It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fox News reports possible missile over New York but it's really RODs

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by GlennCanady
 


Sure they do. They look exactly like what's in the video posted on the page you linked to. Oh I forgot, there are different 'types' of Rod, aren't there? If I were a logical thinker I might just come to the conclusion that different species of flying bug account for the different type of Rods. But who needs logic when you can jump to conclusions.

As for your assumption that it's a 'strawman'.. well, doesn't it tell you something that Rods and strawmen look almost exactly the same.? But no, you're right, they must be different. One is a moth, the other is a 100 foot long creature that flies at 1000 mph, they just happen to look practically identical.

edit on 16-11-2010 by Project-Sign because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Okay, here is a video that destroys the Straw Man argument that Rods are bugs and are flying close to the camera!

www.project.nsearch.com...

This video where the ROD goes behind a cloud AND is shown in comparison to a bee flying around in slow motion. Even at 8x slower speed than the footage you see of the Bee, the ROD is still moving at hundreds of miles per hour if not 1,000 mph

And here's another one from a video on the history channel where it was estimated that the ROD was at 5,000 feet and moved behind the cloud. You can see it clearly moving far faster than the jet and it sure isn't a moth! LOL

www.project.nsearch.com...

A moth! LOL Now that's a good one!


Come on guys 1 Flag - are you serious? I just destroyed the Moth argument, I think I deserve at least
20 flags. Is anybody out there?



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by GlennCanady
 


No, you do not deserve "20 Flags" as you have not debunked anything.

I'm in the middle of your first little video there. So far, nothing proves that what you say is a ROD is in fact a ROD. The one of the bird that you THINK is a ROD, is clearly a bird. The wings are attached.

The swift in mid flight is not even a swift in a mid flight. It's a swift trying to fly. Bad comparison.

Also, out of fairness, shouldn't you have all those objects slowed down to the same speed? and that crappy music taken out?

You haven't destroyed anything.

By the way, what does ROD stand for?

Sorry dude, but nothing here proves anything you have said.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Project-Sign
reply to post by GlennCanady
 


Watch the video I posted.
Slow frame rate = 'Rod'.
Fast frame rate = Moth.
It's quite simple.


Watch the video the OP posted.
It is too big to be a moth.
Perhaps a pterodactyl, at the speed of light...or a missile.
Not a moth.

As the op says


Sorry but moths are not hundreds of feet long and they don't fly at hundreds of miles per hour or even 1,000 miles per hour as true RODs have been measured.


Agreed.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Project-Sign
 





If I were a logical thinker I might just come to the conclusion that different species of flying bug




A bug that is as big as a tree branch....


"If" is a big word.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by GlennCanady
 


You're right, it is a "rod" and by rod I mean a fast moving bug that has been blurred by the camera (which is exactly what Rods are).



Let me know what you guys think and please don't tell me that these are artifacts of the video camera.


They aren't, well at least 99% of them aren't. Most Rods are bugs that are moving too quickly for the camera to correctly capture them and so they appear stretched, those little nudges you see on the sides are the wings of the insect in question.

reply to post by rusethorcain
 




It is too big to be a moth.




How exactly are you judging the size?

What we're dealing with is a bug which looks large because it is close to the camera :bnghd:


edit on 16-11-2010 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I may be wrong, but the object in the Fox News video seems to go behind the cloud.

Interesting video, to say the least.

Thanks



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by rusethorcain
 


Wait, wait. The object is hundreds of feet long because the guy in the video says it is? The only reference point for it's lenght is the cloud it supposedly goes 'behind'. But the video quality is so low it's impossible to tell if it does or not. In one frame it's just in front of the cloud, and in the very next frame it looks like it's just gone past it. Saying it's behind the cloud is misleading and a massive exaggeration.


Also, that video the OP posted above supposedly 'proving' they can't be moths or bugs is again misleading. The camera he shot the footage on runs at 60fps, decent but not that high. You can't just shoot a bird at that rate, slow it down and expect to see a rod - like effect. It may work for a moth or bug that's closer to the camera because they're smaller, faster creatures. But trying to disprove the moth theory/fact with slow - mo video of birds gets you nowhere. And before you mention the Bee.. Bee's have a small wing span and size relative to their body compared to a moth, thus they have nothing to make the 'Rod' effect with, as the flapping wings is what creates the effect in the first place.

