Rod Visible At WK. Footbal Match

I stopped reading the second I saw the name 'Jose Escamilla'! Actually.. I lie, I stopped reading the second I saw the word 'Rod'.

IRM

Well spotted, I actually saw it while watching on TV at home and knew straight away it wasn't normal! well not normal in the sense that we can't pick these up unless filmed or photographed (Sky Fishing),

I made this video three years go to see if the "rod effect" can be reproduced by insects, the results were positive.

Yes that's a very nice video of a insect...probably a moth due to the bright lights. You can even see it's wings flapping. No ROD in that.

Looks like a projectile from the crowd to me. Perfect time to distract the keeper just as a shot on goal comes in. Besides if you look carefully you will see the object bounce of the surface of the pitch as if it was thrown onto it and then bounced back off it. Just MHO.

You believe that artifact was an insect?

Really?

Can you determine it's distance from the camera? Can you correlate it's path with insect flight? Can you determine its acceleration? Is there some reason that a "pat" answer like "insect" should be an acceptable answer?

I don't claim it is anything other than a peculiar (yet recurrent) anomaly, and the real test comes from determining if another camera captured the effect. It should then be easy to triangulate its location through its flight path and more easily determine the nature of the phenomenon.

I'm getting pretty impatient with the cookie cutter answers about rods.

And by the way, Jose Escamilla did not discover this, what he discovered was that it was a contentious and fascinating subject that people find interesting. SO it was natural to include it in his 'carnival of phenomena' approach to entertainment.

Insofar as the rods stuff... I am unconvinced that the answer is as 'breathtakingly simple' as the skeptics proclaim.

reply to post by Maxmars

You believe that artifact was an insect?

Really?

I've seen the video and I for one definitely do think it was nothing more than an insect which could be due to the fact that If you've read my previous posts in this thread then you’ll know that I’m very much a sceptic on the whole ‘rods’ being something of a paranormal phenomenon in all honesty.

That’s not to say that I would ever rule out a more exciting explanation but I’ve just never found one that really seems plausible to me.

Anyway here's why I believe rods and this rod in particular to be an insect……...

To answer some of your questions first off No, right now I can't determine it's acceleration or it's speed or how far away it is etc.

But just looking at it (in the video below) you can clearly see the typical flight path of a typical insect, which is quite frankly unmistakeable.



Of course that's nowhere near enough proof that this particular 'flying rod' was an insect but as I've mentioned earlier on in this thread just look at how flying rods are said to be captured...

Rods are almost always caught by video cameras. Their distinctive shape is thought to be due to the fast flapping of insect wings causing motion blur. This is because the flapping is much faster than the relatively long frame (fields, in fact) exposure time in video cameras of 1/50th or 1/60th of a second, used in low light situations. In that time, some insects can beat their wings several times and move a significant distance in the air. In fact, typical insect wing beat rates vary between 10 and 250 per second (though some small insects have rates up to 1000/s) while flight speeds vary between 0.5 m/s and 7 m/s. So, a horsefly, for instance would beat its wings twice in 1/50 s and fly around 8 cm. This would yield a 'rod' 8cm long with two 'branches'. The apparent length of the rod on film would, of course, depend on the insect's distance from the camera (and also in which direction it was flying).

(Source)

That's what causes the insect to look something like this image below.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/08ea4b6a9ef8.jpg[/atsimg]

Also this is why they are never caught by the human eye but instead always with a video camera or in a still photograph.

In my tme researching rods in the past I see no real paranormal/alien/otherworldly/bizarre explanation for the existence of Rods, All I’ve found are explanations like the one above that seem to debunk them very very well indeed and are plausible.

Please don’t get me wrong, I’d love to be proven wrong and shown the existence of rods but I’ve just never seen it and my opinion on them is based on what is seemingly plausible evidence.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by Rising Against]

reply to post by ressiv


Rods are moths. Nothing more.

I agree that it is very VERY likely to be nothing paranormal.

However, I have yet to see anything other than examples what COULD be causing the phenomenon, and not what IS causing it.

There should be several unremarkable ways to get actual data about rods, yet the subject remains the matter of theoretical speculation.

I am curious about the possibility of a previously unexamined species or genus that could be evading our detection because we are trapped in a framework of bugs as the only 'possible' answer.

The frame and virtual shutter speed of camera's is most relevant. Light sources and other atmospherics are certainly a factor. But this effect has manifested itself in a wide variety of circumstances, including the different mediums of film, as well as analogue and digital video.

I'm sure we'll find out this is explainable. Perhaps it is just insects. But we don't know it is an insect any more than we know its an ecto-plasmic trans-dimensional magnetically-propelled life form thrust into our plane of existence by ethereal wind (sarcasm intended here).

However it seems that the question "what is that?" prompts a different kind of approach to some, for whom questioning is not a sign of intellectual curiosity, an open mind, and honest inquiry, for some questioning the phenomenon is a reason to disrespect and marginalize the topic. That seems ignorant to me; so I confront it with the ignorance behind the declaration - theoretical supposition, no matter how it is couched, is NOT an answer... it is a suggestion.

At any rate, my smarminess was not meant to offend. It's been one of those days.....

And thank you very much sincerely) for discussing this with me. I am further inclined to agree with your supposition. I just don't think I'm finished with my interest in this particular phenomenon. Had I the resources I think I could perform some applied research to get more important measurements into the equation... but only time will tell if I ever get the chance.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by Maxmars]

reply to post by Maxmars


Sorry for the annoyingly slow replying times here btw I'm just really busy right now.

Anyway thanks for your thought out post........

However, I have yet to see anything other than examples what COULD be causing the phenomenon, and not what IS causing it.

