Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Jose Escamilla's Roswell Rods

page: 5
34
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 06:27 AM
link   
In one of Mr. Escamilla’s videos I reviewed, I noticed a sequence in which he captioned the shot as being "60 fields per second" (this is accurate as NTSC is about 60 fields per sec.) So, the apparent rod should be moving at about one length per field with a minor amount of overlapping ‘blur.’ Some of them have a difference in length/movement ratios.

Most of his videos seem to be at this speed and this serves as an excellent reference.

But what’s really interesting is I have also discovered that the slowest capture speed in NTSC format camcorders is EXACTLY 1/60 of a second. This indicates that just about any small object will have the precise amount of length/blur as his alleged rods if moving at roughly 40-42 mph. Small insects instantly become “foot long flying rods” and just about any other kind of small object around the same size.

In fact, the “ripple” like or “fin” features of these “rods” exactly resemble how an insect’s wing would distort when captured at 1/60 of a second through an NTSC camcorder.

I think Mr. Escamilla’s mystery has been solved.

And guess what? This is EXACTLY how Sol has it layed-out on OpenDB as well: www.opendb.com... (Imagine that!)

Mr. Escamilla claims these attempts at debunking his assertions are bunk and deliberate misdirections. But is there any way to verify that these video clips have been taken at higher shutter speeds than what was originally noted?

[edit on 17-12-2007 by neuralfraud]




posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Phil J. Fry
 


Well there we have it, our resident wannabe Debunker and slayer of Evil Marketers has thrown down the gauntlet!

I have to admit, I'm also very curious as to what Jose can come up with to counter the debunkers. Let's give him some time though, as he has three busy threads going plus all his real-life work.... (Gotta give you props Jose, if it were me, I'd never be able to keep up with all this stuff
)



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Jose Escamilla
 


Cutting edge physics at it's finest!

Ummm....let's see....why don't planes travelling faster than 600mph relative to a viewer on the ground disappear into 'the dimension of the very fast'?

Perhaps it must be size? Oh wait.....it can't be that. Why don't tracer rounds disappear into 'the dimension of the very fast', when fired from a gun?

I'm stumped. It must be something to do with the properties of this new dimension. So. Do we....


(a) Spend 2 billion Euros to build the world's largest particle accelerator at CERN. Let the world's finest particle physicists/electrical engineers run hundreds of experiments, gathering results using some of the most sensitive equipment ever made. Then let the same scientists produce peer reviewed papers, outlining their interpretation of the results, and how they compare with theoretical models, until a consensus is reached. Then give this data to the world's finest cosmologists, who will spend years working through maths that pushes the boundaries of what the human brain can achieve, again until a consensus is reached as to how to update our current theoretical models. This may or may not lead to the verification of extra dimensions and some basic information about their properties?

or

(b) Whip out a digital camera and hope to film a hitherto undiscovered race of inter dimensional flying sticks?


Perhaps you should submit your research to CERN Mr. Escamilla. Let them know they're wasting their time.

Regardless, thankyou for taking the time to respond to people's post here, even if it is utter nonsense.

Regards,

Tim.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 2010/8/26 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ChunkyBarcode
 


Dude the Demention of the very fast is just a term for Something that travells too fast for the human eye to catch.

It's not a alternate dimention.

If the right conditions are met, a fast moving object can either be seen, or not seen, according to whatever the conditions dictate.

Reflectivity, Range, Size & Color are the main factors that will determine whether you can see it or not.

Tracer rounds can be seen because they are very bright.

Jet planes can be seen "even at moch 2", for several reasons....

1. they are very large.
2. they are often dark against the lighter colored sky.
3. because when something is further away, it appears to go slower than it really is, because the field if view is much greater than the object can cover.

A bullet cannot be seen by the naked eye because it is very small & travelling faster than the eye can see at a much closer range "covering more ground that the eye can focus on in it's fielad of view.

Rods can not be easily be seen because they are translucent & small, although not travelling as fast as a bullet or jet plain (their estimated speed is only around 200 - 300 mph), they are easily missed.

Picture a Jellyfish (translucent but reflective), travelling at 300mph. It would be very dificult to see unless its reflective body catches the sunight at the right moment, giving you a quick flash as they speed by.

While a Race car going past at 300mph can be seen because it is very large (though it would stil look very blurry if you are colse to it).


[edit on 12/17/2007 by Ironclad]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ironclad
reply to post by ChunkyBarcode
 


Rods can be seen because they are not travelling as fast as a bullet or jet plain. Their estimated speed is only around 200 - 300 mph,...


Actually, according to the optics involved and the science of how these particular camcorders work, they are traveling much MUCH slower than 200-300 mph. We are looking at roughly around 40-45 mph which places it easily within the perception of the human eye.

This makes sense if what we are seeing are nothing more than insects and other small objects in the air, and not "rods."



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Can anyone propose a decent experiment that can attempt to prove/disprove the whole rods phenomena? One that both sides, the believers and the rational, can agree on? Because if we can't, then this whole discussion is pointless. So far, I've yet to see any evidence at all of anything other than someone unfamiliar with video and photography not being able to distinguish the mundane from the ridiculous.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 08:42 AM
link   
I think the only thing that's going to either prove or disprove this one is hard video evidence filmed with a high fps camera. Either that or catching one, which would probably be the cheaper option. Jose, have you thought of any ways by which to capture such a creature? Perhaps someone could design some kind of netting system, or perhaps some kind of stun gun?



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
Can anyone propose a decent experiment that can attempt to prove/disprove the whole rods phenomena? One that both sides, the believers and the rational, can agree on?