You're welcome.
edit on 16-11-2010 by Project-Sign because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-11-2010 by Project-Sign because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Come on debunkers. Look at the videos I posted. To say these are bugs is patently absurd. Even looking at the video of the base jumpers jumping into that big hole. You see the film slowed down and then a ROD appears in the frame, flies around the jumper in many cases and then out of the frame, all while the guy jumping isn't even out of the frame. Then I showed you actually 3 videos that show the ROD going behind clouds. If you search on Youtube you can find many more videos of RODs behind clouds so that destroys your argument that these are moths close to the camera. Also, in the video I showed you that shows the Jet, you see the ROD going behind a cloud AND still in focus just like the jet is. That shows that the camera is focused at infinity and that's why the jet and the ROD are sharp. Go look at the thousands of videos of RODs especially the ones that show the base jumpers jumping into the hole and you'll notice that the pictures are SHARP of both the RODs and the jumpers which again shows that they at the same distance. If these were moths right next to the camera, they would be fuzzy and the jumper would be sharply focused but that is NOT what you see.

And finally, many people have analyzed the lengths of these RODs and some indeed are hundreds of feet long when compared to objects in the frame and by estimating their distance from the camera and comparing to objects of known size in the frame. This is very easy to do. You can tell the Fox News one is very long and certainly not a moth! It's at a high altitude not next to the camera also.

Any person can look at that debunker video showing the moth and see it is NOT a ROD. It doesn't even look close to ANY ROD I've seen. That's why it's called a Straw Man argument. They post something that is easily proven as a moth and say, "LOOK! All the thousands of videos and pictures and eyewitnesses for RODs are wrong! What they are all just seeing are moths! It's a total joke.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by GlennCanady
 


I've watched almost every video you've linked to. I remain unimpressed. As I said in my last post, video's of this type of quality often don't give you a clear picture of what's actually happening. So for an object with indistinct edges like a cloud to be serving as a reference point is rather dubious. Objects will often appear to 'bleed' into each other in low quality video. I don't think clouds add anything solid to your argument.

For the sake of saving time I'll direct you here : www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you scroll down you'll see your type of 'Rod', the ones with the long body and two sets of 'wings'. The ones that can't possibly be bugs according to you. The next image is the same, but the interlacing has been corrected, and hey-presto, all of a sudden it has a shorter body and one set of wings, just like a bug. If it looks like a bug, it probably is, wouldn't you say?

There's a few more threads on ATS debunking this 'phenomena', you're welcome to look for yourself. I have absolutely no doubt that you'll continue to believe and see what you want to however.
edit on 16-11-2010 by Project-Sign because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-11-2010 by Project-Sign because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by GlennCanady
 


Only they aren't going behind clouds. On the video posted in the OP the quality is terrible and the rod appears as a tiny thin barely visible line that is no longer visible when it passes in front of the cloud. This makes perfect sense for a bug, its too small to show up against the white cloud in the distance, however if this were a massive UFO as you seem to suggest I think we'd see the cloud getting displaced or moving (supposing they were at similar altitude). The reason they appear so large is that they are in the foreground, they are closer to the camera than any distant objects.



that's why the jet and the ROD are sharp


The Rod in that video isn't sharp and the quality is terrible. It is blurry because its a bug being stretched.

Bugs is also a good explanation as to why the base jumpers didn't see anything, far better than any paranormal explanation about UFOs dimension hopping or ethereal beings or whatever the prevailing "theory" happens to be.

Sorry but I remain unimpressed by rods, even if you manage to find one that isn't a bug there are still infinitely better explanations than leaping to the absurd. Don't get me wrong when I first stumbled onto these videos I too was puzzled, until I heard the bug explanation, it fits perfectly. I wish there was a mystery here but there just isn't.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by GlennCanady
 


Totally lame. It is funny that someone promoting bugs in front of the camera as a mystical creature/technology says those who argue for a prosaic explanation are "shills". I recall that the primary proponent of these video recordings of bugs and birds referred to them as "Roswell Rods" - like these bugs came from outer space. Talk about silliness. This has to go into the same bin as "chemtrails" - people who insist on making a huge mystery out of something really mundane.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Did you guys not even look at the videos I posted. The one that showed the slow motion of the birds and the bee and then showed a ROD going by at even slower speed of the camera and you clearly see the ROD?
It's not a moth!

