Jose Escamilla's Roswell Rods

Originally posted by Breadfan

Yes, show us the goods!

[edit on 16-12-2007 by Breadfan]

It just seems only fair that if Jose wants John L. Walson and or Gridkeeper to show the goods, I believe he should do the same. Substancial claims require substancial evidence. Not just on film.

[edit on 16-12-2007 by williamjklopp]

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 2010/8/26 by GradyPhilpott]

When Rods were disclosed by many debunkers and others who felt they are nothing but insects, I lost many of my fellow rods researchers. I wound up as "one doing all the research again." By this time I've started my filmmaking company, gotten involved in web site design for making a living, and now, all the help I had with Rods vanished!

Guys I worked with for over six years gone! So what did I have to do? I continued gathering the information and have continued researching them. Many indy's out there have continued with their own independent research and have sent me some very awesome evidence, (but for me), it has become more of a burden anymore.

I have so many different projects I am needing to finish that I have not even updated the Roswell Rods website and that is a crime, because these things are real, but I am only one person and I just have so much time to allocate anymore.

For anyone out there to even think this is all very easy to do, think again.

I am maintaining the TBLN broadband channel, keeping it on going since we launched August 21, 2007. I am having to deal "not only" with customers "who are always right" but also my content providers, whose films I am presenting and having to account to. I have the UFO-The Greatest Story Ever Denied film series I am currently writing, producing and editing, the Interstellar project fiasco I am dealing with here at ATS, also over 72 web site clients I maintain through my Jemworks company, and I am the only person doing all this. I am also seeking sponsors for the releasing of all my films for free on You Tube, Google, My Space and this takes much more time than anything else, putting together the written proposals and business plans, etc.

If I had a fully funded operation like most studios, then I would have much more time on my hands, but I don't. This is an all out of pocket supported project, and no one else is contributing into it financially but me, myself and I. Thank God I have Saskia, Randy Haragan, David Salas, Martyn Stubbs, Helen Staats to at least help me with TBLN, otherwise I would really be in the deep.

There are only so many hours one can stay awake and at least I can multi-task, so for now I will try and answer most of the questions here, but please know it may take longer for me to get back in here especially this week.

For you who continues adding your usual comments about me, it's okay. I am letting all this pass by and will not react anymore. I am ignoring you. You know who you are.

Okay, that's my bag in a nutshell. I am here and will answer as much as I can before I fall asleep at the computer. - Jose Escamilla

Originally posted by davidbiedny
Mr. Escamilla,

I'm sure we'd all be really interesting in seeing a photograph of that "specimen" you were sent, could you please share one with us?

dB

[edit on 16-12-2007 by davidbiedny]

I will get this off my other computer and upload them soon. Also, I have video of the other specimen.

I can't say they are Rods, until we explore the others. One person wants $ 3000.00 for a fossil in Canada of what they say is a Rod. I am not funded enough to be able to purchase it. Any takers? I will also present this one. You guys give me a few days okay?

Jose

Originally posted by pc is here
reply to post by ahamarlin

 

They could be things that mostly reside on another, smaller dimension that exists right here, right now. Or possibly they could exist in another location, say Jupiter and simply manifest themselves on earth briefly by some quantum dazzle of non-locality.

We have evidence of them entering and coming out of the water. They leave bubble trails, so they do have mass. Also, the footage of them coming into earth from space, (let me clarify), the footage of Rod-like objects coming in from space, not only resemble Rods from the water and the skies, but they have the ability to fly in space just as fast as in the oceans and the atmosphere.

Jose

Originally posted by winkwink
Two words: Sea Monkeys!!!

If they are sea monkeys, these dudes have it down! They can fly straight up into the skies from the oceans, come and go in and out of space. They be some very speed freak sea monkeys!

Jose

reply to post by pootershooter


Hah?, explain please.
I have not a clue what YOUR talking about..

Dallas

Originally posted by The_Modulus
Hello Mr. Escamilla,

I am intrigued and have a few questions.

What kind of creatures are these from a biological perspective? What are they made of? How do they fly? What are their closest, if any, relatives?

Welcome to ATS

The interesting things we found is that they have this "undulatory wave fin along both sides of their torsos in bilatteral symmetry, much like a cuttle fish. They use it as either a propulsion or a stabilizing feature. This is a propulsion system that has been proven in nature to work! In the History Channel special there is the "Godfather" of Entomology, that has created what he feels is the prehistoric ancestor of todays insects.

