Whats up with all them rods? Is there a case?

Whats up with all them rods? Is there a case?
I mean many have seen them though ATS, but is there really a case?

Look at this video as an example only.



(Also can it be CGI what in the example video?)

It seems you watch youtube everyday and post what you watch here...

I'll bite.

From what I have seen, they are insects are getting overexposed on the film due to their speed and how close they whiz by the camera.

I'm pretty sure it's not CGI. It looks like the camera is picking up something very close to the lens, which gives it the appearance of great size. However, note how the people in the distance are in focus (more or less), while this "rod" is very blurry. Thst suggests that it is not far, but quite close.

It's an artifact.

they are bugs monsterquest did an episode on it. There is no question about it anymore. So no there is no case for them being anything else.

www.youtube.com...

Rods have been properly debunked for me. I'm convinced they're nothing more than insects very close to the lens, which has already been said. There are plenty of mysteries out there worth studying, IMO rods are not one of them.

[edit on 31-7-2009 by bigern]

Originally posted by constantwonder
they are bugs monsterquest did an episode on it. There is no question about it anymore. So no there is no case for them being anything else.

Right, good link, they debunked the heck out of rods in that one. But as the video says could be any flying animal including not only bugs but also birds, bats, or whatever is flying and flapping wings.

And the moral of this story is that when people say "the camera doesn't lie", we know that's FALSE, the camera CAN and DOES lie based on it's limitations. All those donut shaped objects in the shuttle videos are also artifacts based on the camera lying too, so, don't trust the camera unless you're an expert on what the limitations of the camera are.

That high speed camera was pretty good! nice clip!

Case closed on rods (for me it is, some people watch that video and still think, "well that doesn't explain ALL the rods", that cracks me up LOL).

[edit on 31-7-2009 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by constantwonder

Funny how you never seem to see "rods" flitting about in verified below freezing temperatures, hysteria for warm climates only eh?

While some may actually be bugs, I have to wonder if someone just created a craft like this also. Some science fiction programs, such as Stargate Atlantis, have living ships. I'd also like to see the comparisons to older photograpy and videos. The size of these in the clouds, just doesn't fit as them being small bugs in front of the camera.

reply to post by aleon1018


this is why dumb ideas live on after being proven wrong.

Well that bums me out that Rods were debunked. They were one of the more fascinating unexplained phenomenon to catch my curiosity when I was younger. My closest rational guess were that they were similar to hummingbirds that flew so fast that they would only show up at high-shutter speeds, but otherwise would not be directly visible to the human eye. Shows what I know!

Many years ago in the 1990s, you may recall, a fellow named José Escamilla broke the original "rods" phenomenon — I think it initially came about while José was setting up his video gear to record a solar eclipse, and he later noticed these weird little things flitting about his video footage. Escamilla appeared on Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell shortly thereafter, and the whole "rods" controversy escalated from there.

The question, of course, was always are these things just distorted artifacts of the video recording process? The obvious answer was yes, because you can't capture images of "rods" by any other method except by video recording.

You can't capture "rods" on photographic film, even on sophisticated high-speed film.

Escamilla concocted numerous pseudoscientific and downright metaphysical explanations for this glaring problem over the years, and he never attempted to disprove the "rods" hypothesis, as any good scientist would.

In fact, after his very first appearance on Art Bell's show, I contacted José Escamilla and suggested a foolproof method for testing the existence of "rods" — it was simple, just assemble a tripod with a 3-foot crossbar mounted on top; then attach a video camera on one end and a film camera on the other; then, start recording a common target with both devices simultaneously.

If you catch a "rod" on the video, then you just refer to your synchronized film footage to see if it also appears on film.

Invariably, the "rods" do not appear on film. For some mysterious reason, photographic film transforms "rods" into common, everyday bugs and birds. Escamilla knew this — he had to know it — as far back as his earliest claims in the 1990s. He had been told how to confirm or refute the "rods" hypothesis, using simple methods and equipment already in his possession.

Yet, José pursued and popularized the "rods phenomenon" for many long years, actually attracting financial support for "research," even though he knew it was a bogus phenomenon.

That's because José Escamilla is a full-blooded hoaxter, and "rods" are a full-blooded hoax.

The fact is, the "rods" mystery was solved almost from Day One, and it was only kept alive by Escamilla for his personal gain, relying heavily on the gullibility of a public all too willing to believe in even the most absurd paranormal claptrap.

— Doc Velocity

I'm not really impressed with rods anyway, with or without a simple explanation. The sad thing would be that we already have advanced technology that would solve many of our problems except for greed. Yeah, the stories and disinformation that are suspicious are the ones that ask for money also. Ignorance is cheap and so is doubt.

There is only one Tesla dirigible torpedo or Hitler super zeppelin that
flies around and is spotted now and then.
Its been in many places in the world.
Pay no attention to the bug photos, that's not the quad coil Tesla torpedo.
To be sure Hitler was in it during May 1945.

reply to post by GEORGETHEGREEK

George, George, George.....

You really do need to some more homework before you post this stuff.

First the Gridkeeper/Walson hoax.

Now rods.



[edit on 1-8-2009 by Sam60]

reply to post by constantwonder


You said:
"monsterquest did an episode on it"

So because Monsterquest says it is or isn't so, That's all the investigating
that should be done on Rods

Oh thats right the investigators on that TV show are the final say.
The operative words here are"TV show"

reply to post by azureskys


If you've done any research at all into the topic, you'd see many more people other than monsterquest have looked into this and tried to replicate "rods".

Every attempt I have seen has replicated rods and came to the conclusion of bugs buzzing the cameras.

my attempt on catching rods:




Surely, Escamilla addresed the issue (image capturing limits) using appealing "wrappers", to the gulible people



[edit on 1/8/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 1/8/09 by depthoffield]

reply to post by depthoffield

That's an excellent video, DOF.

You do some good work

Originally posted by azureskys
You said: "monsterquest did an episode on it" So because Monsterquest says it is or isn't so, That's all the investigating that should be done on Rods

Oh thats right the investigators on that TV show are the final say. The operative words here are"TV show"

Mm. MonsterQuest and UFO Hunters alike are your standard, cookie-cutter, formula paranormal programs. They employ new faces to cover old ground, predictably rehashing old sightings and old theories, and they never actually resolve anything to anyone's satisfaction. Such paranormal fluff almost always concludes with we have only scratched the surface, more research is needed, but we may never know the truth. Roll credits.

I, for one, don't allow these mockumentary reality shows to color my opinions on either UFOs or creature sightings.

Rather, I scrutinize those making the claims, and I scrutinize them for years at a stretch. For example, if you have followed the antics of Richard C. Hoaxland over the decades, and observed his contradictory and nonsensical claims and the preposterous "evidence" he provides in support of them, then you can't help but conclude that Hoaxland is not playing with a full deck — and that's my kind opinion of him. My unkind opinion is that he is a snake-oil salesman, a liar, and a fraud who preys on those with weak and gullible minds.

Just so, if you have followed the shenanigans of José Escamilla over the last two decades, you will similarly come to the conclusion that Escamilla is not interested in cryptozoology (the study of mystery species) nor even in Science. Basically, he goes through cycles of self-promoting the "rods" phenomenon, selling videos and bogus literature, until he is soundly debunked in a public fashion... When this happens, he drops out of sight for a year, then returns to promoting his "rods" medicine show afresh, blissfully ignoring the fact that he's already been debunked!

What's amazing is that every time Escamilla resurfaces, the rubes come out of the woodwork to hang on his every word and channel money to him. Go figure.

— Doc Velocity