Jose Escamilla's Roswell Rods

Originally posted by isitmagic
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]

The first question is "do rods exist as a seperate, unknown species?", not whether they can pass through stuff. We know insects can look identical to rods, so first of all we have to figure out how to differentiate the two, to make sure Jose hasn't just captured insects on film, got confused about how cameras work, and let his imagination run riot.

reply to post by dave420


sounds like this should be almost moved to a different forum. Like mythical beasts and creatures.

Besides we have unicorn on film, bigfoot on film, mothman on film, nessie.

Mothman flies, but not in the ufo and alien forum, oh, that's right, he's identified, it's mothman. So that brings me to this. Our flying creatures have been identified as rods. This has no business being in the ufo forum.

Yeah UFOs on youtube are so much easier to see except for all the
balloon and plane people. The video is just presented and thats it,
people come by with ideas they think are valid but are from nowhere
actually.

We got some plasma people now so thats an improvement.

A rod is a rod is a rod, its just on film with the rest of unknowns.

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

So why bust chops over any ones presentation, you asked for it, you got it.
If you didn't ask then no explanation suffices.

Some rods or tubes or zeppelins might be Tesla powered, those are the
only ones I take interest in.

There is one video that shows that rods and insects look exactly the same. Watch the last few seconds, you can clearly see transitions from rods to bugs. The fact that the two phenomenon look identical is very telling.

Mystery of the RODS! Google video


Mystery of the RODS! YouTube

reply to post by RING0



actually jose's thread was originally posted in the ufo forum and got sent back here to the small table. Mostly probably because of myself.

Have a field day with his commercial folks.

I'm done. This guy's work is too much of a joke. I apologise if I cross the line in describing his work like this, but it is. He's selling so much rubbish when the truth is staring him in the face. Talk about a conflict of interest between being honest and money. Disgusting.

Did anyone really expect anything else then hot air from Mr. Escamilla ?

He stated, that he's researching "rods" for thirteen (!) years and hasn't come up with ONE single solid photo, where things like shutterspeed could be verified. He sells his films on his website and i guess anyone can imagine, how much profit he could make, if he would post just this one photographic proof, if his experiments would be backed up with undeniable evidence. Hell, even i would purchase his movie with this background.

Personally, this leaves me with just one explanation - he has none and he is fully aware of it. Somehow i get the feeling, that he won't be very long on this board, too much questions, to much background checking and not enough believers.Well, there's still GLP...




[edit on 19-12-2007 by Phil J. Fry]

reply to post by RING0


Yeah, rods a real photographs.
Only some might be the super zeppelin, or tube ufos.
But I don't think Jose will find one or be sent one in collaboration.

He can talk about rods all he wants BECAUSE everyone will be looking
for the real ufo cylinder craft.

Lets not play games, thats the secret or unspoken reason people buy films
for rods, unless a lot of biologists are taking this serious.
But thats their prerogative how they spend their money.

Jose may talk about rods but the people are think ufo.

Originally posted by Phil J. Fry
Did anyone really expect anything else then hot air from Mr. Escamilla ?

He stated, that he's researching "rods" for thirteen (!) years and hasn't come up with ONE single solid photo, where things like shutterspeed could be verified. He sells his films on his website and i guess anyone can imagine, how much profit he could make, if he would post just this one photographic proof, if his experiments would be backed up with undeniable evidence.

He also told Springer he had something important to show him when Springer himself asked about this, and then the two (I assume) went off to speak privately about it.

So unlike certain other posters who have ZERO patience and want everything NOW NOW NOW, like small children, I'm waiting patiently to see what develops from that....

Originally posted by MrdDstrbr
He also told Springer he had something important to show him when Springer himself asked about this, and then the two (I assume) went off to speak privately about it.

Careful what you assume, MrdDstrbr. Do you remember how you assumed that Cult Greer was cooperating with Jose, but Jose outrightly dismissed that suggestion?

I do agree that we should wait and see, in case Jose and Springer have been in contact.