His name is Dr. Jon Wooten of Exeter University in London.

500 million years ago there was the "Big Bang" of evolution. billions upon billions of life forms suddenly appeared on earth. 350 million years ago, "insects" suddenly appeared! Now the debate is, did insects just "appear" or did they emerge as other types of life forms from the oceans, learned to walk on land, then sprouted wings and learned to fly? It's a big debate, because there is no single Phylum that scientists can point to as being the original prehistoric ancestor to todays insects!

So along some the "Einstein" of the world of Entomology and he creates what he believes is the ancestor of todays insects as it would have appeared 350 million years ago. He calls it Prototerygote. He comissioned someone at the University to build this model of his creation and it actually glides through the air! It has a series of wings across the torso, and the model had the winglets bent and shaped into sinecoidel formations along the torso giving it aerodynamic stability!

When Dave Blackburn, one of the researchers who has stuck by me, first brought this to may attention, I expected to see a model of a giant dragonfly...right?

Guess what Prototerygote resembles?

So here is the Godfather of entomology giving us a look at the ancestor of todays insects and guess what it matches? RODS baby! The irony is that, okay, perhaps we are capturing insects after all! Only these things are 3 feet to 100 feet in length, over 350 million years old and they have "survived!" The only aspect that is still strange is the ocean and outer space evidence.

The fact is this insect ancestor looks like a Rod and the glider actually "flies!" This is part of the History Channel special.

Jose Escamilla

Originally posted by pc is here
reply to post by ahamarlin

 

They could be things that mostly reside on another, smaller dimension that exists right here, right now. Or possibly they could exist in another location, say Jupiter and simply manifest themselves on earth briefly by some quantum dazzle of non-locality.

Another aspect to "dimensions" is this; I found that filming using "high speed cameras, at anywhere of 2000 to 4000 frames per seconds, it opens up dimensions that we never perceive to exist! So when you look at Rods, they are traveling the the speed spectrum of the "very fast." Stay with me on this: A bullet travels at approximately 600 mph. So in order for us to "see" the bullet in flight, (which is by the way), traveling in another dimension or "frequency" higher than our perception, we need to capture it in a high speed frame rate of at least 4000 frames per second. This means four thousand snap shots are taken by a camera per each second!

When we take a high speed camera and film the "invisible" bullet as it speeds through the dimension of "the very fast" and when we take that film and slow it down to "our perception of seeing things at 24 to 60 frames per second, what we are going to be able to do, is to "view into the dimension" that exists way beyond our perception.

SO, when we have the technology available for us to film at high speeds (which are available now), and when we train these cameras into the skies. AND when we film for a couple hours, and when we play everything back at 24 to 30 frames per second. Then, we are going to "see" into the dimension of the "very fast" where we as humans, with a low perception of 24 to 60 fps, will finally be able to see things that are traveling among us at such high velocities that we will probably freak out at what['s actually out there that we never see on a daily basis! I can attest to this, because of my experiences in filming Rods and other high velocity objects that appear within the "fields" of video, (that's at 1/60th of a second), that are passing by so quickly, only cats and birds can detect them. Birds and cats have a far better vision acquity than humans.

They are seeing things we need an apparatus to to help us see before we can acknowledge anything as being there.

To add one more thing to Rods and other things we have among us. There is a very interesting clip that was filmed in Florida. Gulf Breeze I think, and there is this perfect round silver sphere hovering in the scene. You can tell the camera was filming at a high shutter setting, because the quality and clarity of the footage is very high. Suddenly, the silver sphere darts off from it's position at upper right screen to lower mid-center screen.

What happens here is very important to Rods research. So please take time to soak it in. The "sphere" takes off so fast, that by the time, (three frames later), it appears again in the scene, it has now taken the shape of a ROD! Not resembling, but "identical to a Rod!

So what this proved to me, is that there are "things" out there flying about, that even in the high shutter settings, they cause this motion blurring effect. BUT in this case, it was not an insect! It was a round silver sphere that hung there long enough for anyone to tell it was not an insect, or a bird. It could explain why even at the high shutter settings, spheres, may travel at such high velocities that they cause this Rod-Effect!

So this is yet another part of the camcorder artifact. Perhaps there are high velocity spheres flying about causing the Rod-Like shapes even at the highest shutter setting?

