Original tape:
http://video.wnbc.com/player/?id=204106

Tape slowed down:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=w677Q62b9ug

Is it just me, or has the media been on a blitz about UFOs lately? ...perhaps preparing us for something BIG?

some comments from ATS...

here's what's amazing about this story.
The US claim they don't investigate UFO sightings anymore,
yet they will send 2 agents to interview and polygraph
this cameraman about a UFO.


...

The station reported the incident to the FBI, and then they got invovled...

Though, still, you are right why are they bothering to interview this guy about a "UFO" if they are out of that business (since 1969)?

Their interest may be because this "UFO" was so close to an airport?

Whatever the reason, I found the video very interesting. I have no good explanation for what that object could have been, but it had to have been very high, and going very fast.

It almost looked like a missle, but based on how high the object was it would have been too large to be a missle..

I'm stumped.
===


opinions anyone?

It's a bug. There's no such thing as rods, it's just an artifact of interlaced video. That's why you only see "rods" on video cameras.

This is what they call a Rod or Rods. Many have explained them away as insects but I'm not totaly convinced of that explanation.

Damn Capeo beat me to it

To be honest I haven't researched rods before, so I don't know much about them. It is interesting though...and did the FBI really give this guy a polygraph when they viewed this video of a supposed UFO? I mean if it is not real, why bother this reporter?

That is false. I've seen them live without an aid.

That's all it is, trust me. The same thing happens to fast moving birds too. I have a small film company on the side and have seen it a million times in interlaced video. Switch to progressive video and you'll never see one again. That's why they don't show up in still pics or film. If you have a video camera you can test it out yourself. Go to a pond during the day. Dragonflies make great rods. Moths around a light at night are good too.



No you haven't.

That's the last time I show my rod in public. Everyone and their damn cameras...

Yes, I have.

NBC affiliate KSN photographer Brandon Mowry shot video of an unidentified object in 2002 at the Albany International Airport.

That video is now the focus of an episode of a History Channel series.



"I didn't see it when I was shooting it at the time," Mowry said. "I didn't have my eye in the view finder at all. Then, when I went back to the edit bay, I just happened to pause it on one of the seven frames it was in."

The video shows a missile-like object flying at a fast rate of speed behind some clouds.

It is part of a new History Channel series, called "Monsterquest."

The show looks at the theory of "rods", which some believe are biological creatures that live in the upper atmosphere and only recently were caught on tape.

Critics say the images are mere tricks of light that affect the camera's eye.

"As far as alien creatures in a ship, I don't know about that," Mowry said. "But there is a lot of stuff out there that we don't know about, and this is one of those things."

http://www.wsaz.com/home/headlines/1370820...mp;pid=13708387

If you hop on the internet looking for UFO info you are going to find it (whether its real or not).

I tend to think the majority of people never hear much about these events. Certainly not in a fashion fitting a "media blitz about UFOs". Seems about the same type of coverage as there has ever been in my lifetime. The only difference being the internet makes it so much easier to look into and hear about every event that you desire to find information about.

Footage of UFO/Rods From Plane, England 1966

Here is a video from high altitude taken from an aircraft of a rod/ufo...wouldn't this rule out a bug/bird because of altitude and speed?

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/footage-...1966/3491210730

you might wanna trust capeo here. he would know better than you. not being there and all.

Well, for one that's not what "rods" look like. The classic rod that's pushed on wacky UFO websites is simply insects. That's why you never see them sitting still. The oscillation of their wings caught twice per frame in interlaced video is what gives them that wavy translucent edge. What that was in the footage, I have no idea. Without knowing much about the footage I can't really venture a guess.

Don't need to be somewhere to see something that doesn't exist to the naked eye. If it was a video camera it was seen through there is a simple explanation that has been demonstrated repeatedly since video came out.

Bugs and birds in the same clip as rods...so why aren't these bugs and birds appearing as rods as well?
http://www.history.com/media.do?action=cli...s_4th_dimension

Yeah, there's a lot of that around here.

And yes, I did.

