Jose Escamilla's Roswell Rods

reply to post by Slamminuk


The space ship photo is here on ats, look in Interstellar or some

other linked thread.

Its basically a bunch of triangle ufos high up in the atmosphere.


Looks like some people are give some credible evidence to Jose,
unless it was his photo.

Testing...testing...let's see...Jose is no longer allowed in here, yet there are people still posting here and verbally insulting him continually and being allowed to do so. Hmm, Springer, should this thread have been closed by now? Why are you allowing this?

reply to post by rggeorge


Just ignore them, rggeorge.

Eventually people will let these threads drop....

reply to post by MrdDstrbr

Eventually people will let these threads drop....

Yes sure, also thought about this, but on the other hand and since at least one of Escamillas mouthpieces is still opening new accounts here, i'm still waiting for the high shutter speed photo

Originally posted by Phil J. Fry
mouthpieces is still opening new accounts here

Yeah it's funny how various people with various agendas do that, eh?

I personally just stick with 1 account - a lot less micromanaging to worry about that way

Propane gas powered gun

Jose never came clean if the rods were ropes fired from gas guns.
Does anyone have info on this.

Why does talking to Jose seem so money related.
Will Interstellar cause a rise in telescope and camera stock, don't think so if
thats all you find in outer space.

I think Jose is like Alex Jones exposing the secrets of the activities of
the big time elite rulers. Money talks as we all know so Jose will keep on
talking. Rulers have one problem, the fear of people knocking them off
their pedestal. If you have talk to one, thats what they think of most.

Jose wasn't talking or listening to me thats for sure.

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 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 )

Do you think Monster Quest will show the rope going by.

Or will they say this is a HOAX.

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]

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.

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 graveyard.

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 RODS 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.

reply to post by TheEmilitist


I think that footage is still being posted.

Years back some ex - Air Force Officer said it was a rod.
That was odd cause I called it Hitlers Super Zeppelin or
a Quad Plasma Motor Tesla Airship.. airship because electrified
air is essential for operation. A basic free energy device, quite
conceivable 100 years ago.

ED: RuneSpider, sorry I think you were the intended link.
ED+: if Super Zeppelins are the only rods then the FBI and others
are staying away from the rod project.. rod project went bust..
small wonder.


[edit on 1/13/2008 by TeslaandLyne]

[edit on 1/13/2008 by TeslaandLyne]

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.

All he said was (partial quote):

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.

So now I've seen none of it.
The History Channel is full of hoaxes and copy that is untrue.

Hoaxes don't hurt since they must have been going on for a long time.

Who is hurt by hoaxes?

reply to post by .Sol.


Yeah, I think he accepts hoaxes from others, like they know they can hand
this stuff off to him. If its generated by cover agents, so what, let
them defend it. They soon disappear.

The rod theory was just a smoke screen of the Air Force or some agency
to cover the FOX TV video.

Funding for the bunny trail followed and Jose took it.
Illuminati money is just as good as the honest joe's.

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.

Year, I think they chose Jose for Illuminati funding to prove rods.

Some say its bugs so why spend all that money.

I saw somewhere that the explanation for the "rods" was indeed insects flying across the camera view.Something to do with speed of the wings fapping or something like that.

The piece of film i saw was being filmed looking down into a pothole or underground cavern or something similar.

Anyone back me up on that?

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]

Typical tactics since WWII to hide the Electro-U-boat, and flying saucers, cigars and triangles.

The stories are so dumb, but they would have nothing to talk about
for 50 years.

The Uranium starved Nazis is another lie, I now think ... where did
Bush say Saddam was getting Uranium.. Nigeria... they had so much
they were shipping to the other devil nation Japan on submarines.

I hope we see the Trinity Bomb test again... we went from that to
successful weapons. I hope they are hiding weapons testing footage
for Nation Security Reasons but they might be all German films.

reply to post by Jose Escamilla


Mr Escamilla there is a good study and explanation by Amy Herbert or Hebert, but I don't have the site handy. The "rods" look somewhat like "cuttlefish" with a rippling fin along each side, which is what appears most prominent in digital photos and videos of the phenomenon. It is my belief, based on numerous studies and Amy's work, that these are
artifacts of digital video technology. This is primarily due to the following...
"Rods" were first noticed after the advent of digital videography, and further after the wide popularity and availability of digital video recording equipment. I have not seen an example of "rods" recorded on typical emulsion-type film...only on video. Video and the technology used to produce it allows moving objects to "smear" as in film, but in a different manner. On film, a moving object smears as a function oif moevment while the camera shutter is open, which presents a"blur". In video, the "smearing" is due to a stroboscopic activation and deactivation of the camera sensor, which results in a series of exposures in a single frame. What results is that in the case of a flying insect between the camera and the distance, the insects wings are imaged several times during a single "frame". Also, the insects' body is imaged several times in the same frame as well. In combination, this gives the appearance of an elongated body with a "rippling" wing structure.
What Amy Hebert did was to go to a location...a Walmart store as I
recall...late at night. She drove to a light standard in the parking lot.
Buzzing around the light fixture at the top of the standard was a cloud of insects...perfectly visible in the light. She took several exposures wit a
digital camera...which uses the same imaging technology used in video
cameras...and the resulting photograph revealed dozens of "rod-like"
entities, and very few which could be readily identified as insects. This showed that the insects...clearly visible to the naked eye...were being imaged as "rods". What would be very interesting in further supporting the "video artifact theory" would be to have a film camera and a video camera mounted together and pointing at the same area. If a "rod" appeared on the video but not on film, this would prove that the "rod" is an artifact, since it is impossible for a life form to alter its appearance based solely on the mechanism used to record it. As far as I'm aware, this has not been done to date. At this point, I remain convinced that "rods" are an artifact of th digitalvideo recording technology. I am always however ready to hear an opposing viewpoint, and to review additional evidence to the contrary I would be happy to correspond further with you on this subject. .

reply to post by TeslaandLyne

quote]Originally posted by TeslaandLyne

"OK 9/11, its on film now and unknown as ever."

Speak for yourself TaslaandLyne most people don't categorize what happened on 9/11 as an "unknown".Do you contend that jet juel didn't bring down the Twin Towers and that maybe our government had something to do with it as well?I'm curious.Hey we're entitled to our own opinions but you are incorrect to post such a statment as FACT and not as OPINION.
God Bless America PEACE anb Ah'm out!

Ive just read all this, does anyone know if Jose has posted the promised photos anywhere else on the internet at all since then?

[edit on 16-10-2008 by marydoll]