Hello,

What are RODS ? Unidentified artefacts on camera & film, anything ranging from dust particles flying close to the lens to insects, it has been proven by
scientists not by film makers.

Wiki is your friend : Flying Rod mystery solved
en.wikipedia.org...(cryptozoology)

To Jose : Could you please stop that, there's young people in here, do not teach them this kind of stuff ? They are going to look stupid at school.

What is next ? : hypersonic alien insects ?


Later,

Originally posted by tezzajw
Careful what you assume, MrdDstrbr. Do you remember how you assumed that Cult Greer was cooperating with Jose, but Jose outrightly dismissed that suggestion?

Of course I do. What's your point?

Considering how much footage from TDP is in the film, I don't think it was an unreasonable thing to think....

So it turns out I was wrong. I'm a human being, I'm allowed!

I do agree that we should wait and see, in case Jose and Springer have been in contact.

Yes. A little patience would behoove everyone in these threads, otherwise we all have to wade through pages and pages of complaints and bickering to get to the good stuff....

reply to post by RING0


Yeah okay, i was pretty much behind Jose until i saw that video and read this

There was a girlfriend of mine from Arizona I have since lost contact with, but while we were parked at the side of the highway, and while I was flashing the headlights at them trying to get their attention, in my rear view mirror, I saw what appeared to be a reptile looking humanoid.

Come on now, thats pretty outrageous!


[edit on 19-12-2007 by LwSiX]

[edit on 19-12-2007 by LwSiX]

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 2010/8/26 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by MrdDstrbr
What's your point?

My point is that you don't want to assume that there's any cooperation between Springer and Jose and be wrong AGAIN, right? Sure, you were wrong once, please don't make the SAME mistake twice.

Springer posted this a few hours ago...

"Someone please list out the evidence (preferably with quotes) that Mr. Escamilla has promised to provide so I can make a formal request for it to be presented with a deadline attached that if not met will result in account privileges being terminated. Springer"

Take your own advice and not jump to any conclusions. Wait and see what happens... I'm about to crack open a bourbon, you do the same and we'll see how it all turns out when it's done. Maybe we can swap drunken stories about moths, scalar weapons and such?

Here we go:

I am currently uploading videos on You Tube and as soon as they are ready I am posting the links here. Doing this right now. I'll be back soon.

Jose Escamilla


[edit on 19-12-2007 by Jose Escamilla]

Do your thing, Jose Escamilla. I'm a skeptical believer in some things, except things like your honest work Sir.
What I have wondered a wee-bit about though, is, why picked up on video and not on film over the years?

Dallas

Underwater Footage:

This is footage taken by National Geographic cameras in the Sarogosso sea. The thing about this footage is that Rods are seen entering the ocean. Also included here is footage taken off Long Island Sound. The light in the far distance is on a bouy. (sp???)

The Rod comes "out of the ocean. It travels very fast as it emerges. When Jim Peters and I read emails from people claiming they'd seen Rods in the oceans , we went...nah...no way.

This footage was sent to us and after we saw the National Geo footage, we went back to this clip and found this one coming out of the ocean.

Dr. Jack Kasher, was blown away saying this takes the phenomena into a total different level.

This is why, I know that there may be insect footage out there that can explain away some of the clips, but this underwater footage really takes you to another level of trying to understand what we are dealing with here.

www.youtube.com...

Jose Escamilla

Protopterygote:

During my move back to Los Angeles in 1998, I met Dave Blackburn who brought to my attention a book entitled: The Origin of Flight.

In this table top book he brings me something that totally blew me away. Dr. Robin Wooten had written a thesis on what he felt was the prehistoric ancestor to today's insects. What I always would have thought the ancestor to today's insects would have looked like, I would have felt that a giant dragon fly would be it.

When I saw the photo of an actual model Dr. Wooten commissioned someone to make that actually glided, and was aeronautically stable, I totally maxed out!

So we tried for a couple years to try and get him to appear on camera and tell us his thoughts on whether or not Rods could be living prehistoric ancestors that may have 'survived."

