It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Eventually people will let these threads drop....
Originally posted by Phil J. Fry
mouthpieces is still opening new accounts here
Originally posted by carpenoctem
I think these things are one of the Easiest things in Cryptozoology to explain. I dont know why Monster Quest chose them, but well find out what they say. (im kind of hoping IM wrong, and they do exist. they're so cool )
Originally posted by gauncents
more to come...
From all of us that are tired of your commercials and free advertising.
Mods? anyone please.
I think you really need to consider what you are accepting here. I know he may have a large name, but do you want to associate your good name being ATS with this mess. Continues to get his way with the terms and conditions of this sight.
Bottom line is this, He is plugging two things...Interstellar, Which he said he would take down if this is a hoax. At the same time this JLW dissapeared. how convienent and his show about rods on the History Channel comming soon. (you are welcome Jose).
We (members of ATS) are not fools.
I am going to add more clips and the still photos that reveal more details and why we need to continue research into the Rods phenomena.
Originally posted by RuneSpider
I would guess the FBI were interested in the video because a unseen, large, flying object was over a airport. Then they overreacted and gave the guy a story to tell even better than just a weird image on film.
Originally posted by TheEmilitist
I find it very interesting that so many people claim "complete" debunking and say they are insects 100%...I am just finishing watching this Monster Quest episode. It was very informative and offered a wide array of views. The last 6 minutes are where they start to conclude about their high-speed camera tests. They conclude that rods are most likely little bits of anything. That each one may be different, an insect, a seagull, space debris...Last 4 minutes about "fooling a camera" vs. "fooling the eye"...Explained as artifacts and the camera "guessing wrong" and they explain as needing the exact right conditions. They claim that ancestral insects may have looked like rods, but they were not good flyers. Iowa State University's aerodynamic tests were very interesting and they tested two rod designs, claiming that one rod could fly but would need a very high propulsion power. The only iffy thing they talk about really is reminding you that the FBI took the footage that was shot at an airport of a rod with no explanation...so final conclusion: DUN DUN DUNNNNNN we don't know exactly what's behind every rod!! (but basically, it is just a variety of fast moving objects)
[edit on 10-1-2008 by TheEmilitist]