Information on Rods?

Sorry, mate, not worth the effort.

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by Learhoag
Since you and all of the other ATS "geniuses" know everything, there is nothing left to say since it would fall on deaf and dumb ears.

LearHoag,

More personal attacks & insults? Classy!

But it doesn't prove the existence of Rods!

Why don't you bring a scientific argument that verifies your claims to the table instead? You do have one - don't you? All this amazing information you say you have can be shared in this thread too. Why only by email?

Surely if it's that great, it will turn us all into ROD believers. That is your goal isn't it? To prove they are real? So do it mate! Surprise us!

IRM

[edit on 12/3/09 by InfaRedMan]

reply to post by Learhoag


Learhoag,

How about this then... We have supplied evidence in the open forum on why we feel Rods are just bugs. It's open to your scrutiny too you know! Can you show us why the evidence we've supplied is wrong?

Instead of attacking us, you could have attacked the data with all that you claim to know. That's the great thing about this forum. People's minds can be changed if the evidence is compelling enough.

Don't give in because it's a tough audience. The evidence will speak for itself... no?

IRM

Originally posted by Learhoag
Sorry, mate, not worth the effort.

Caveat emptor!


Jose saw something odd in his videos. He showed it to the world and gained all kinds of fame for his seemingly strange discovery. Alas, a few scientists who would have gladly embraced his new discovery - found that they were nothing but an artifact of video camera technology. Jose didn't want to lose his fame and fortune - thus he ignored the facts and screamed lalalalalalalala like a child hoping the scientist would just go away and he'd be famous again.

It was cool for a moment and then it was explained - if you don't like the explanation - then there's plenty of space here for you to provide evidence contrary to what has been shown and explained or you can just pout and keep it to yourself cause nobody will listen.

Originally posted by Learhoag
Since you and all of the other ATS "geniuses" know everything, there is nothing left to say since it would fall on deaf and dumb ears.

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
reply to post by Learhoag

 

Your post is proof positive that you know nothing about Rods. Just the BS/fantasy stuff. It's a shame when people can't accept the truth that Rods have a prosaic answer. This has been demonstrated time and time again on this website and many others.

Rods are little bugs flying close to the camera and no matter how much you wish they were something more fantastic and exotic, it isn't going to change what they truly are.

Instead of asking people to contact you privately, discuss it here in the open forum where your 'information' can be honestly scrutinized. If you truly believe in your theory then it should hold up to the scrutiny and prove us all wrong.

If you don't wish to share you 'evidence' in the open forum, then this means that you either know your theories are baseless fodder, or your intentions are to mislead people.

All your doing is spreading ignorance and disinformation mate! Try showing some intellectual honesty and integrity instead. Post your stuff here!

IRM

[edit on 11/3/09 by InfaRedMan]

Well post a link to THESE great videos you claim to have I mean if you really are so confident in what they show POST LINKS prove us wrong.
Lets wait and see what happen I think nothing will!

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Well post a link to THESE great videos you claim to have I mean if you really are so confident in what they show POST LINKS prove us wrong.
Lets wait and see what happen I think nothing will!

Here's the thing wmd_2008,

If someone is only going to post their evidence to a cherry picked audience whom they know is going to blindly support their data and pat them on the back, it can hardly be called a search for the truth.

It provides a safe harbor where ignorance can be successfully denied and fairy tales can rule supreme. Evidence that cannot be tested/scrutinized via peer review is nothing but hot air and hear-say.

I'm waiting for Learhoag to come clean too. We've certainly done our part. I'm starting to think this undeniable, thoroughly researched evidence he claims to be in possession of doesn't exist.

IRM

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Well post a link to THESE great videos you claim to have I mean if you really are so confident in what they show POST LINKS prove us wrong.
Lets wait and see what happen I think nothing will!

Here's the thing wmd_2008,

If someone is only going to post their evidence to a cherry picked audience whom they know is going to blindly support their data and pat them on the back, it can hardly be called a search for the truth.