(you forgot the IMO, in your post)
theyre Practically, not seen with the naked eye. and MOST, are seen from videos people take................not all
theyre accounts of people seeing one, or what looks to be some long line, or rod, shoot across the sky. for a breif second.
theres still alot of speculation about them. and what they Really are. alota people say bugs, birds, tricks of light. but we havent all agreed on it being one thing, without a doubt.

Who is the "we" speak of? UFO website people? Art Bell listening people? Sorry, those people aren't reliable. I wouldn't fall into that "we". I, on the other hand, am 100% certain there are no "rods" flying around. It's a video artifact and that's all.

He's right. I work in the same field, and it is very easy to produce one of these "rods" on film.
The show "Monster Quest" did an entire show just a couple of weeks ago based on this exact footage, and a few other clips of "rods". They conducted some experiments, and were able to prove that insects and birds flying at a fast rate make these exact same enomolies. They were able to reproduce them exactly. They were also able to take some "rod" footage and kind of disect it, and show that is was nothing more than a seagull.
They talked extensively about this particular footage. They mentioned that the FBI did come and take the footage, however, they interviewed the cameraman, and nothing was ever mentioned about a lie detector test.
I know alot of peple out there don't want to accept this explanation for rods, however keep in mind , the simplest explanation is almost always the correct one. We all want to believe in things of a superatural nature, especially when someone catches them on film. However, just because you WANT something to be real, does not make it real, especially when the proof in right in front of you.

If a rod is a bird, then what is that thing next to the bird?

by 'we' i mean the websites i was looking at. wiki for one.
why the hell would i use a ufo website, to prove you can see a rod without a camera. that would destroy my argument. and make me look really biased towards the subject. which im not

The only recorded accounts I have heard of people seeing them with their naked eyes all occurred during such times as thunderstorms(lighting, things blowing in the wind, etc.), and even a couple of cases at night, which happened to be during the exact same time as a meteor shower.
There are a million different reasons shy people can see streaks of light in the air, but that does not make them "rods"

MQ did a test on that also. The bird in the picture is simply not flying as fast as the INSECT that is causing the "rod".
They were able to repoduce that also. They had several rods on the screen, along with several birds and other insects. Only birds or insects flying at a speed faster than the frame rate of the camera will cause this. Any flying slower will not. Just a trick of light on film.

Who the hell is saying it's supernatural? It probably is a bug. I've seen a mosquito without using a camera. Birds too.

Good God.

I'll buy that

A bug. See, that's a perfect example. That's a still from interlaced video (notice the horizontal lines). Notice the bug is flying much faster and it's wings are oscillating much faster, hence it gets spread over more frames. The bird is moving slower but you can still see the effect if you look at its wings. It appears to have four because of the interlace lag. See interlaced video takes 60 lines of video in one frame but 30 are shot and another 30 taken a split second later and are alternated. If anything is moving faster than that cycle it appears in both places on that frame. Progressive video and film take single whole frames one after the other. You get smooth blur that way and not this interlacing effect. Thanks for the good example.

Sneaky, I was thinking you that you said you could see rods with the naked eye or the effect thats been coined as rods. Ya I have seen a bird or two in my day as well.

QUOTE (capeo @ Jan 18 2008, 09:38 PM)

A bug. See, that's a perfect example. That's a still from interlaced video (notice the horizontal lines). Notice the bug is flying much faster and it's wings are oscillating much faster, hence it gets spread over more frames. The bird is moving slower but you can still see the effect if you look at its wings. It appears to have four because of the interlace lag. See interlaced video takes 60 lines of video in one frame but 30 are shot and another 30 taken a split second later and are alternated. If anything is moving faster than that cycle it appears in both places on that frame. Progressive video and film take single whole frames one after the other. You get smooth blur that way and not this interlacing effect. Thanks for the good example.

further into this...

from Jose Escamilla:

http://affiliate.kickapps.com/kickapps/ser...p;pageId=185263


The series MONSTER QUEST presented "Mysterious Flying Creatures" with what I thought was going to bring forth the evidence on Rods other television shows have never presented.

