Jose Escamilla's Roswell Rods

page: 6
34
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:44 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.



Hello Mrd.

If you read the post you linked back to carefully he doesn't actually state he has filmed 'rods' at 1/10000. It shouldn't really be too much trouble for Jose to give us an unequivocal answer to whether he has or not.

I honestly don't believe there's any need for him to though. I don't want to sound too cynical, and like to think I give people a fair crack of the whip, but......

Here's a link to an article by Mr. Escamilla.

paranormal.about.com...

Note the striking similarities , from the 5th paragraph onwards, to the post you linked. That article is over 8 years old.

He also happens to be plugging a TV show in that article as well, just as he does in the OP.

Regards,

Tim.




posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Odessy
 




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


Exactly that's the point. Isn't the absence of the godfather of entomology, the "Einstein" of the world of Entomology in a public wiki a little bit suspicious ? How about the absence in the academical staff of the Exeter University? How about ZERO information on Jon Wooten / entomology on the searchable internet ?

as you may have noticed in my post, i was just wondering and i am very sure, Mr. Escamilla will have a good explanation for this



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChunkyBarcode
Note the striking similarities , from the 5th paragraph onwards, to the post you linked. That article is over 8 years old.


That doesn't surprise me at all.

He likely has had lots of skeptics questioning him in emails and things, so instead of retyping the whole crossbow-bolt story every time, he simply does a cut-and-paste from previous emails.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:09 AM
link   
I try keep an open mind when reading ATS threads, but there's always tell-take signs that make me doubtful..

-Stating opinions as facts


"Rods, as Trevor James Constable says, are only one of the many living organisms that exist in the upper areas of the atmosphere"

"The interesting things we found is that they have this "undulatory wave fin along both sides of their torsos in bilatteral symmetry, much like a cuttle fish. They use it as either a propulsion or a stabilizing feature"



-Too Lucky, or at least statistically improbably so

Not only is he the world's leader in rods, but

"I have had personal experiences with the Praying Mantis types, the white ones, and a reptoid I ran across during a UFO sighting in 1974 on my way to Clovis, New Mexico." also.


-Unbelievable tales


"in my rear view mirror, I saw what appeared to be a reptile looking humanoid. I had the tails lights on and when I hit the brakes, this thing was illuminated and I saw it. She didn't because she was too freaked out .. This thing was built like Mike Tyson! It had this turtle looking head"


- Financial gains

- Lack of proof

There's alot of windshields hitting alot of objects out there;-) Seriously, we find dead animals from 200 million ago;
we even find the crap those animals made eons ago. If something lives and dies around us, odds are we'd know about it?



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by MrdDstrbr
 


I am confident we can arrange this experiment. I would love to see it, if these things do exist this would be the proof that would get the MSM, the universities and the whole bloody world involved in defining them!

Jose, I too would like to know if you have, in fact, filmed these things with a very high speed camera, if so then please provide the exif data with the image(s) for us to review.

Additionally, if these things are captured on high speed cameras doing this experiment will provide the absolute proof you need to take this to the world and turn the critics into fellow researchers.

Shall we pursue it?

Springer...



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 


Awesome stuff Springer, you continue to surprise me all the time


Can't wait to see how Mr. Escamilla responds here....



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ChunkyBarcode
 


No I didn't cut and paste from that you article you posted. I literally sat here last last night and typed the post myself. Although, I am willing to do all the required tests and postings. I have no time to do so at the moment.

I should not have started this thread at this time. I have a full tight schedule prior to the Christmas rush.

Really guys, the main reason I am even here in person is because The Interstellar Case Files thread was getting too many questions interfering on the case files on that thread. So as I mentioned in the UFO Q&A thread just now, I really don't have the time to focus on Rods or UFO-TGSED at this moment. These next two weeks are a very busy time for me. As far as doing tests and all that I have no problems with this and yes I will upload clips and stills very soon, I doubt it will happen today if that's what you are thinking.

Perhaps after Christmas, where I have a day or two to take time out and get the proper footage and stills uploaded. I'm going to have to learn how to upload here, I'm sure it's fairly simple, maybe some of you can assist me here.

I am not shirking the Rods issue. I have been researching them going on thirteen years now and I am not going to walk away from the subject. I have a list of things I want to upload. Just having a real tight production schedule right now and I am the only one doing all this. Aside from web site design work as well. So I hope this is acceptable, and if it is not, I will ask Springer or the Mods to please pull these two forums off until I can really free up my time and focus on one or the other and not all three threads at once as I have mistakenly done. I just got asked to join another forum and I am going to have to turn them down also. My focus right now is The Interstellar Case Files and that's a hand full in itself.

Otherwise I can only list things here as time permits.

Sincerely - Jose Escamilla

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 2010/8/26 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Jose Escamilla
 


Jose, please don't feel as if you have to stay right on top of all three threads all the time. If you disappear for a few days here and there, I'm sure we'll all be able to figure out why


If it takes a few months to get all these things sorted out, I'm sure that'll be fine and there's no need to kill these threads....



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by MrdDstrbr
 


Shall we pursue it?

Springer...