He never even gave an email response to our requests. We were totally ignored. So all these years we have wanted him to comment on the Rods. Well finally History Channel has him! He's in the new Rods special (please I am not hawking this special for profit), I get no money from it. I got paid a flat fee for footage an appearance and believe me, (they never have budgets), so the only ones raking in large dollah to make them hollah is the network from their advertisers. I haven't even been given a screener as a courtesy. I hope I don't wind up getting the shaft again as I got from "Proof Positive" who didn't do as they claimed, study ever aspect of the phenomena. Instead they refused to present the space shuttle footage, underwater footage, because that would make their simple debunking very difficult.

So here is the Protopterygote. (Sorry about my rant), but you people need to know that for every opportunity I've had to present the Rods producers have not been kind nor truthful in their motives.

Proof Positive is one of those debunker programs that need to be exposed for the fraud they are. They claim to be conducting scientific investigations and as they did with the Rods, it was all bunko man...!

www.youtube.com...

Jose Escamilla

Military Rod footage traveling slow as a bird:

Slow as a bird. This is military footage taken in Sundsvalle Sweden in 1988, by a videographer named Tommy Jonestroem. What he was filming were the rapid firing tanks at the military testing grounds in Sweden. He captured a huge amount of Rod footage and it seems they are attracted to the shells, because after each firing oby the tanks, Rods would appear seemingly chasing after the shells in the direction they were being fired.

What is unique about this shot, is that most insect theorists, claim that the CCDs of the camera cause this "blurred effect, when shown in slow motion frame by frame.

Well here we have a Rod that comes from far in the distance and is traveling as slow as a bird. Or at least a little faster than a bird, but what is detailed here is there is "no flapping" of wings. Even if it was a fast traveling bird, it would not glide that far a distance without flapping at least once or twice.. It's a Rod object just cruising by.

www.youtube.com...

Jose Escamilla

The name of the IMAX film is: The Journey of Man.

I went to see the film because I had heard that the 3d was incredible. So I go there and view the film with JIm Peters and we watched it. The 3D is awesome. They had the shutter glasses and this film was just fantastic. Things right there up close and popping out at you.

So we watched it and that was it. Then one about a year later, it was showing again. I went to see it again. Then as I sat there viewing the statues scene, I saw it. ZIP it passed by once and that was it, but in 3D!

I saw a Rod in 3D on IMAX Film!

I had to wait for the second screening to be able to see it again. ZIP there it was again. This time I was waiting for it. No one else in the theater saw this! I was so excited. You don't know what this means! A Rod shot in 3D on IMAX Film! Absolute evidence of something long, orange in color and traveling at a high velocity across the scene! What was great seeing it in 3D was the depth. It was "right there!"

3D as you now will enable us to get accurate measurements of size / length, distance from the camera, distance for the subjects in the scene, and velocity. I watched the film seven times that day and the next. Not one person was seeing this.

SO I contacted the a processing house and asked how much it would cost to transfer a minute of IMAX film to digital Beta. The transfer from the negative is about $ 30,000.00. I needed both shots.

$ 60,000.00 to transfer the footage from both negatives to digital beta so that I could get my hands on it and find out how long and thick this this was, and how fast it was traveling, how far it was from the two actors and the cameras.

This footage being presented here was taken from the DVD, which has copy guard, and I would like to explain something about video transferring. Depending on which deck you are using, sometimes, when you transfer video from a DVD for example, you may catch either the object in one sequence of frames.

What I have to do in order to record from the DVD I have to record it first to a DV Cam deck.

When I see the playback of the very same clip on the dv Cam tape, I am getting a different set of frames captured on playback.

So in this clip, you are seeing only one field where the object appears n four fields or two frames. I hope I am not confusing you. I want to get the digital beta transfers made. Send them to Bruce Macabbe and Jim Diletosso and let them bring forth the data from the 3D information. One of these days this will happen. I was hoping all the networks would do this, but they never have enough money in their budgets. So goes the saga.

www.youtube.com...

Jose Escamilla