It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jose Escamilla's Roswell Rods

page: 7
34
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Phil J. Fry
 


mmk, your good to go then. I just wanted to clarify that minor tidbit, b/c it annoys me when people use wikipedia as a legit source.
- its usually only good for a general overviews on things.

[edit on 17-12-2007 by Odessy]




posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by 11one11
 


MAAAAN, this is one of the BEST rod videos I've seen so far. Its a whol flock or something and the huge one flyes so high, I really don't know if its already in space, since it is moving so clumsy than.

Thanx a lot

iohen



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 06:27 PM
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?


I think the only way to silence the critics once & for all, on the suject is to Catch one & wave it in thair faces.

As hard as they are to see & as fast as they are, I think with all the intelligent ppl here on these boards, we could come up with a foolproof plan to get one into a cage...



Originally posted by neuralfraud
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 some of these things that appear to be up to 3m or more in size (and at least a couple of feet in circumference too), they are just a motion blur from a 2cm insect flying very fast?

Get a life m8.

Debunk if you want, but in the end someone will eventually be proven either right or wrong.

My bet is on the Pro-Rodders at being right & I'll even put money down on it!!!

Hey, is there anywhere I can actually place that bet? And what are the Odds?


[edit on 12/17/2007 by Ironclad]

Mod Note: Trimmed large quotes

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.




[edit on 2010/8/26 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 06:31 PM
link   



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 ?


Ha-ha, did you notice that most of the listed entomologists are DEAD? Huh, and one would have though there'd be at least a couple of live ones left in the whole world.

Wikipedia...ha.

edit: I counted 39 listed entomologists on that wiki page that have no listed date of death, and of those most have no listed date of birth either.

[edit on 17-12-2007 by angst18]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Think I saw someone post about a Robin J. Wootton, don't know if they posted a link, but here it is:

www.biosciences.ex.ac.uk...

Guess the J. could stand for Jon.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Ahhhhh... and here's an article from the Journal Science that relates exactly to what Jose was talking about.

www.sciencemag.org...

You need a subscription to the magazine to view the entire article, and lucky us, I have one, just have to track down my user name and password and I'll post the article. Will look for it after I get home from the gym.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   
MODs, don't be mad that I posted the whole article, but since it's membership only access, I figured I wouldn't get into too much trouble.

Don't know if this clarifies anything.... but here you all go. Now, off to the gym!




Science 23 October 1998:
Vol. 282. no. 5389, pp. 599 - 601
DOI: 10.1126/science.282.5389.599

Prev | Table of Contents | Next
News of the Week
PALEOBIOLOGY:
Insect Wings Point to Early Sophistication
Gretchen Vogel

Catching mosquitoes is no easy way to make a living. In pursuit of their darting prey, modern dragonflies hover, fly backward, and zoom around in tight high-speed turns. To execute these aerobatic maneuvers, the insects come equipped with highly engineered wings that automatically change their shape in response to airflow, putting the designers of the latest jet fighters to shame.

But in evolution, such engineering tricks are apparently old news. In a report on page 749 on a 320-million-year-old dragonfly from Argentina, entomologist Robin Wootton of the University of Exeter in the U.K. and his colleagues describe evidence for a complex airfoil, a structure that forces air to move faster over the top of a wing than underneath it, creating a pressure difference that gives a wing its lift. Not only did evolution come up with such sophisticated flying adaptations very early, but it also produced them more than once. Although the ancient fossil structures have the same effect as the airfoils of modern dragonflies, they are different enough that scientists think the two systems evolved independently. "It's a startling example of convergent evolution," says evolutionary aerodynamicist Adrian Thomas of Oxford University in the U.K.

To achieve the airborne agility needed to chase prey such as mosquitoes and houseflies, a dragonfly must be able both to twist its wings and change their shape to alter the airflow around them. Unlike birds and bats, which have muscles that control the shape of their wings, an insect wing is simply a membrane stretched over a series of veins. But in an example of what Wootton calls "smart engineering," modern dragonflies have a complex system of veins that stabilize and shape the wings without any muscle power. One region, called the basal complex, forms a series of pleats arranged so that when the insect flaps downward, the air pressure on the underside of the wing forces the trailing edge to stiffen and curve down in a classic airfoil shape. Roughly similar to the flaps that open on planes during takeoff and landing, the mechanism allows dragonflies to stay aloft at lower speeds.

Wootten and paleoentomologist Jarmila Kukalová-Peck of Carleton University in Ottawa noticed a region similar to the modern basal complex as they examined a well-preserved, 8-centimeter dragonfly from La Rioja, Argentina. When Wootton, an expert on the mechanics of insect wings, made a three-dimensional paper copy of the wing region, it responded to a force on the underside of the wing--similar to the force of air as a dragonfly flaps its wings downward--in the same way as the modern dragonfly's. The authors propose that the structure played a similar role in the ancient insects, allowing them to get more efficient lift from a downstroke. Thomas agrees. "I made the cardboard models" from their diagrams, he says, "and they work in exactly the same way" as the modern basal complex.

Despite the similarity in function, it seems that the two designs arose independently. They use different sets of veins, and the modern basal complex forms a triangle while the fossil one is a parallelogram. In addition, the wings are attached to the body of the fossil insect differently than those of modern dragonflies, and the researchers believe it was a cousin to, not a direct ancestor of, insects alive today.

