It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Rods - Ideas Please...!!

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 5 2003 @ 03:07 PM
Sounds to me like rods are feeding of something. Is it me or do they feed of Light and Energy

posted on May, 9 2003 @ 12:59 AM
They do appear to be a life form. They are not, however, "insects." Some forms of deep sea life have this attribute of gossamer wings undulating next to an elongated body.
It may also be a life form existing just barely beyond the wavelength of our vision's reception in or between ours and another dimension. From here in our dimension it appears to be moving at 6000 mph, but in its dimension it is moving (to its perception, that is) not nearly as fast.
Which observed speed is correct? BOTH -- as it is relative to the observer. This explains why it does not crash into things leaving behind damage. If its range of vibration is beyond our sight limit of wavelength reception, it is probably beyond any of the wavelengths of any form of matter in this dimension -- it could fly right through you and you'd never know it. (Yep. That also means up that guy's ass as well)

posted on May, 9 2003 @ 01:07 AM
Wow you speak with a ease unseen by noobs in these parts. I think you will fit in just fine.

posted on May, 14 2003 @ 09:50 AM
i saw them on t.v. too about 4 years ago. the documentary seemed very convincing. the rods were 'floating' and could propl themselves in almost any direction so fast almost invinsibly.

their patterns of flying or floating looked similar to how a sting-ray swims in water, almost a continuing wave-like motion allowing them to move through the air. in the doc that i saw, they were comparing this motion to the figure-eight type of motion that dragon flies and humingbirds' wings make.

at the end of the documentary, they showed this floating white machine that was created by scientists who were trying to mimic this motion. it looked like a small robot and it was powered by remote control. it was just floating stealthfully around corners and walls. the narrator further said that they can create a 'bug' for spying purposes the size OF a dragonfly that can record and send signals back to a remote controller.

but i felt like a dumb-ass when i looked online to research them, i found a site that had 'famous rods' floating around, like a pic of rod stewart, so needless to say, ppl dont take this seriously at all.

posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 09:14 AM
On Sci-Fi's Proof Positive show... rather interesting indeed. Been checking the web for a while now getting more information about them...

Only problem, though... my wife was at a friend's birthday party (after having been at Parent/Teacher meeting); my son and I were watching the show, and when they were giving the results of the FBI guy's study, she comes home, turns off the TV (son was in trouble)... I missed the findings!

Anyone catch it? What was found out?

posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 10:50 AM
Shutter speed can have an affect on what's being photographed; any movement could produce a blurred motion. But that's the thing... anything moving in that shutter speed would be blurred.

In the videos used for Sci-Fi's show, there were parachuters and birds which were not blurred even though they also contained rods. Same thing with the stunt flying ariplane, a family gathering, and one other (can't remember what this one was, though). The only thing in these videos that were "blurred" were the rods. One of these videos was produced by a professional video editor... surely he would have known he had a wrong set-up. And like the guy who first discovered the rods said "You can get blurred motion moving left to right, but not front to back", in reference to the rods turning and looping away from the camera while still retaining their shape and measurements.

For a normal shutter speed, or whatever is used for video cameras, just how fast would something have to be going in order to produce a blurred effect? In regards with Nascar, you'd have to be moving at 200+ MPH, correct? Any animal that we know of that can do that?

Surely with the video of the man parachuting into the cave and all the birds moving about, there could be no way to alter the speed of one object in relation to the others. The birds flew about normally, the man fell normally, the rods, well... moved like rods.

Oh, another thing about their speed; the best way to view them is by using the slowest setting on your camera/camcorder, going by frame by frame... so how fast would they be then?

At first, I too thought that it could be the "hairs" of lines associated with older film, but then I thought about it some more. Those hairs don't move.

But, I'm going to check out some more sites, go over Byrd's rebutle site, and see what else I can see...

posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 10:54 AM
Most, if not all, have been pretty much IDed, to my satisfaction any how, as bugs. I have watched a couple shows on the subject and also read a book and almost all were IDed as bugs the rest were unknown which does leave a little room, but I just have my doubts that they are a NEW lifeform.

posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 11:11 AM
All of the footage showing rods are nothing more than motion blur created by the use of video cameras or film cameras with long exposures. A video expert used photo enhancement tech that the Feds and the CIA use. (This guy teaches the gov't on how to use this tech.) He was able to exactly reproduce this phenomena with his own cameras. There are no such things as "rods" flittering about our atmosphere. They are just bugs. My source is the great new show on the SciFi channel: Proof Positive. Check it out.

