the first answers are just bugs and camera tricks?

Why do a 1-hour special on tv if this is dismissed with a slight wave of the hand?

but just curious as to why people have studied this for some time, and Fox News just made a special on this in June-July, yet here in ATS, the first answers are just bugs and camera tricks?

Well, I can say it fairly confidently, because I too once looked into it a lot...

The camera captures an image on film, etc. differently than it truly is... Even a fast blowing dust particle, if close to the lens, will blur and be either dark or light (depending on light source behind or in front of the camera), and give you a "rod" effect.

I'd like to see these "scientists" do the experiment in complete vacuum, clean rooms, and I'd bet good money they won't see any rods on the film, hehe.....

EDIT: Found this...(from skepdic.com)

Rods are insects caught in the act of flying by a video camera. Some hoaxers or very imaginative people have been maintaining that rods are actually some sort of unknown life form of alien origin. But, according to Doug Yanega of the Entomology Department at the University of California at Riverside and a member of the Straight Dope Science Advisory Board, rods are

a videographic artifact based on the frame capture rate of the videocam versus the wingbeat frequency of the insects. Essentially what you see is several wingbeat cycles of the insect on each frame of the video, creating the illusion of a "rod" with bulges along its length. The blurred body of the insect as it moves forward forms the "rod," and the oscillation of the wings up and down form the bulges. Anyone with a video camera can duplicate the effect, if you shoot enough footage of flying insects from the right distance.*

Rods seem to be a favorite topic of UFO and cryptozoology buffs. One of the more outspoken defenders of rods as aliens is Jose Escamilla, host of the RoswellRods.com web site. Jose has even brought his story and films to The Learning Channel. Some hilarious photographs of "rods" have been posted on the Internet at the Escamilla site. My favorite is "the swallow chases a rod" which looks just like a bird going after an insect.

[Edited on 5-12-2003 by Gazrok]

If you did this in a vacuum or clean room, why would their be an entity in there?

I know a bit about photography too and I know distortions when I see them and they do occur,

but the images being produced are problematic for the following reasons:

1. The detail of the images belies simple distortions
2. The consistency of the images over various areas and photographers and conditions of the imaging
3. The lack of PAST history of these images
4. The inability to replicate these effects at will by the photographers, as flaws would require or indicate in any closed SYSTEM
5. The testimony and credibility of the photographers and their inability to explain how these effects are created, and more importantly for critics to reliably recreate these effects.
6. The frequent and obvious evidence that these analomies are in fact some sort of 'lifeform' and not just a flaw in a lens or CCD or light aberation etc.

If you did this in a vacuum or clean room, why would their be an entity in there?

You're missing the point...there wouldn't be any dust particles, nor insects, thus....no rods, hehe....

EDIT: Great link exdog...I remember coming across that back when I was looking into this before....

[Edited on 5-12-2003 by Gazrok]

whens the hour special on fox gonna air?

Originally posted by Gazrok

If you did this in a vacuum or clean room, why would their be an entity in there?

You're missing the point...there wouldn't be any dust particles, nor insects, thus....no rods, hehe....

EDIT: Great link exdog...I remember coming across that back when I was looking into this before....

[Edited on 5-12-2003 by Gazrok]

Indeed exdog...excatly what I was looking for (I was actually there while you posted it).

I am certainly leaning to the explanation provided, but that leads me to have to debunk most ufos as lens flares I suppose. How do they show up on video AND photos is what I wonder...


I rans across this and found it interesting...
-----------------------------------------------------
Rods! I think I may be on crack too, then, as I actually believe in "rods"... whatever the f*#k they are.

Having studied photography for most of my school career, I've actually seen examples of "rods" or whatever you want to call them in photos many times. We even set up tests with our photojournalism teacher back in school, to try to figure out what the hell they were and how to duplicate them, but we could never figure out what they were. They were like, little moving things flying across the frame of the photos- we used our equipment to isolate and analyze them... shape, movement, etc... and could not figure out WHAT they were, or how they got into the picture. We would set up one of the really good expensive cameras, on tripod, and run a video cam concurrently sometimes.... we wouldn't get them on the video, but in our photos, they would be there. We even had some that seemed to cast shadows on the surfaces they passed over in the stills, which would indicate a solid form, but nothing on the accompanying video tape. A photographic/developing anomaly does not cast shadows- yet a solid form that is capable of casting shadow should show up on the accompanying video! We thought they must be insects, but we did tests to exclude that possibility and still got the things. We never could figure out what the things in our photos were, and a few of us continued to study it over the next few years, without ever coming to any conclusions as to the origins of the "rods" (although we had no such names or frames of refererence for them at that time).

