Originally posted by THENEO
you and ZZub and whoever would be the ignorants here, right?

you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to label others as idiots for having an open mind.

Hey, please show me where I called somebody an idiot. I work with video and I've seen this effect many, many times. I was merely stating my opinion from my experience.

And, if you read my original post, I even mention a segment of the file that I think is interesting and different from the rest of the film. Nobody bothered to reply to my point.

THENEO, I'd like to hear your reply to this. I think you have unfairly labeled me here.

Right, but the point is its 95%, not 100%. Its just like with alien abductions or alien ufo sightings. If just one case is valid out of all of them, its still a profound discovery.


edit: To ZeddicusZulZorander

[Edited on 12-5-2003 by William One Sac]

Originally posted by Zzub

Originally posted by THENEO
you and ZZub and whoever would be the ignorants here, right?

you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to label others as idiots for having an open mind.

Hey, please show me where I called somebody an idiot. I work with video and I've seen this effect many, many times. I was merely stating my opinion from my experience.

And, if you read my original post, I even mention a segment of the file that I think is interesting and different from the rest of the film. Nobody bothered to reply to my point.

THENEO, I'd like to hear your reply to this. I think you have unfairly labeled me here.

Actually Zzub, he did label you unfairly, he meant me I am sure. My quote was "It means deny the things the ignorant idiots around you believe in."

Taken out of context sure, but accurate on THENEO's part.

THENEO, is you read my post I think you might see what I was referring to was not about any one person, I was commenting more on how people in general, seem to say, "Bill says its fake so it is" just like they say "I am a vampire so they are real".

Seems not much thought or idea sometimes...just a parrot answer.

I don't claim this to be the case with ANY poster here, it was more of a strange realization about people in general that I had. I posted it here but it was not meant to offend. I'm sure a long day has made my judgement slightly warped.

Zedd

rods have been filmed from helicopters flying at rather high altitudes. if an insect is to be blamed for these bits of film, that would make it one HELL of an insect, wouldn't it. not only flying at high altitudes, but strong enough to ignore the downdraft created by a helicopters rotors...wouldn't want to meet one of those in a dark alley.

I'd agree with THENEO (despite his reptillian fetish) that these could very well be 4d beings somehow slipping into our plane.

Originally posted by Zzub
This effect is easy to reproduce. i've been accidentally seeing these for years.
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

In reply to your posting,

agreed you did not use the word idiot,Denying ignorance also means knowing what is fake.


but in my opinion you came as close as you could without using the word.I've never even considered that somebody would think this was anything out of the normal.



for example you said:

'I've never even considered that somebody would think this was anything out of the normal.'

in other words, only an idiot would correct?

and you said above:

'Denying ignorance also means knowing what is fake.'

in other words you are an idiot if you do not agree with me, correct?

lens flares and dust is a very likely explanation for many of the sightings, but in the original post, the 2nd link has a gif with a rod sighting in it.

I've never seen, read, or even heard about an insect that large, that can move around an object falling at 100+ miles an hour like the one in that gif did. I'd like for some of the camera experts to take a look at that one for me and offer an explanation, as i'm ignorant of photography.

Whoa! Roswell rods are causing alot of dividing along the forum.

My personal opinion is that they may be linked to some theorys about UFO's being dimentional bleed through.
But I personally dont beleive in them.

Originally posted by Zzub
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.

Exactly the same thing i was thinking. Great shot!

I think that rods are a load of bollocks, and I am a very opened minded person.

Think of it this way.

Conventional Speed Cameras film at the same ROS (rate of speed) at which humans see. Then why is it that we can stare into the distance and not see these things in real time, yet we could film the exact same area and see rods flying about (not even having to slow down the video). We be able to see them in real time if they really did exist.

Well, Rods are certainly an 'interesting' topic.

In my opinion, we won't be able to know if Rods are insects or not so there isn't any reason in picking a side.

If we can't see them, and the camera's can, I think that would be a reason TO believe in them. If they obviously skip human eyesight, but show up on camera's that take images at the same frame rate, then the image is being messed up before they reach us.

Why would our brain's blank out these Rods if they're just bugs? Or maybe there is something about the electronic eye that gives it an advantage over ours.

I'm not going to pick a side until I see some more compelling evidence, though I think it would be neat if they were real.

According to the "undocumented eyewitness", they seem to be a jelly-like organism. If these animals existed, then their bodies would be eviscerated by the speed and sudden directional changes consisted with their flight behavior.


Think about it.

