Well, dang, I hate to be late to the party -- especially after the guest of honor has been ejected -- but just when I thought that "rods" had
quietly passed into cryptozoological history-we-don't-talk-about-anymore, the History Channel's Monster Quest has exhumed this monster from the
But I do want to point out one simple fact: Jose Escamilla has known for many years now exactly what type of evidence he needs to produce before any
rational person is going to take his theories seriously, and he has simply failed to do so, again and again. The double-camera experiment that Monster
Quest showed is actually one that Escamilla said he intended to do at least 8 years ago. So, either there weren't enough contributions to the "rods
research team" to afford a second camera, or he did the experiment but there was too much "experimental error" to produce the results Escamilla
wanted to see, or he just hasn't had time in the last 8 years. And, I can't believe that Escamilla is still touting the arrow experiment video,
which was both unnecessary and irrelevant. It was unnecessary because it's easy enough to calculate how much motion blur to expect from a 130mph
arrow imaged with 1/2000th second exposures; and it's irrelevant because the question now is the same as it was 8 years ago: Where are your videos of
shot at 1/2000, Jose? Do you even have any
"rods" that were shot with that camera, much less being able to prove they were shot
at 1/2000 sec? Why do you instead keep presenting as evidence videos shot by others where "rods" were accidentally captured, and the cameras were
almost certainly using an auto-exposure setting?
It's a shame that Escamilla won't be answering that here, but anyone expecting him to answer it elsewhere would be well advised to not hold your
breath. Instead of answering those questions 8 years ago, and after promising that the "totality of the evidence" would soon prove how wrong his
critics were, Escamilla shut down the forum that he had on his site then, and then started REMOVING
most of his "rod evidence" images.
(Significantly and in particular, he removed all images that showed sequences of frames with an identical
pattern to what I had been able to
produce by shooting bugs or even tinfoil balls thrown in front of the camera. Anyone who thinks Escamilla must be an expert at distinguishing "rods"
from bugs needs to take a look at my study at opendb.com...
) and follow all the links from that page.)
But then, in about 2004, he produced a DVD to sell along with his earlier VHS tapes, and instead of addressing the obvious criticisms raised years
earlier, he included shot after accidental shot that showed exactly
the same tell-tale sequential streak pattern that proves they're just
motion-blurred insects shot at 1/60 exposures. (opendb.com...
Now, it seems Escamilla has changed his tactics somewhat. Instead of more simple and boring bug flicks, we get this: Assume
that Escamilla is
correct when he asserts that a rod-shaped "something" is diving into the water next to the turtle and leaving a trail of bubbles -- it can't be an
insect. Then look at other videos which look exactly like the earlier bug streaks, but assume
Escamilla (who must have sharper eyes than you)
is correct when he asserts that they are actually entering or leaving the water -- those can't be bugs. Assume
that another streak isn't a
little bug near the camera, but it's really way, way over there and and flying directly into a tornado -- that can't be a bug, either, huh.
Sorry, Jose, but that sort of "proof by assertion" is far, far short of what you were promising 8 years ago.