I thought we must all be nuts, until years later when I first saw the work and footage that Jose Escamilla and his crew have gotten... the "rods" they photograph are IDENTICAL to the things we got on film!!! I don't know how to explain that. If they are making a hoax, it's pretty damned impressive that they somehow managed to capture on film something weird that is absolutely identical- same shapes, same size, same type of movement- to what I and other photo students had gotten, unbeknownst of each other, well over 10 years ago. And beyond that, they have showed up in different people's photos and even videos from all over the world. And it's not at all uncommon for them to appear in footage during paranormal investigations.

I have no idea what they are, but I absolutely believe they exist, having seen them with my own eyes (well, on film, anyway... one of the freakiest aspects about them is that they are not visible to the naked eye, and just cause we can't see something, that cannot conclusively mean that it is not there, all around us... like germs for example!!) We tossed around many theories... insects that are too fast to see with the naked eye.... electromagnetic anomalies in the air... a variety of other ideas... but we never could conclusively say what the damned things were.

My family and friends have teased and made fun of me for over a decade for believing in them. But like I said, I have seen 'em and even done tests on them personally, so I know that something is up with them?? I think it's cool that Escamilla is continuing on with his studies of them, because I know that he gets a lot of scepticism and flak for his work. He's done some really fascinating documentary stuff about them, and other types of unexplained photographic phenomena, which I am of course totally fascinated with.

I'm sure I will take even more teasing for believing in stuff like this now... heh heh. But keep in mind the following philosophical definition: the state of scepticism - where one is left questioning everything, and thus being left with nothing.
------------------------------------------------

lol it airs right after "When the moon attacks -- on film!" on Sunday

Originally posted by Gazrok

If you did this in a vacuum or clean room, why would their be an entity in there?

You're missing the point...there wouldn't be any dust particles, nor insects, thus....no rods, hehe....

EDIT: Great link exdog...I remember coming across that back when I was looking into this before....

[Edited on 5-12-2003 by Gazrok]

I'm missing the point?

Again I ask, why assume that there would be any entity there of any realm?

You cannot do that, is the answer.

Thus all you would prove is that a speck of dust did not create the problem but since you greatly changed the environment then you do not have a valid test.

Well, if nothing else...I think I have learned more than just about the "rods" issue. I have learned that anything there is, can be debunked and nothing is real. I guess this goes for everything from bigfoot to ufos. I mean, this was one person (or two) with a web site that say they are a hoax, and everyone else says "yep, must be" and "see, the proof is there".

So that means Nessie, Roswell, even the so called 9/11 conspiracies...all just mindless bunk. Why? Well, I have certainly read more than two debunking reports on all of those. Then I must fall into the "deny ignorance" role of "yep, must be true". I have read more about alien bases, and people claiming to move things with their minds (yet they have no video or proof), and even a time-traveler from the future.

The face on Mars is just a hill, the Burmuda triangle that just has regular storms, and I must now include all psychics and thier friends as deluded. No discussion, no ideas or debate...just natural things and people with an overactive mind.

"Deny ignorance" in the true form really means believe nothing. It means deny the things the ignorant idiots around you believe in. That is a sharp hard lesson, but I have seen "proof" to the contrary about everything...from lots of proof to some "expert" with a single web site.

All in all, not a bad day.

This effect is easy to reproduce. i've been accidentally seeing these for years. I've never even considered that somebody would think this was anything out of the normal.

Denying ignorance also means knowing what is fake.

Catching one of these would be very very easy, as soon as a scientist catches one of these, I will believe in them. Until then, they will remain tricks of the film to me.

$0.02

Originally posted by Zzub
This effect is easy to reproduce. i've been accidentally seeing these for years. I've never even considered that somebody would think this was anything out of the normal.

Denying ignorance also means knowing what is fake.

Catching one of these would be very very easy, as soon as a scientist catches one of these, I will believe in them. Until then, they will remain tricks of the film to me.

$0.02

I agree.
Until they catch bigfoot, ufos, or a ghost...they will remain the product of overactive ignorance to me.

Overactive ignorance?

just because you did not see something does not mean that you have the right to deny it or paint with a brush someone that has and call them ignorant?

technically speaking If I understand the english language, you and ZZub and whoever would be the ignorants here, right?

you are not aware or have understanding of, is that not the definition of ignorance?

if you do not want to believe that is fine,
if you need proof of everything that is also fine,
if you are incapable of understanding that is fine,
if you are afraid that it may be true that is fine,
if you think that everybody is lying for some reason that is fine,

but it is not fine for you to have:

a closed mind and to label others as idiots because you do not believe.

answer me this, have you been to antarctica? either of you?

I haven't. so how am I supposed to believe that it exists?

do you believe it exists? why? because there is so much evidence? oh really a buncha photos that could be of the North Pole for example? that could have been altered? how many people do you personally know that have been there? see my point. But you do believe it exists, right? what if it doesn't? what if they are lying to you? is this not a conspiracy website? could there not be a conspiracy that decides to convince the overwhelming population of the world that antarctica exists when in fact it does NOT!

I am trying to make a point here. You take things for granted and you believe things and you even have faith in things. That is the human condition and you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to label others as idiots for having an open mind.