[edit on 7-10-2004 by Der Kapitan]

posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 11:48 AM
At least I got an answer from my earlier post... "What happened with Proof Positive". And, having searched the web alot this morning, I have learned a great deal about these rods. Sad, really. I have learned about shuter speeds (and how much a 1/30 differs from a 1/60), velocities, convex errors in lenses, yadda yadda yadda.

This isn't the best picture I found, but it is the most interesting (and it already had everything labled). They are actually rather interesting to look at, though.

Am I total skeptic towards rods? Not really. In the past one hundred years we've discovered the great apes, panda bears, and those Vietnamese deer... it would stand to reason something small has gone without our notice. But these rods, although neat to see, aren't what they appear...

But I have one lingering question...

In the above photograph, you can see Type 1, with the OOOO thing going. Okay, that's a shot of a bug moving about, no problem. But what about the classic rod, the one that goes like


I can see how the circular one is the wings beating, but this one? It would seem that that it is rocking back and forth. Oh well, maybe I'm thinking to much into it.

And before I go (again), here's a real good site explaining rods.

posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 05:57 PM

All of the footage showing rods are nothing more than motion blur created by the use of video cameras or film cameras with long exposures.

I really think this is the case. The clincher for me was a picture taken of a streetlight at night surrounded by insects. It showed dozens of very convincing rods.

What interests me about the whole "rods" subject is that IMO it is one example of a larger phenomena.

As technology becomes cheaper, more and more people get their hands on it. That doesn't mean they really now how it works or what its limitations are.

Some examples of this in my opinion:

Using cam-corders to shoot things far away in the sky. Video recorders designed for shooting the kid's birthday party don't do well with tiny things far away in the sky. The result was a rash of diamond-shaped "UFOs" that were caused by aperature artifacts, focusing problems, and light sensors being overwhelmed.

Pictures of space objects (especially Mars) that seem to show anomolies.
People don't understand the limitation of the resolutions used. People don't understand that photo editing "enhancement" can help in certain situations, but it can't bring out data that isn't there. Editing filters CHANGE the data. I think people also forget the degree to which the human brain is hard-wired for pattern recognition.
See. A couple of marks in a circle is perceived as a human face.

There was also another controversy much like the rods: the "orbs." Most of these pictures were taken with digital cameras and didn't take into consideration that digital sensors don't work the same way as a film camera.

And I think "rods" are just the same kind of thing. The interation of shutter spead (or frame rate), motion blur, and the frequency of the insects wings beating.

Please note that I am not trying to come off as an expert in any of these things. I am just repeating plausible explanations I have seen for each one. I am just noting that there seems to be a trend of average people using relatively new technology (cam-corders, digital cameras, image-editors, space photography) and misinterpreting the results they see.

posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 06:45 PM
theres something about those rods in this short clip." target="_blank" class="postlink">Watch for a little bit and youll see the rods.

posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 06:46 PM

Originally posted by FoxStriker
Sounds to me like rods are feeding of something. Is it me or do they feed of Light and Energy

well in the flash they show one of them flying past at night.

posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 06:59 PM

Originally posted by Byrd
Frequently debunked -- and you can do it for yourself if you like. They're simply insects, flying across the camera view during the time the camera shutter clicks open.

Yep. I saw a show on TV about Rods just last night.
It was on at 8:00 pm EST - the Proof Positive show.
Rods are bugs that are flying fast and that the camera picks up in an
odd way because it is moving funny. Rods were totally debunked.
It was funny, because I had been thinking about Rods and ... poof ..
there was a TV show explaining the whole illusion.

[edit on 10/7/2004 by FlyersFan]

posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 07:11 PM
Amanda Tapping's downfall. :shk:

But on the rods story, they picked the clips they could provide answers for and ingnored the hard ones.

That "rod" in front of the girls face at the party that was taken with the SAME camera as the one that DIDN'T look like a rod in front of the man (which they "debunked") raised more questions than answers for me.

And the elongated thing flying BEHIND the airplane. Ohhhh, it's just a giant stationary object made to look long by a moving camera? Uh huh.

What pray tell would that be? A "round" if not a "rod." Why wasn't it visible with the naked eye? Had to be a star....right? In the day? A BIG one too!

But I don't think the big things in the sky are the same as "rods."

I've seen Cats see these things little fast things I can't. Zip, zip, zip. It's not film.

It's air fish. If you squint you can see 'em.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in