It provides a safe harbor where ignorance can be successfully denied and fairy tales can rule supreme. Evidence that cannot be tested/scrutinized via peer review is nothing but hot air and hear-say.

I'm waiting for Learhoag to come clean too. We've certainly done our part. I'm starting to think this undeniable, thoroughly researched evidence he claims to be in possession of doesn't exist.

IRM

Yes I agree with you he has to show this GREAT evidence he has if not he will just make a ROD for his own back sorry could not resist using that old saying!
I joined this site in the hope that because you have people from all over the world that someone would actually have some really good evidence of things like rods,ufo's etc but all you seem to get is the same old blurry pics and videos and then some of the statements individuals make on here re certain subjects make you wonder about the sanity of the person making it.


[edit on 14-3-2009 by wmd_2008]

First: I am in total agreement that rods are sorta "bugs" although I prefer
"insect." No one know what they are but they are living things. Aerial insects. Not connected to UFOs or aliens. Earth creatures as of yet not discovered by mainstream science. Cryptozoology.

From my point of view:
I became aware of rods in 1994 after watching some footage on the old UFOAZ cable show which was shown in NYC on community stations. I was intrigued but that was as far I went. Then I discoveed something while watching TV, rod-like objects were in everything from movies to news reports to home movies on the community channels, to commercials. There they were fleeting things. I happened to view some video that I shot in the late '80s, before Jose Escamilla claimed discovery, and I saw that I had captured a rod on video while in Central Park.

From that moment on I watched TV paying attention to the background instead of the foreground. I saw plenty of rods. Then I decided to record repeating programs in which I saw rods. Some rods were just inches long and some were, as claimed in some documentaries, hundreds of feet long.
There is one documentary where a man in a foreign country is mentally-unbalanced and he is up at the top of a pole that has live cables. They try to rescue him but when he leans back he touches one of the live cables and is electrocuted but not killed. At the moment he touches the cable, a giant or long rod is seen traversing way high in the sky. I taped this and played it fram-by-frame and you can see the rod obscured by obstacles in the frame. The same event but filmed from another angle and, sure enough, there's another rod.

At the famous Cave of Swallows an adventurer went down in a hot air balloon and as the balloon rose, a rod went zipping by. Then after the balloon ascended rods swarmed flying around. What is interesting is that at the same cave there's footage of the swallows also swarming and only a fool would call the rods swallows for the swallows are birds with wings and tails. Rods don't have visual appendages.

To cut to the chase I accumulated lots of bits of footage containing rods and KFMB-TV a TV newsstation in San Diego found out about my rods video collection and requested a copy of my videotape. The station did a 2-part rods special and some of my collected footage was featured.

I had already contacted Jose about my interest and submitted footage of what I had recorded and he made me a member of his rods research team and since I specialized in finding rods on TV broadcasts he named me TVRODMAN.

I don't tape as much now as I did when I was concentrating but once in a while I'll see a rod worth taping and I'll make a note of what and when and then wait for the repeat 'cause everything repeats on TV and add the segment to my rods videotape.

There are always critics who think that because they can replicate something their replicating explains the phenomenom. With rods this is not the case because no matter who attempts to replicate rods and is successful in getting similar images, you still have the real rods which have been captured by consumer camcorders and newsgathering teams with their many thousands of dollars camcorders. Tell these people that rods are a product of their shutter settings, lens openings, etc.

Only those that are not educated properly about this phenomenom make fun of it and those who explore it.

Finally, I saw a rod in real time while sitting outside my building. I looked up and saw a bird, maybe a seagull, flying a few hundred feet high and I saw something approach the bird at high speed from behind and as this object neared the bird it made an abrupt turn.

To see a rod, whether outside or on TV, you have to have a certain vision. By that I mean that I've shown my video to some people and they do not see the rod when playing the tape in real time. So then I have to play the tape in slow-motion and sometimes frame-by-frame. Then their excitement mounts for now they want to see the tape in real time so they can attempt to see the rod.