There is so much more to this and insects are not the only explanation.

Jose Escamilla

Originally posted by The_Modulus
Hello Mr. Escamilla,

I am intrigued and have a few questions.

What kind of creatures are these from a biological perspective? What are they made of? How do they fly? What are their closest, if any, relatives?

Welcome to ATS

I am going to make a list that will reveal many new things about Rods and will post this list tomorrow. I've been on a video shoot all day, and my day started at 7 am. I am beat. BUT I am the Rod Man and I started this thread, so I have one more tid-bit to add before I shut down tonight. In 1998, I was contacted by a forensic photographer, that uses images and photos, videos, etc., as evidence to prosecute criminals. So he contacts me and sends me a photo he had taken in 1988 of the Hughes Ranch in Nevada.

When he first emailed me he said he had been reviewing some photos he had taken for release on his photo web site, and he noticed this one shot at Hughes Ranch, where the sun was rising, taken at about 6:30 am, and how the sun was barely illuminating a small area of the hills in the distance.

Now what he sent me was this shot (which I am uploading soon) and he stated this, "At first I thought Rods were nothing but camera CDD artifacts..." After finding this Rod in my photo, I am now a believer!"

He goes on to state that he is a forensics photo analyst and that his testimonies are used in court to convict people based on his professional studies of photos, etc.

This particular shot was from an original negative and at first he thought it was a speck of dust on the photo. He put the negative and scanned it at 4000 dpi and as he zoomed into the photo he finds it's not a speck of dust nor an insect close to the lens. Instead he tells me it's a typical Rod, about six to eight feet in length, either traveling downward or upward at an angle, and the fins are clearly seen along it's torso. He goes on to tell me that he has never believed in Rods, but that in his opinion, this thing was about 900 yards away, he has all the camera setting info and he did mention that the Kodak film stock was the type of film that had no major grain anomalies or something to that effect, I can't recall the actual description of the film stock.

The bottom line is this is the best photograph ever taken of a Rod by not only a non-believer, but a professional photographer and on top of that a forensics photo analyst.

I will be posting this photo here as well.

Okay. This is it. I am going to the next forum (UFO-TGSED) and answering a few questions there, then calling it a day.

Good night for now.

Jose Escamilla

reply to post by Jose Escamilla


Hi Jose,

Good to have you here talking with everyone.

There's probably a very strong chance that you have seen it already given the extensive research you've been conducting on the subject, but have you seen the rod videos from Stirling City, Scotland? And if you have then what do you make of them? There seems to be a large amount of these things flying about in these man's videos.

Where else have you been finding this creature or whatever it is?

Thanks

Originally posted by 11one11
reply to post by Jose Escamilla

 

have you seen the rod videos from Stirling City, Scotland? And if you have then what do you make of them? There seems to be a large amount of these things flying about in these man's videos.

Absolutely! I was actually honored in meeting Brian McPhee in 1999 and he is a very good friend of mine I am happy to say. He has been filming awesome UFO and Rods footage there in Stirling and I was there, along with James Peters and Tracie Austin Peters, while he had some sightings occur. I want to produce a film on Brian, as he has an incredible story to tell about his experiences. In fact, I feel a feature film would be one to make on his experiences!

Sincerely - Jose Escamilla

reply to post by Jose Escamilla


I figured you would've been all over it!. I've watched most of his videos and must say they are very interesting and probably worth a feature film. Even while he's capturing a UFO, he inadvertently captures these RODS buzzing in the background. 2 phenomena in one video!


It was a surprise to see you here at ATS. Great to be a part of it. Please keep up what you're doing, you're at the forefront!

reply to post by MrdDstrbr


Logic...yeah sure....are you certain you should use that word, Mrd ?

Give me ONE example of a rod photographed with shutterspeed 1/2000 or 1/4000. ONE photo with valid, proofable exif data shouldn't be a problem for the inventor of "rods", hm ?

You should really try to read and understand (!!!), what is said at
www.opendb.com...

Originally posted by davidbiedny
Stari,

THEY'RE STARS.

That's NOT my opinion, it's called a fact.

dB

David, in defense of that photo, I have seen the hi-rez shot. The photo presented here reveals no details. The streaks are there and although I can't qualify them as being Rods, but being Rod-Like, in all honesty, when you see the original photo, there are "stars" there and are not motion blurred or "open aperture" time blurred, nor time lapse blurred. In other-words, the anomalies being presented are streaks passing through in "one photo" where there are stars in the same scene that are "not" streaked.

