reply to post by wmd_2008
Hey wmd- thanks for all the links- Im afraid the bottom one is such poor quality that you cant really tell whats going on, but I should be able to
track it down elsewhere.
This really isnt (I hope) a pis£$%^g contest, but I do hold an Msc in Electronic Imaging, so you dont need to school me in video effects, glitches
and by-products- you werent to know that though, so I can see where your coming from.
My problem,as I keep repeating, isnt on whether rods exist or not, but the level of proof required to say 'this is 100% debunked'. That is what I
have said in every post in the thread, and as you obviously arent daft, you must admit, the experiments in the original documentary are not enough to
say that. Now with other experiments, research and analysis added, then maybe you have come to the conclusion that, in your eyes, in every
circumstances, you can debunk every piece of film of a 'rod', and thats fair enough. Personally, I havent done enough research into the subject to
come to a concrete decision either way- mainly through my own laziness and not caring enough about the subject matter.
However, I say again, in the original video, the first claim of an explanation is that of the two fields that make up the single frame of video being
responsible. As a person who understands video, you know why this is wrong, and its proven to be incorrect in the documentary itself (although may be,
in certain specific circumstances, might give a similar effect).
Second explanation follows the experiment with the powerful light against a totally dark background with the insect very close to the camera lens- and
yes, it does indeed give a result similar to some of the rod footage. However, these are again, a very specific set of circumstances and does not come
close to covering all the circumstances which the so called 'rods' have been filmed in. And this is my problem- it is not, by far, an inclusive
enough experiment to be able to say that it conclusively rules out the existence of 'rods'.
Now, please, for the last time- I dont care whether rods exist or not- what I do care about is making conclusive statements without having enough
information. If, lets say, the experiment hadnt worked (no bugs around or something), and any of the pro rod people had said 'look!- this
conclusively proves the existence of 'rods'' I would have the same problem, and would have called them on it- as Im sure you would have too. We
have to have the same standards for the de-bunkers as we do the believers.
Hope that clears things up, as we are both way off topic here.