reply to post by othello
The phenomenon you are referring to othello is known as "Sundogs" phenomenon.The method behind the experiment which anyone can do is to use an
object (the roof of a house works well)to block out the sun completely but so that the edge of the roof is right at the edge of the
sun's corona.Then throw on some shades sit back wait for your eyes to adjust(takes a few seconds) and you will see what appear to your eye to be
objects jetting across the sky near the sun in all directions spinning or not.Thay look like little boomerangs.This however is only an optical
illusion that i believe is created by the brightness of the sun itself.In actuality what you are seeing are dust particles MUCH closer and MUCH
smaller than we think.Hey guys we need to start using our common sense on the other stuff though,a minimal amount of honest research over the years
has taught me that a few of the phenomenonj you guys still tout as evidence are misinterpretations of natural phenomenon.For example,Rods.
Researcher Jose Escamilla has made a study of this
phenomenon, and has a web site called "Roswell Rods" or similar.
I have looked into this as well, and found 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
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
"Rods" were first noticed after the advent of digital videography, and
further after the wide popularity and availability of digital video
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 insectssa 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 with 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 togetherand pointing at the same area. If a "rod" appeared on the video but not
onfilm, 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 the digital
video recording technology. I am always however ready to hear an opposing
viewpoint, and to review additional evidence to the contrary.