Dating from only 10 million years after the oldest known flying insect, the specimen shows how quickly insects evolved sophisticated aerodynamic engineering, says insect flight physiologist Robert Dudley of the University of Texas, Austin. Still, there has been some improvement over the eons. The Argentine fossil is missing another aerodynamic feature present in modern dragonflies--a stabilizing structure called the node, which helps the wings withstand stresses from the twisting required for hovering in place. That may have evolved, Wootton says, as dragonfly prey itself became more aerodynamically adept--adaptations that anyone who has chased a mosquito can appreciate.




posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Step 1. Take a natural oddity (insect or brine shrimp for instance)
Step 2. Add your own flavor of intrigue with an original name that catches attention (something like "flying space rods")
Step 3. Find someone gullible enough to give you money. (Try the backs of comic books or maybe ct forums.)
Step 4. Say goodbye to your daytime job.
Ahhhh....the American Dream!





posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 08:21 PM
link   
[edit on 17-12-2007 by williamjklopp]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by angst18
Think I saw someone post about a Robin J. Wootton, don't know if they posted a link, but here it is:

www.biosciences.ex.ac.uk...

Guess the J. could stand for Jon.


Hey I apologize for getting the name wrong. I was very tired last night / this morning and it is Robin Wooten, Exeter University London. I have the footage and stills of the model I will upload soon.

Thanks.

Jose Escamilla



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Also, just to clarify a few more things...Pertaining to my report that one of you has used to try and make me look like a fool, was on the "white praying Mantis" I saw. It was one morning in Roswell, NM in 1995. I was just waking up, groggy yet sort of still asleep, (alpha state I guess), when I first opened my eyes, I saw this "white praying mantis type head" right over me, face to face kind of looking at me, then I blinked my eyes and it was gone. So that was what I experienced. I know I was not asleep, just waking up, then I blinked and it was gone.

This doesn't mean I'm a kook or fantasy oriented. I am being very honest in my experiences. You can take it as you may, you have a problem, its your own. I just present what I experience and see. Nothing to hide. The thing with that UFO sighting and the Mike Tyson looking thing I saw behind our car, was for real man! What can I say? I saw it!

So I know I'm insane what's your explanation for being ignorant? This...I repeat...this is not a cheap promotional give away. These are very private offings about my experiences and they're free (no PPV), for you to take and use totally against me if you wish. I don't really care. So go ahead have at it. I'm telling you what I experienced.

That's all for now.

Jose Escamilla



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I have some clips I am preparing and will upload soon. Jose Escamilla



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Jose Escamilla
 


For some that says that they are as busy as are, it seems you would want to please "your" public as soon as possible. Why do you continue with your defensive tactics by explaining yourself by calling people ignorant. No one asked you to come here, or asked to be called names. You came here on your own accord. So stop backing yourself into a corner and get on with your uploads if you are going to. Or just keep plugging your thread all the way up to the time the show you plugged on page one airs.

You also stated you never wanted to start this thread. No one twisted your arm.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 01:58 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Alrighty Then

The sniping back and forth will please stop NOW! It add nothing to the thread. If you don't have anything constructive to post or simply cannot resist launching a personal attack, perhaps its time to take a break eh?

FredT, Moderator



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 02:08 AM
link   
it was sooo worth it.

i have a screen capture of it, too!
ah, good times





edit: and sincere apologies fredt.
will not say another word.

[edit on 18/12/2007 by livo74]



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jose Escamilla
So I know I'm insane what's your explanation for being ignorant?


You're not exactly helping our ignorance - you're either charging people for your evidence, or just relaying anecdotes about sleep phenomena you experience.

We don't have the problem - you do. You're the one making claims. You have to either "put up or shut up" - show us the evidence, or stop making these claims without expecting people to shoot you down. If you did show evidence that proves us wrong, I'm sure your research team would grow instantly. As it is, however, many folks are just getting irritated at the deafening lack of evidence.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 08:35 AM
link   
I find Mr. Escamilla unwanting to provide any evidence to back up his claims. He comes into ATS with many incredible claims but has yet to show us one shred of any so-called evidence to back up his claims. As far as these rods or whatever you want to call them. I prefer insect or species yet to be documented by science. Because you see, nature it seems continues to evolve and in doing so, new species are created pretty much on a regular basis. Scientists are discovering new species all the time. Therefore, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that Mr, Jose Escamilla's rods are just another new species yet to be captured and documented.

SO I will say what everyone else is saying, show us the evidence or move on. ATS is not a marketing tool and we take offence more times than not to people who come here merely to push their own financial agenda.

My 2 anyway

PS : I added links to the new species which have been found recently and I suspect these so called rods are more of the same.

Scientists find 24 new species in Suriname

www.msnbc.msn.com...

52 new species discovered on Borneo Island

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Hundreds of shellfish species discovered

www.msnbc.msn.com...


Take care



Edit for T&C compliance




[edit on 18-12-2007 by geemony]



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Ok I found some things which might add to this discussion. Please understand im not here to make Jose look bad. I just see way to much evidence contrary to what Jose wants us to believe.


www.opendb.com...



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   
so... are these rods physical objects?
Can they be hit or touched?
I mean, all of these videos with rods buzzing Just by the camera and noone is ever hit by one or ever touches one? it makes you wonder doesnt it, since they seem to be so close to the camera and all.

[edit on 18-12-2007 by isitmagic]



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join