These "animals" will launch themselves around the camera. With computer analysis, these rods would be traveling at speeds exceeding 300 kph.

Do you honestly thing an animal with a physical makeup similar to that of Jell-O would be able to travel that fast?


It's like shooting a jellyfish out of a cannon. It would break apart in the air. A solid gel (not like hair gel) could withstand enough force to lob it into the air, but no jell-like substance (even resilient ballistics gel) would be able to withstand the force of being launched at over 186.4 miles per hour, and would definitely be torn apart by the sudden change in direction.

These are pretty obviously camera "mistakes". You can't take it literally. Just like the cloud "ghosts" on photographs. They are simply either light reflecting of objects, or electromagnetic exposure to the film. Just like rods, you don't see them when you are taking the picture, but when you see the photo itself, you see them. If you notice, ghosts don't happen on digital cameras. It happens on Polaroid cameras, or cameras that work on exposing chemical treated paper to light. Digital cameras capture the image digitally. There only thing that could effect the digital image would be corruption of the data, or electromagnetic exposure.

The rods are also camera "errors".

You can film these animals anywhere, including inside your house. Now, if you close all windows and doors in your home, how are they getting in? Also, on the camera, they travel at the same speed as they normally do. Now tell me, how can they be flying in an enclosed space, and yet not crash into and through my walls?

I've had flies and bugs accidentally collide into me while flying. It's not a very rare occurrence. And these animals fly very slowly (approx. 5 mph). So, these rods speed through the air, so what would happen if these rods flew into me accidentally? I'd be impaled!

In my opinion, these 'rods' and all other phenomena are simply mistakes of the camera. Until I see something from a reputable source, this will remain my opinion.



[edit on 11/19/2006 by TheRanchMan]

Just curious, have you ever heard of "angel hair"? Could it be that? Angel hair has been a mysterious item, that falls from the sky and cannot be explained and often associated with UFOs. They have been described as glass-like filaments that dissolve when touched. Some descriptions are: cottony, radioactive fibers; silken threads; metallic, tinsel like strands; and shorten, weak cotton-wool like fibers.

One such report, was in the 50's, when someone was actually able to put some in a jar. They sent it to a US Airforce Investigator, but no analysis were ever revealed.

Think this thread is super interesting......

Originally posted by Voidmaster
In my opinion, we won't be able to know if Rods are insects or not so there isn't any reason in picking a side.

If we can't see them, and the camera's can, I think that would be a reason TO believe in them. If they obviously skip human eyesight, but show up on camera's that take images at the same frame rate, then the image is being messed up before they reach us.

You can "know", all you have to do is film some insects for yourself. We all know we can see insects flying so it's not as if you won't be able to see what's infront of you and only the camera will be able to see them.

These are so obviously insects and so easy to prove too this is just a non subject.

I was very into the subject of Skyfish (Rods) when I first learned about them. I found the concept very fascinating.

But now I had to force myself to admit they are merely caused by exposure and insects flying past.

On 8th and 9th August 2005, China Central Television (CCTV) aired a two-part documentary about flying rods in China. It reported an incident which happened from May to June of the same year at Tonghua Zhenguo Pharmaceutical Company in Tonghua City, Jilin Province, which debunked the flying rods. ([3]) Surveillance cameras in the facility's compound captured video footage of flying rods identical to those shown in Jose Escamilla's video. Getting no satisfactory answer to the phenomenon, the curious research staff of the facility, being scientists, decided that they would try to solve the mystery by attempting to catch these airborne creatures. Huge nets were set up and the same surveillance cameras captured rods flying into the trap. When the nets were inspected, the "rods" were no more than regular moths and other ordinary flying insects. Subsequent investigations proved that the appearance of flying rods on video was an optical illusion created by the slower recording speed of the camera (done to save video space). This is the empirical evidence, showing that the "rods" themselves can be captured, and that they do indeed prove to be ordinary animals.

Its enough evidence to prove to me they are nothing more than ordinary insects. I was very disappointed but I just have to accept it now.

Zedd,
My dear man...as a Wizard,
please recite to me the
First Rule ?

Please.
These are nothing more than
insects, dust or some other
mundane minute piece of our
rather ordinary lives.

Of all people, you have surprised
me.

Regards,
Lex

Fiddling with my camera when it was new I took some shots of these midges with a variety of exposure settings. I deleted most of the pics but still have this one. The other pics showed the midges as long worms, 3 or 4 times the length of what's in this photo.

Seems to me like an unknown creature.