Oh I really do agree with that in all honesty and that is a very very VERY important factor in all of this as yes, it may NOT be a 100% proven hoax just yet (as far as I’m aware of) but on the other hand if I had to make a guess my money would be on the insect theory every time still and that’s a conclusion I would come to based on what’s backed up with (what I think is) a plausible explanation... which as you may point out is NOT fact but it's the best we have to base an opinion on still.

I mean just look at most theories today, from the big bang theory to the theory of evolution (not yet technically proven but widely believed in) to the many more theories which are not proven just yet but they are still somehow the ‘thing to believe in’ and practically accepted as fact, not because they are proven as I have already mentioned.

But because plausibility always plays a factor in belief systems, without a plausible explanation, one that’s backed up in some way there would be no theory of insects causing the rod phenomenon but we have this theory as it's accepted as fact by most because of the plausibility factor.

If there was no plausibility factor then we would still be believing in what is the unknown explanation such as a paranormal conclusion. Etc.

This is why I believe that Rods are not something that can’t be explained just yet because as far as I’ve read they can be and in a plausible way.

Of course It may not be fact just which leaves the door firmly open for other possibilities but this is why I believe rods to be insects still.

I am curious about the possibility of a previously unexamined species or genus that could be evading our detection because we are trapped in a framework of bugs as the only 'possible' answer.

That’s an interesting idea and something which I’m sure has been mentioned before and IMHO it’s something that should be at the very least looked at because you just never know.

It’s possible because we make it possible because we don’t have an answer to discredit it.

I'm sure we'll find out this is explainable. Perhaps it is just insects. But we don't know it is an insect any more than we know its an ecto-plasmic trans-dimensional magnetically-propelled life form thrust into our plane of existence by ethereal wind (sarcasm intended here).

That’s fair enough (I love the sarcasm btw ) and I would agree but the thing is we see different shapes of these ‘rods’ which are caused by the different speeds of different insects flapping their wings which in turn effects how they look etc.

So you can see some ‘rods’ which look really long and some which look a lot shorter and also not forgetting the variations in shapes of them.

At any rate, my smarminess was not meant to offend. It's been one of those days.....

It never offended at all and I hope I never as well!

I’m more than happy to debate because quite frankly as I’ve mentioned before I could very well be wrong and believe me I am open to that possibility as all because all I’m looking for here in truth.

It’s as simple as that.

And If you can prove me wrong then that’s GREAT! And I’d love nothing more

But it’s just with Rods I’ve researched them for a while in the past so that’s maybe why I was immediately dismissal of them and especially the one shown in the OP…. I mean after seeing it from the look of the way the rod moves as it’s definitely insect like and as far as I was aware beforehand that’s what rods are based on (as I’ve mentioned) time spent researching them and looking for explanations.

ETA:

And thank you very much sincerely) for discussing this with me. I am further inclined to agree with your supposition. I just don't think I'm finished with my interest in this particular phenomenon. Had I the resources I think I could perform some applied research to get more important measurements into the equation... but only time will tell if I ever get the chance.

Yeah, it is an interesting subject to look into I found, particularly since one of my main interests in the paranormal and Rods pop up alot.

Hey maybe we can debate on it one day, or do a paranormal research project.

Just something that would give you some time to delve deeper into it.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by Rising Against]

so you've captured a video of a rod in germany? that's the poo

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 9/7/2010 by Mirthful Me]

These rods seem to have stirred up some deep sentiment...

As easy as it is to just go ok it's the insects... Humans do tend to find it difficult to make the leap of faith and think outside the box.

For example.. a bunch of Chinese scientists put up a net to catch the 'rods'... in that net is caught a variety of insects so therefore rods are just insects.

Go put up a net and see how many insects you catch... what does that really prove anyway except that nets are good at catching insects?

Nothing is what it seems, reality is just an illusion.

Originally posted by SpaceMonkeys
reply to post by ickylevel

 

They're not just an insect. No one has ever found a dead one to study, these things are very strange and could be evidence of a being living in a different "reality" or dimension or simply in a frequency range that we cannot detect with our own senses.
This is an excellent video S+F

Think about it... its only ever picked up on camera, its huge and moves fast ... its a bug near the lens, a trick of the eye. simple

reply to post by ressiv


By the way I saw it on sky HD it was much much clearer and theres nothing at all out of the ordinary.

Goes to show how much disinfo is on this site, precisely why I rarely come out of my box to actually comment

Originally posted by ressiv

ROD VISILBLE AT WK. FOOTBAL MATCH

www.niburu.nl

During the semifinal match Germany - Spain on July 7, there was something remarkable picked up a camera to the stadium in Durban, South Africa.

In the 63rd minute of the race, during the repetition of an attempt by a Spaniard to score a goal, a worm-like object that moves rapidly through the image.

This is a 'Rod', also called Skyfish

www.youtube.com...

(visit the link for the full news article)

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 9/7/2010 by Mirthful Me]

I saw this too! I thought I was seeing things!

It was during the extreme slo-mo wasn't it? As you say it was at 63' into the game - I noted the time - and it went from mid-left of screen to bottom right.

Yay! My first rod!

EDIT: I still think rods are insects but its the first one I've seen on TV

[edit on 9-7-2010 by Slippery Jim]

reply to post by ressiv


Ressiv.....

Here is the link to my thread wherein Springer stated that all "Rods" material should be assigned to the Hoax Forum.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Indeed...

Mod Note: “Rod” threads will be moved to the [HOAX] Forum – Please Review This Link.

reply to post by ressiv

Almost a S&F for calling it football and not soccer.

No S&F for rod claiming.

Lordy, Lordy what are you thinking.

reply to post by ressiv


An over head saucer must have sent out a few sparks.
About to make a crop circle and the commander said no.
Saucer crews watch sports and out door events because they are PEOPLE TOO.