So the question I have, and I know about time lapse, aperture timed photography, where streaks would be caused by the "rotation" of the earth, but you need to look closely. The planet is not motion blurred, only the streaks are there, in the high rez shot, there are many stars seen in pristine condition. So it is a rather "curious" photo.

These may or may not be Rods, but the certainty is that these streaks are defined as Rod-Like objects streaking by while all the rest of the background is not streaking at all.

Just wanted to add that to this photo. - Jose Escamilla

Thank you for your direct responses Mr. Escamilla

It's good to see someone who is willing to stand by his ideas in such an up-front manner and I look forward to the information you have to bring us. I have a question however. I've just done a basic google and google scholar search on this Dr Jon Wooten and have not found anything. Could you please provide a link to his publication regarding the evolution of insects.

I am also somewhat skeptical as their means of propulsion, or rather the their most likely means. Although I am no physicist I do not see how the membrane-like wings could provide enough force in a gaseous environment to yield such rates of propulsion.

I would also like to know if you have observed any behavioral patterns of the species; where if at all do they feed, do they live in groups, which environments do they prefer, do they listen to the Stones or the Beatles?

Thanks

What I don't understand, if these things are real and any schmuck with a $2 camcorder can film them, and they are a new life form to discover, you would think there would be entomologists, biologists, and National Geographic all over this. It would 100% not be in the realm of fantasy, or get stuck being discussed on woo woo sites like ATS.

Can you explain the complete and utter lack of serious professional study of these things, if they are real? And I know you can find one or two pros to look into it, and give you their opinion....but I'm talking about mainstream study of something that you claim is so obviously true and real anyone who doubts or debates you is ignorant.

From a scientific perspective, there is no evidence suggesting "rods" are anything but insects captured on film, flying so fast as to create motion-blur in even the fastest cameras. All this talk about them being able to go into space is ridiculous. Saying these videos constitute scientific research is a slap to the face of every objective, rational scientist out there. This is just too inane for words. I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but the scientific method is strangely absent from any discussion about rods.

[edit on 17/12/07 by dave420]

reply to post by The_Modulus

I've just done a basic google and google scholar search on this Dr Jon Wooten and have not found anything. Could you please provide a link to his publication regarding the evolution of insects.

Yep, the godfather of entomology isn't that far known as shown here
en.wikipedia.org...

Personally, i also wonder, where this Exeter University in London might be, since the Exeter university is.....hold your breath here.....in Exeter and their bioscience academic staff can be seen here

...just wondering....

Now, Jose, as a new member you might not be aware, that the things you post here are being validated by the members, so if i assume just a mistake of yours here, i would humbly advise you to get your facts straight before posting them.

There is a Dr. Robin Wootton in Exeter University (which is nowhere near London), who is interested in insect biomechanics.

reply to post by Jose Escamilla


Well, Mr. Escamilla, you do indeed display your knowledge of time lapse photography and astronomical imaging with that statement.

I looked at the high resolution image, and can tell you exactly what the pinpoints and blobs of light are that are not streaked - they're distant stars and Messier objects. Galaxies galore - isn't it just humbling to see a blob of light, and know that it's a vast collection of stars so far away from us, that it boggles the mind. Makes me feel soooo darned small.

One of the most basic principals of astronomy is to use parallax to gauge the relative distance of stars and other objects - taking two samples of an object's position, and using the differential in the two images, one can determine the objects that are closer and further from our POV, and thus, the depth prioritization of the objects with relation to each other. This technique can be readily seen in stereoscopic photography.

The image of Lapetus in question has clear objects in it along with the streaks, due to the large distance the Messier objects are located from the camera. You wouldn't expect them to streak, they stay in the same position during the open exposure, while stars much closer are streaked as they move a good amount in the exposure time. I'll go on a limb here: the streaked stars are probably all in our galaxy, putting them relatively close to us. And Jose, that shot was from The Cassini probe, so I'm not sure how the "earth's rotation" comes into play here...

It's good to learn about the basics of imaging if one is going to express opinions about topics related to the analysis of images.

dB

[edit on 17-12-2007 by davidbiedny]

[edit on 17-12-2007 by davidbiedny]

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 2010/8/26 by GradyPhilpott]