possible "rods" in 'national geographic?'

Okay so while I was in the waiting room of a doctor's office waiting for my girlfriend to get out, I was reading the latest (January 2008) issue of 'National Geographic' and there was a picture of a volcano erupting. In the picture, I noticed what I have been reading about in this forum for about a week: "rods." Now I am skeptical of these "rods," but I smiled when I saw this, as I thought of ATS. There could be a million plausible reasons why this anomaly, as I am calling it now, appeared in the picture, or maybe it could be the famous "rods" . After viewing the picture and initially thinking they were "rods," I thought that the anomalies were the product of extended exposure, a filming technique I was introduced to in my high school astronomy class. Then, on thinking this, I thought that it might be weird to take a picture of a volcano (a stationary object) with extended exposure. Anyway, if you would like to see this picture, feel free to get the latest issue of 'National Geographic.'

EDIT:

Found the picture (I am so surprised). It is the third to last picture here:

Link.

The "rods" looked longer in the actual magazine. They are probably just stars that look elongated, as the picture was probably took with extended exposure (to get that cool smoke effect). Did I solve my own mystery? What say you?




[edit on 22-12-2007 by they see ALL]

Originally posted by they see ALL
The "rods" looked longer in the actual magazine. They are probably just stars that look elongated, as the picture was probably took with extended exposure (to get that cool smoke effect). Did I solve my own mystery? What say you?

yes, i would agree with that... looks like stars in an extended exposure...

Originally posted by m3rlz
yes, i would agree with that... looks like stars in an extended exposure...

Nice . At least I was able to answer my own question . I did think, however, that extended exposure would ruin the picture of the volcano and so I mentally ruled that option out. Looks like extended exposure was the culprit, though.

i'm no photog expert by any means but i would assume that the camera is stationary, as is the volcano, so as the earth rotates, the stars in the sky are going to 'move', yet the camera and the volcano will stay in the same place, which shouldn't obscure the image of the volcano... does that make sense? lol...

Originally posted by m3rlz
i'm no photog expert by any means but i would assume that the camera is stationary, as is the volcano, so as the earth rotates, the stars in the sky are going to 'move', yet the camera and the volcano will stay in the same place, which shouldn't obscure the image of the volcano... does that make sense? lol...

That makes sense .

The article caption answers the question, you wouldn't have to ask if you just bothered reading.

Unbelievable.

Originally posted by Legalizer
The article caption answers the question, you wouldn't have to ask if you just bothered reading.

Unbelievable.

the caption to which you're referring is for the first picture in the series... the OP is referring to the third from last picture in the series, which the caption states:

Scientists predicted this 2006 eruption of Mount Merapi, but many mystically minded locals refused to leave. “The biggest problem the Indonesians face,” said a volcanologist, “is getting the local people to believe what the scientists say.”

appears you didn't read the OP; unbelievable...

but you are correct, the first pic's caption does say that there is an extended exposure for that pic, which would obviously mean the third from last pic is as well...

They see ALL's mind was thinking about the new lost season starting in February and missed that part about stars.
He did answer his own question though. Good job! OP!!

Originally posted by they see ALL
Now I am skeptical of these "rods,"

You should be skeptical, because the rod phenomenon is nothing but motion-blurred insects. Once a bogus phenomenon starts it seems impossible to put it to rest. Here's a video and some photos to prove that. (Note that I'm not saying the ones in the volcano picture are insects, as others think they're stars)

www.youtube.com...

home.flash.net...



[edit on 23-12-2007 by Elhardt]

Originally posted by Legalizer
The article caption answers the question, you wouldn't have to ask if you just bothered reading.

Unbelievable.

Uh, no . Here is the caption:

Scientists predicted this 2006 eruption of Mount Merapi, but many mystically minded locals refused to leave. “The biggest problem the Indonesians face,” said a volcanologist, “is getting the local people to believe what the scientists say.”

How does this answer my question? By the way, I have seen what you have been warned for so don't try to start drama here. Thanks.

Originally posted by m3rlz
appears you didn't read the OP; unbelievable...

but you are correct, the first pic's caption does say that there is an extended exposure for that pic, which would obviously mean the third from last pic is as well...

Thanks and, yes, I have just seen the first caption and it does indeed mention extended exposure. Cool, I guess I should have read the first caption .

Originally posted by Solarskye
They see ALL's mind was thinking about the new lost season starting in February and missed that part about stars.

He did answer his own question though. Good job! OP!!

I guess my mind was on 'Lost.' Anyway, thanks for the good job .

Originally posted by Elhardt
Once a bogus phenomenon starts it seems impossible to put it to rest.

That is so true. Thanks for the input.




[edit on 23-12-2007 by they see ALL]

reply to post by Elhardt


Elhardt, youre exactly right, and this *was* put to bed long ago in the UFO community, however as you may or may not have noted the UFO "community" has the shortest memory ever.

This ridiculousness should be long over, and if proof positive of how bad this UFO thing, needs an enema.

I'm sorry , in my last post I said LOST starts in February and that's not right. It starts January 31st on Thursday night and I'll be watching.

Sorry for the mistake.

Guess I should say something about the thread, so here it goes. I want to see a rod. I want someone to catch a rod. Other than that, the OP answered his own question.

[edit on 12/23/2007 by Solarskye]