HEY, I resent the implication that as a "believer" I'm "irrational", and I'm sure I'm not the only one!



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Well, technically you are being irrational, as there is no evidence in support of rods being hitherto-unknown creatures, but there is a metric boatload of evidence explaining everything Jose has said is quite mundane. I didn't mean to offend you.

How about putting a high-speed camera next to a normal camera? If a rod is captured on film on the normal camera, and at the same time an insect is caught on the high-speed, it would suggest they're insects. If, however, both show a rod, then it would suggest rods are as they appear.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:10 AM
link   



Dude the Demention of the very fast is just a term for Something that travells too fast for the human eye to catch.

It's not a alternate dimention.



Hello Ironclad.

Thanks for the response. I think perhaps you might have missed some of the sarcasm of my post. I'm well aware of the concept he was trying to convey. I have a sneaking feeling that the language was chosen to provide some 'ambiguity' of concept, so as to provide a cop out / or somewhere to run to, when backed into a corner. It's often the case in situations like these. Thought I'd just cut that area of retreat off.

Regards,

Tim.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
How about putting a high-speed camera next to a normal camera? If a rod is captured on film on the normal camera, and at the same time an insect is caught on the high-speed, it would suggest they're insects. If, however, both show a rod, then it would suggest rods are as they appear.


Well I think Jose is saying that he has already done all these kinds of tests and experiments, with high-speed cameras etc, to eliminate the "insects" theory.

So I don't think it's "irrational" to believe that he has really found something new at all.

But let's at least wait until he has the time to post all the evidence he has promised us, anyway....



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   
He hasn't performed any tests with actual high-FPS cameras, hence my assertion of irrationality in believers. He's merely stated he thinks streaks he's seen on footage, which he can't explain (but many others can), are aliens/new lifeforms/something else, which is not the same as proving anything.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by The_Modulus
 


While i endorse everyone to try and capture some alien anchor vectors, rods or as we sane people call them "insects" on camera, i personally don't feel much of a necessity for it, since the inventor of the fra... phenomenon is personally available.

One should think, that this man can surely proof the validity of his claims with an original photo, where some exif data can be easily verified. We got some very great image analysts on ATS and i bet there'll be glad to take a look at said picture.


Oh...and Mrd honestly, you're always a great laugh and i hope we'll bump into each others for a long time to come


[edit on 17-12-2007 by Phil J. Fry]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


Please refer to his earlier post right here in this very thread.

Unless he is flat-out lying, he HAS captured Rods with high shutter-speed cameras, and they still look like Rods, not insects.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrdDstrbr
reply to post by dave420
 


Please refer to his earlier post right here in this very thread.

Unless he is flat-out lying, he HAS captured Rods with high shutter-speed cameras, and they still look like Rods, not insects.



Mr. Escamilla can obtain a high-speed camera, allow it to be properly inspected by a neutral party, and enable it to film adjacent to a standard VHS camcorder that has also been inspected. Both of these cameras can be left alone for an agreed upon amount of time. Another neutral group can then later analyze both films.

Neither the VHS tape nor the film will be allowed to pass into Mr. Escamilla’s hands or those of the skeptics. Both formats will be inspected for tampering before and after the recording. Both will be permitted to be filmed as per Escamilla’s “Skyfishing” protocols so long as the high-speed film is allowed to be “truly high-speed,” in regard to shutter speed.

Both parties must mutually agree upon the location where the “rods” will be filmed. (The site itself may also be inspected for tampering if either group believes it to be necessary.)

If a "rod" or number of them is captured on VHS but cannot be corroborated with the high-speed film, we have ourselves a bust.

This experiment may be repeated as often as necessary to Mr. Escamilla’s satisfaction, as I suspect the experiment will yield the same results regardless of how many times it is repeated.

Also: Allow me to say that I believe that these supposed high-speed films are a blatant prevarication as well as the supposed holder of this “rod specimen,” as he has provided no substantial evidence for either.

[edit on 17-12-2007 by neuralfraud]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by neuralfraud
 


That all sounds great, neuralfraud. Now are you willing to take responsibility for setting it all up, rounding up all the people and equipment involved, and paying for it too?

Somehow I doubt it....


[edit on 17-12-2007 by MrdDstrbr]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrdDstrbr
reply to post by neuralfraud
 


That all sounds great, neuralfraud. Now are you willing to take responsibility for setting it all up, rounding up all the people and equipment involved, and paying for it too?

Somehow I doubt it....


[edit on 17-12-2007 by MrdDstrbr]


If I were able to, or find someone who was able to accomodate these parameters, would Mr. Escamilla actually be up to the challenge?

Somehow, I doubt that as well...



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Phil J. Fry
 


you do know that anyone can type anything in wikepidia right? like anything.
so lets try to use a better source.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by neuralfraud
 


Well, neuralfraud, I applaud what sounds very much like an offer to volunteer and get involved!


But, again, this all may be unnecessary, as Jose may already have the required evidence. He has promised he's going to upload lots of stuff for us when he has the time, so let's wait and see what he has before we start jumping the gun here....



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrdDstrbr
reply to post by neuralfraud
 


Well, neuralfraud, I applaud what sounds very much like an offer to volunteer and get involved!


But, again, this all may be unnecessary, as Jose may already have the required evidence. He has promised he's going to upload lots of stuff for us when he has the time, so let's wait and see what he has before we start jumping the gun here....




That would be awesome, and I would appreciate any kind of evidence. Anything to pour over is a veritable treasure to curious types such as myself.





new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join