Roswell Rods - Seriously!

OK, suppose I set up a camera and record two hours of tape. A good amount of my tape winds up with insects/rods on it.

Now, the insects are flying around randomly. In some cases they will cross in front of objects in the background. In others, they appear to “move around” or “interact” with objects in the background. Say, this happens in two or three 10 second clips of my two hour tape.

I then take my two 10 second clips and present them as “evidence” that the rods are interacting with the background objects.

“Sometimes I think the web is just a big plot to keep people like me away from normal society.” — Dilbert

Yeesh. That’s got to be some kind of UBB record. I’m not going to clean up 15 identical posts. You can either ignore them or open a new thread. Let me know if your preference is to open a new one, Matrix, and I’ll lock this one up to prevent information from being split between the two.


NYC IRL III
is on April 15th. Do you have what it takes?

Sorry about that everyone - I kept getting host unreachable errors and just kept the window open to re-submit the info I had typed. Ummm let’s keep this one open…

Tan - What I am saying is that several different sources have shown these things interacting with the background. You can claim the guy is selectivly presenting evidence - but can you prove it? No. So you are offering non-proof to say someone is offering non-proof. Not good enough for me.

Again, I don’t believe this is anything amazing… but I want to know why it isn’t. I want REAL reasons and not a micro-conspiracy theory.

There is no doubt that this guy could offer just the ‘evidence’ that supports his claims. But can he control what television shows broadcast, and what other site owners display?

Joey - I’m not sure how to respond to that as I’m not a photography expert. Not even close. However the news crew that covered it used two different cameras, and the guy who runs the site, I THINK, was using an old 1980’s style VHS Cam. But also, I would think that if a digital camera can capture this info, ANY camera could capture this info right? Also, some people claim to be able to ‘see’ these things, or rather, where these things were.

Either way, it would seem to me that these ‘rods’ should be a really old, well known photograhy legend, Right? Especially if it’s just bugs flying close to the lens…

“My God, what have we done?” -Robert Lewis (co-pilot Enola Gay)

Exactly whose theory is it that the “rods” are close to the camera? Not mine. Why aren’t their dead corpses found on the ground? Why don’t they appear in the fossil record? Why do etymologists find the exact same things on the videos they take of insects? FWIW, I’m probably older than you as well.

Gee, I don’t think any of us expected him to say that.

This has been dealt with before. If the damn things exist, buy a shotgun, blast one, & bring us a carcass.

Otherwise, PHOOEY! :stuck_out_tongue:


You should tell the truth, expose the lies and live in the moment."-Bill Hicks
“You should tell the lies, live the truth and expose yourself.” - Bill Clinton

Adam Yax - you were commenting on my post about how the ‘rods’ interact with the background. The theory I was commenting on ignored interation with background. I pointed it out. Your post was sarcasm about how an insect (at an extreme distance) would naturally be sucked into a the air movement of the jumper… when the theory I was commenting on said that the insect was close to the camera, hence far away from the jumper. Here is your chance skippy. Make you point, free of any reference, and tell us exactly what the movement on the camera is, where it came from, what it’s interaction is, etc. I’d HONESTLY love to hear it.

Bosda - Prove gravity. Prove love. Some things you can’t shoot. Prove god. Notice I spelled it with a lower case g. I
am a skeptic, I don’t think these things are little hyperfast animals… but I do want to know what is on these film clips.

Just cause I’m not letting 1/2 assed theorys slide by doesn’t mean I don’t think these things arn’t bugs, or arn’t some optical screwup. But if someone is going to claim they are… I want all the bases covered. This isn’t an argument where I believe 1 thing and you have to talk me out of it.

This is an argument where I expect real debunking, and not someone saying “well… it could be this…”

Cause that is what the claim maker is saying “it could be an unknown life form”

Screw ‘could be’

I want to know what is on that film.

“My God, what have we done?” -Robert Lewis (co-pilot Enola Gay)

And this is what you get for waking up at 5AM in the morning… Okay, I’ll bite. Here’s my analysis…

The first thing I did was save the image of that skydiver sequence matrix had posted, and then blow it up on my computer screen. I measured the skydiver’s relative movement to the background to make sure no frames have been skipped. After that, I examined the movement of the rod relative to the background, and discovered that it doesn’t move in the direction it is pointing at. In fact, it exhibits something similar to free fall motion at first, and then switches to a somewhat lateral movement later on. Keep in mind that the entire frame of the picture is moving downwards at up to 95mph (according to the site), and that the apparent U-turn of the rod has to be smeared out across a rather large distance (my rough estimate is 60-90 feet) if it’s as far from the camera as the skydiver. Just to show you what I’m talking about, I used simple cut and paste in MS-Paint to merge the pictures. The alleged positions of the rod are circled in red. Note that the first of the 17 frames has been discarded since the rod had not entered the picture yet.

http://www.geocities.com/zai_h/rod-mark.jpg

As you can see, of the 16 frames shown above, only the first 12 actually contain the distinct shape of a rod. The 13th frame is arguable, and frankly speaking, I can’t see an inkling of a rod in the 14-16th frame. Take a look at the original picture if you don’t trust me.