The Mexican garbage dump video contains many rods all making gracious flight maneuvers but they are not easily seen with first viewing. After being pointed out people will start to point out other rods in the same frame.

Rods have gone through the same turmoil UFOs have. There are still people who don't buy the reality of UFOs and claim that all photos/films/videos are the result of hoaxing. That's usually the barrier I run into and I cannot invite everyone to visit me and let me show them rods for real.

So, if you are ever in New York City, contact me. I'll give you a visual treat and you'll accept rods. End of characters

Tales of Terror and Mystery
By Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

"But soon my attention was drawn to a new phenomenon--the
serpents of the outer air. These were long, thin, fantastic coils
of vapour-like material, which turned and twisted with great speed,
flying round and round at such a pace that the eyes could
hardly follow them. Some of these ghost-like creatures were twenty
or thirty feet long, but it was difficult to tell their girth, for
their outline was so hazy that it seemed to fade away into the air
around them. These air-snakes were of a very light grey or smoke
colour, with some darker lines within, which gave the impression of
a definite organism. One of them whisked past my very face, and I
was conscious of a cold, clammy contact, but their composition was
so unsubstantial that I could not connect them with any thought of
physical danger, any more than the beautiful bell-like creatures
which had preceded them. There was no more solidity in their
frames than in the floating spume from a broken wave."

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
reply to post by Learhoag

 

Learhoag,

How about this then... We have supplied evidence in the open forum on why we feel Rods are just bugs. It's open to your scrutiny too you know! Can you show us why the evidence we've supplied is wrong?

Instead of attacking us, you could have attacked the data with all that you claim to know. That's the great thing about this forum. People's minds can be changed if the evidence is compelling enough.

Don't give in because it's a tough audience. The evidence will speak for itself... no?
IRM

[/quote

Well you have replied sort of BUT again no links to these videos you talk about as to the comment re peoples video equipment the video posted a few posts back PROVES its because of the equpment settings.
Video cameras will most likely be running at 25-30 frames per second.
The video SHOWS the classic images we see of rods, explains why the equipment causes the effect but you just dont seen to accept it,until you post some of your so called video evidence to prove this other video wrong,it you thats WRONG and have everything to prove!

You would also have to know the fps the videos are shot at and it would have to be at 100's of fps to prove the other video wrong.
I bet we will never see a video like that ever!

The claims that some of these things are many feet long is also caused by the fact you have a blurry object with no way to prove its inches from the camera or many yards/hundreds of feet from the camera so you cant tell the size in relation to objects around it.






[edit on 15-3-2009 by wmd_2008]

Originally posted by Learhoag
First: I am in total agreement that rods are sorta "bugs" although I prefer
"insect." No one know what they are but they are living things. Aerial insects. Not connected to UFOs or aliens. Earth creatures as of yet not discovered by mainstream science. Cryptozoology.

Is there any empirical data that can show the distinction between one blurred, non distinct object and another? i.e How does one tell the difference between a garden variety bug and a 'rod'?

From that moment on I watched TV paying attention to the background instead of the foreground. I saw plenty of rods. Then I decided to record repeating programs in which I saw rods. Some rods were just inches long and some were, as claimed in some documentaries, hundreds of feet long.

Can you explain the process you use to make such distinctions? What are you looking for? What are the markers? How do you distinguish between noise, image artifacts, and what you consider the 'real thing'?

It would help if you disclosed this. If we can repeat it and come to the same conclusions, this can only be good, yes? I would accept a method that leaves no room for interpretation by the observer. As you would be aware, belief systems will taint the data . It also has to show a systematic ruling out of all the prosaics and the methods by which they are ruled out.

I won't lie to you, I am a critic of rods, simply because no one has produced any such data yet. From this perspective, my standpoint is understandable. To this point, rods have been reliably replicated via prosaic means. This data is testable and repeatable and does not require the existence of a Cryptozoological creature to exist.

If you can show us otherwise, using methods described above, then it will go a long way to lending credence to your case. Your data has to trump that which says rods are prosaic. That's how it works.

IRM