Mr. Springer, can you contact me personally on this? I have something I want to show you and you need to see this before I continue here. Please contact me at any email address. or my cell. Jose Escamilla



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Isnt the proper way to investigate is to rule out the obvious first? Set up a camera or hire a photogragher to take photos or video of "rods" in a verifiably consistent near freezing environment. Wouldn't this come very close to eliminating insects as a source for these "rods"?

Or would it be too easy to draw a fact of convenience i.e. that these "rods", due to biological similarities (I dont know where this could possibly be sourced and verified from without wild speculation) are similarily affected by cold just as insects are? If such an argument would crop up, can it be proven that "rods" by thier nature could not exist in a freezing environment? We all know this is a fact with insects, its 34 deg. outside here right now - not a bug in sight. I dont see any potential candidates for rods either....

Just curious...

[edit on 17-12-2007 by Lost_Mind]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lost_Mind
Isnt the proper way to investigate is to rule out the obvious first? Set up a camera or hire a photogragher to take photos or video of "rods" in a verifiably consistent near freezing environment. Wouldn't this come very close to eliminating insects as a source for these "rods"?
[edit on 17-12-2007 by Lost_Mind]


Blowing snow around the same velocity would cause the 'stretched blur' we see in the insect footage of the rods. This could give much the same appearance at 1/60 fields as the other videos. Any small object would look strikingly similar sans the "fins" you would only get with insect wings.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by neuralfraud
 


Well, then tie in an observable anemometer to the experiment to give the observer the ability to discern what would most likely be airborne wind blown snow and what wouldnt be. Conduct the experiment in as windless of an environment as possible. Also, at or below freezing doesnt necessarily mean that snow will be present, by location minimize that factor as much as possible as well....



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lost_Mind
reply to post by neuralfraud
 

Well, then tie in an observable anemometer to the experiment to give the observer the ability to discern what would most likely be airborne wind blown snow and what wouldnt be. Conduct the experiment in as windless of an environment as possible. Also, at or below freezing doesnt necessarily mean that snow will be present, by location minimize that factor as much as possible as well....


I like this idea, in that case. It would be best to do something really simple like this before throwing a lot of money and resources into it. The only problem I can think of is whether or not these alleged creatures are supposed to be corporeal or 'transdimensional' or what have you. I can't see how to factor in a really insubstantial thing that *might* exist with real factors that affect biological organisms.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Jose Escamilla
 


Hi Jose,

Thank you so much for posting information about Rods.

Do you have the time stamp of the rods appearing in the Adrenaline Rush IMAX HD video? I have a copy of it and would like to check it out. You mentioned this in one of your opening posts


Once again thanks, love your work



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by neuralfraud
I like this idea, in that case. It would be best to do something really simple like this before throwing a lot of money and resources into it. The only problem I can think of is whether or not these alleged creatures are supposed to be corporeal or 'transdimensional' or what have you. I can't see how to factor in a really insubstantial thing that *might* exist with real factors that affect biological organisms.


If this would be the route of common explanation for these objects then this would be utterly unprovable as extraterrestrial in nature. If pure unbridled wild speculation is going to be the tool used to get at the truth whats the point? I mean, Ive got what I consider an open mind about these things we entertain ourselves with here but I DO draw a line in the sand at a certain point. We might as well be trying to measure the weight of the tooth fairy's farts.

It could still be proven as terrestrial in nature though, which is what any investigation should go out of its way to disprove first. I would posit that if these objects are seen on any video or photo (film preferably) obstructing the physical view of other objects in the shot(s) they are corporeal and nowhere but here and that an unprovable "non-corporeal" or "transdimensional" (or insert unprovable mythical scenario here) explanation would be an ultimate to copout at finding the answers here.

Edit to add a thought.

[edit on 17-12-2007 by Lost_Mind]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Unfortunately, I fear that's exactly the kind of explanation that we will run into once Mr. Escamilla has been forced into a corner. If a particular person invented that specific tooth fairy said person can have that tooth fairy take on whatever qualities they want to serve as explanations, so long as they cannot be proven within any valid context.

(EDIT: Sorry about the massive quote. I forgot in my haste that neglecting to trim them down can harm overall user readability.)

---------------------------------------
Quote of entire post directly above removed

please read ABOUT ATS: Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 17/12/07 by masqua]



[edit on 17-12-2007 by neuralfraud]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   
I would just like to know why people have not come across them before?? As far as I know any biological entity has to rest. Rods can't fly around 24 hours a day 7 days a week if they are biological. At some point even if not for very long they would have to stop flying and rest. I would think someone throughout history would have come across a rod perched on a tree, fence, house or laying on the ground.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by 1Angrylightbulb
 


Good point.

They could be some sort of scouting probe or other artificial device like that.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
well angry, it's also possible rods exist in a semi-dimensional atmosphere.
personally, i believe them to be biological entities. who says that between
the fish in the sea and the birds in the air there isn't simply a continuation
of atmospheres and it's living things? nothing is impossible.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I too hit a brick wall with this Godfather of Entomology person and the term Prototerygote is also a dead end. I understand you are busy but an answer to this would have took seconds? Are we making spelling errors?



new topics
top topics
 
34
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join