So what is it? I don’t know. It could’ve been any of a number of things, all of which are more plausible than an unknown rod shaped organism flying at extremely high speeds with a love for cameras and invisible to the human eye. This rod could very well be a strand of fiber falling down in front of the camera. A quick calculation, assuming the skydiver fell 100 feet, the camera was 200 feet away, and that the entire sequence spanned half a second, shows that a piece of fiber falling at a rate of 1 foot per second at a distance of 1 foot in front of the camera would have a good chance of producing this effect. Minute turbulences in the air or even the breathing of the cameraman could’ve caused this fiber to twirl the way it did here. Even a small fly wandering across the camera would be a satisfactory answer. I’m sorry, but I just don’t see a good reason to get that excited…

p.s. This whole rod thing is full of other problems as well. On the same website this skydiver sequence came from, there are also pictures of rods in air and water. Those wavy protrusions on the side of the rod seem to exist in both species, and that just makes you wonder how the same propulsion method can work in both environments. Furthermore, the protrusions are sometimes matching on both sides of the rod, while at other times they are not. In the camera tests within the still photo archive, the rods are never shown at the same time with any of the test objects, so you really can’t tell whether the specs for those pictures are actually as claimed. Then there are those photos that really go over the top, like this one. Is that a sunset in the background? Either that rod was right in the face of Mr. “John Bro”, or it was ten times the size of a Boeing 747 yet still invisible to the naked eye. And we have this, which looks like anti-missile chaff or some kind of decoy or even flying debris to me. Just the apparent lack of credibility of this site makes me want to write it off as a hoax…

You want proof of gravity? Jump out a 5th floor window. You’ll get real proof, then. Nothing is “realer” than dying.

You said these things were insects. You implied that they were living things. No scientist has ever seen the Giant Squid alive, in the wild, but they know that Giant Squids exist, because dead Giant Squid wash up on shore every now & then.
Nothing is realer than dying. Fetch me a dead one & we’ll talk, Matrix. 'Till then, they’re an optical illusion; no realer than pixie dust.


You should tell the truth, expose the lies and live in the moment."-Bill Hicks
“You should tell the lies, live the truth and expose yourself.” - Bill Clinton

matrix,

To capture the very high speed movements of insects, you either need special equipment or a very special setup. I found this page that may help to convince you:

http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/articles/vidmic.html

Note several things, to capture the insect images:

(1) The photographer had to use the macro zoom feature of his camcorder

(2) The photographer had to set his shutter speed very high

(3) The photographer had to amplify the light on the subject to compensate for the high shutter speed

(4) Even at shutter speeds of 1/4000 (typical maximum for most camcorders), the photographer was unable to capture good stills of the bee’s wings.

(5) The technique was only (reasonably) effective at capturing stills. The Photographer claimed that he had to discard 90% of the frames, just to get a few decent images.

(6) The photographer had to use manual focus to prevent blur.

(7) The photographer had to insure that the camera was very, very steady.
Most, if not all, of these constraints were not used in the filming of the ‘rods’. The second image on the page is the most telling. When the photographer used the ‘normal’ setting on his camcorder, the image of the departing fly looks pretty darned similar to a ‘rod’.

Professional photographers that film full motion video of insects in flight, they always use a high speed camera. These cameras have a much higer frame rate than is possible with camcorders.

I’m not sure if any of this convinces you, but then, you’re welcome to believe whatever you want… I’m not going to knock myself out trying to convince you otherwise.

Bosda - I didn’t imply they were living things, I was trying to give everyone a heads up of what the claims were. I didn’t think they were anything special, but it was a unique little mystery that, until now, no one had debunked.

Everyone else - very damn cool! I really enjoyed the evidence that these things are living… insects. As I have said, I know very little about photography, and now that I know some more, and have seen a breakdown of a clip, the insect theory really makes a ton of sense to me.

Thank you all.

“My God, what have we done?” -Robert Lewis (co-pilot Enola Gay)