The guy that did the video did an excellent job debunking the "bug" or "moth" theory and he had an excellent camera that showed how he could easily track an insect and the ROD was moving much much faster and at high altitude. You guys never want to talk about that, you just keep saying that because the video has music you don't like that it shouldn't be considered as evidence. That makes no sense at all. What difference does it make what music is on a video? LOL

Sorry but your bug theory isn't correct when you look at all the evidence. The man that had the nice camera that slowed down the bee debunked the bug theory completely. These RODs are seen at altitude and going behind CLOUDS also but you both seem to say that they are all bugs next to the camera when that doesn't fit any of the evidence I presented.

I think anybody that looks at all the evidence will see that these aren't bugs. But thanks for the good laugh saying that it was a Moth! I haven't laughed that hard since I heard the shill say that the UFO talked about a month or two on ATS was the Golden Nights parachute team doing a night jump with magnesium flares! That was a classic also.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Project-Sign
'Rods' have been comprehensively debunked, many times over. They're generally moths, but other flying bugs can appear rodlike aswell under the right conditions. Bugs flying by, close to a camera with a low framerate produce an elongated effect, making it seem rod - like.






You're welcome.
edit on 16-11-2010 by Project-Sign because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-11-2010 by Project-Sign because: (no reason given)



So the HUGE massive thing in that video is just a GIGANTIC MOTH with a trail behind it?



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by GlennCanady
 


I don't believe anyone mentioned anything about the music in that video? Did you even read the posts above before continuing with this rhetoric or are you actually resorting to making things up as you go along? The user Titen-Sxull did an excellent job explaining why faraway clouds on poor quality video are completely unacceptable as a reference point to where the 'rods' actually are in the air. I explained to you in detail why both the camera used and the animals filmed in your 'bug debunking video' have absolutely no relevance to bugs producing the Rod effect.

You've also apparently completely ignored the thread I directed you to that has pictures proving that the Rod effect is an optical illusion 'caused by interlacing video, slow framerate and proximity to the camera. How long are you going to persist with this?
edit on 16-11-2010 by Project-Sign because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Glen... "RODS" are bugs, birds or any other airborne object filmed on low resolution cameras. They appear large because of perspective, they are closer to the camera than the object errantly being used as a scale to ascertain their size.

They appear to travel at great velocity for the same reason, they are very close to the camera in relation to that which the shooter is focused on.

There are dozens of videos that prove this. You can prove it to yourself too. Take two cameras (one high end, ultra fast, high resolution and one cheap, low resolution, slow speed) and film bugs and or birds at the same time with both cameras side by side.

You'll see "RODS" in the cheap, slow camera and you'll see birds and bugs in the high end, fast camera.

Springer...



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by GlennCanady
 


The Albany NY Airport Rod took place in 2002. I actually covered the story for a group I belonged to back then named IRAAP.
So why are you posting it now as if it's a new story? Or are you just comparing it to all the missile stories as of late?

Am a tad bit confused here



Edit to add:
FBI Grabs Fox UFO Video - Expert Certifies Object Genuine

edit on 16-11-2010 by Human_Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
As a person who personally interviewed the people the next day: I can absolutely positively and unequivocally tell you the FBI showed up at the news station and took the tape.
I suppose that 'moth' was on the top 10-Most Wanted list?

I am not going to waste my time on this thread because it's just going to be another "yes they are/no they're not" volley match. So just believe (or not) in what you will.

Good luck on this thread but you really ought to edit the OP and state the story is 8-years old

(..)



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   
I do agree that most of the rods are bugs, but what do you believe of this (high altitude and underwater):

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
edit on 16-11-2010 by codrutoctavian because: edit

edit on 16-11-2010 by codrutoctavian because: edit



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
First, in response to one of the posts, YES I read every one of the responses and in one of the posts by the "debunker" crowd, they actually said that it was hard to take one of my videos seriously because of the music of the video! Look it up for yourself, I think it was on page 1. Saying that something isn't trustworthy because YOU don't like the background music is absurd. Hopefully you debunkers will at least admit this is ridiculous.

