It just shows that being over eager to believe (too
exuberant, one might say..), having an agenda (eg sales of dvd's and pay-per-views), and
being unburdened by any scientific rigour.. all leads to the hole Escamilla is now in.
In regard to the 'rods', anyone who goes about it the right way, and *genuinely* has a sighting of something they believe is unexplainable, should
be encouraged to post. But isn't it best that if it *can* be explained, as is the case with the 'rods' images, then that is done?
Escamilla posted a pile of videos/stills, with insufficent supporting information about exposure speeds, or type of camera. Since then many, many
identical effects were shown, by people filming moths, birds, etc, along with full explanations of why it happens, taking into account shutter speeds,
the way the frames are captured, distance from the camera, etc.
Escamilla comes back saying he will prove that his images are not the same, and gives an error-laden demonstration using an *arrow*???, in which he
completely screws up on the difference between angular velocity and linear velocity. (And that is simply a HIDEOUSLY basic error.) He then says he
will come back with video proof showing the rods using the high speed shutter techniques that will prove his 'point', but guess what? It *never*
happened.
Hmm.... what to infer from all that? Like I said, I was born yesterday, and I
believe!!!
[edit on 10-4-2010 by CHRLZ]
=