Look guys, I don't care if you're Site Owner or whatever, just because you SAY that RODs are bugs doesn't make it so. The site owner has no more value or expertise than anybody else that has studied these subjects. I'm glad that you started ATS because this is one of the best sites on the Net, but just because you SAY that the whole issue of RODs was debunked some time ago doesn't make it so either. Maybe YOU think they aren't real, but maybe you are just wrong or maybe you have a vested interest in keeping things like RODs or Chemtrails from being researched. We know that the government pays many bloggers to spread the official government line on UFO's, Chemtrails etc. They have admitted they have 10,000s of these paid bloggers. Are you one of them? I have no idea, I can't prove that. All I can do is show my evidence that clearly shows RODs are not moths flying at 1000mph at thousands of feet in altitude. You obviously believe that moths can do this so I guess we will have to agree to disagree on these magical moths for now.

I have no idea what your motivations are but I know that the videos I supplied you clearly are not bugs close to the camera. The "moth" debunker video was a joke and looked NOTHING like a ROD so don't even go there. Anybody can make a debunker straw man video. I saw one from National Geographic designed to try to tear down 9/11 truthers with straw man arguments. They shot an aluminum cylinder at 500 mph at a a "mockup" of the pentagon made up of a few layers of wall board and then said "See because the cylinder put a hole in our ridiculous wallboard model of the Pentagon, the government story on 9/11 was true and the truthers are wrong!" It was ridiculous propaganda but that is what most stories on the mainstream media are. They are there to mind control you. Just like Glenn Beck did the straw man argument that because Popular Mechanics went to ONE site that everybody in the field knew was NOT a FEMA camp and said it was a Train Station then Glenn Beck declared there was no such things as FEMA Camps! That's a Straw Man. But we know that Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones just proved them on the latest installment of Conspiracy Theory. So it doesn't matter what Glenn Beck tried using a straw man on the FEMA camps, the truth can't be stopped. It was great to see the people in Government look like total garbage on TV and lie about there was no FEMA camps until Ventura pulled out the bill and showed them! LOL

RODs are not bugs near the camera and even many on this thread are backing me up here because they see that the bug theory makes no sense whatsoever. These RODs are seen at altitude and far away from the camera because they fly around the base jumpers etc. Go look at lots of footage from the base jumpers and you'll see RODs go UNDER the base jumper! BOOM - your theory that it's a bug close to the camera goes bye bye! Go look at the footage I gave you that shows the RODs go behind the Clouds - BOOM - your theory that it's a bug close to the camera goes bye bye. Again, you can't deny this. I've shown you Rods going behind clouds and we have the video that shows RODs going under the base jumpers.

I'm not surprised that I'm getting resistance here from the debunkers because one of the debunkers also said that Chemtrails weren't a real phenomenon either. That really made me laugh because I've studied Chemtrails a lot longer than Rods and we've got the patents and even government documents that say CHEMTRAIL on them!

Chemtrails are REAL and anybody that says they are just contrails is either a shill or just ignorant and hasn't done the research. I've studied the sky my whole life and Chemtrails only started in the 90s. Before that we had nice deep dark blue skies and nothing but contrails that disappeared quickly behind planes. Chemtrails have been proven by lab analysis of the fallout from the chemtrails, photographic evidence, video evidence, patents, governments documents but yet again we have somebody on this thread saying they are not real and I'm sure the Site owner will chime in and say they aren't real either. It's a joke!

That's fine, everybody is entitled to their opinion but saying the Earth is flat because of this video or because "someobdy proved this on ATS and this debate is over!" doesn't make it so. I don't care if you are the Site owner or the President of the United States. I've done a lot of research on Chemtrails also and I've seen the government documents and the patents that say they are geo-engineering the planet. I've seen the soil analysis that shows 10,000 times the normal levels of aluminum in the soil and high levels of Barium and I've seen it with my own observations. I've seen one plane leaving a CHEMTRAIL while at the same altitude another plane leaving a normal contrail that disappears within 10 seconds behind the aircraft. So you can tell me all day long that Chemtrails aren't real and I'll just laugh in your face because I know with 100% accuracy that Chemtrails are real and the US government is behind them.

Thank you to all the people who gave me flags today for this post and for all those that chimed in against the "Bug" theory. The evidence clearly shows that these RODs are not bugs or camera tricks and most of you see this. Oh and to all your debunkers out there that say these were bugs, I still love you too. I've enjoyed the debate and had some good laughs to boot. I will look forward to our next encounter over UFOs being called swamp gas, Venus, bats or the Golden Knights with magnesium flares on their boots!

peace



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join