I finally saw the the show tonight (Sunday January 13, 2008) or rather this morning at 2:30 am thanks to You Tube. First of all, I am very disappointed in the way I have yet again been treated by yet another network program posing as an honest investigative unit, (where in fact), it was all another ruse played on me by deliberately keeping the vital data "out of the reach of YOU the viewers."

First of all, Monster Quest producer told me at the "last minute" The History Channel re-edited the end of the show he produced. Ever since we shot the segments, I have "never" been allowed to see a script, nor a screener of the show.

This whole past year (2007) I have asked to see something, only to be told they don't allow it. That even he; "the producer" is not allowed to see the final show. I finally saw the show this morning and see how "they screwed us all again!" This time to my disappointment it was my "favorite Channel of all time" The History Channel that sold you the viewers the wrong goods!

NEVER have I ever thought The History Channel would have done this to Rods research.

1). They deliberately "glossed over" the Shuttle footage, by claiming debris. Neatly packed away and set aside. In depth analysis would have revealed more.

2). I handed them a photo taken by a professional photographer in the late 1980's at the Hughes Ranch in Nevada. It was not even introduced. Why? Because it would "kill" their insect claims. This is a shot of a Rod taken on "film" NOT interlaced video, but 35mm FILM! The photographer blew up the negative on a scanner thinking this was a speck of dust. It is a ROD! He testifies in court on images convicting people, so this man knows of what he speaks. This was deliberately left out.

3). The underwater footage was also glossed over, saying it could be a fish, yet they didn't go into the Rod that comes out of the ocean about a mile away from the camera, breaking water and going straight up into the air. Why? Because it would disrupt the new "edit" they made.

4). They spent all this time in this wind tunnel test checking the Rod flight models, yet they "again" glossed over the actual model NASA has built that uses the same type of propulsion as Rods to fly on Mars. Had the professors and students known about this NASA model; all that time spent on those bogus wind tunnel tests "debunking Rod flight" would not wasted time they could have spent on the real evidence. Again spin feeding you what you are "only allowed" to see.

5). They also left out the IMAX Rod shot in 3D. This footage reveals a Rod in an IMAX film shot by two IMAX "FILM" cameras on FILM that would give us, size, velocity, distance from the cameras and the other objects in the scene, but they NEVER got into it. WHY? Because it would disrupt their spin fed conclusion to YOU the numbers of gullible people that make up the demographics that their sponsors pay millions of dollars for to deliver you the non-truths!

6). They also left out the IMAX footage taken above the Fjords of Norway, with snow high up at 4800 feet above sea level again shot on IMAX FILM, where no insect in the world would appear and this is FILM...NOT interlaced video footage.

7). The final segment on Monster Quest was the supposed high speed and regular camera tests. This was where The History Channel and Monster Quest deliberately deceived their viewing audiences. They did all these tests "at night!" Do you know why? Because this requires "low shutter settings" on cameras and as I have said "over and over and over again" the past thirteen years of Rods research, NEVER SHOOT at the low shutter settings. You will be fooled.

Why did they do this? Because it would not "fit" their spinning of the truth.

I should have known better. The last program that "never gave me a script or screener" was PROOF POSITIVE. Remember that name! It also claims to investigate scientifically and they also were given ALL the evidence. They left everything out and spin fed you their BS.

Well The History Channel and Monster Quest are the fools, NOT us because no matter how many times they will deceive you, the day will come when I finally get the funding I've needed all these years.

I will give The History Channel, Monster Quest, Proof Positive and all the others that have deliberately spinned the truth that "monkey spanking" they deserve.

For The History Channel executives and the sponsors of this show I am VERY disappointed in you. How dare YOU decieve the American public using a forum and venue contrived to sway people from the real evidences that exist on this planet.

It's networks like you and productions like Monster Quest that have kept everything neatly under wraps. You've denied your demographic the truth. That's right they're just numbers why should you care?

I may be an under funded researcher and documenter right now and can't afford the equipment and processing of the IMAX films and licenses I need, but at least I have the integrity in delivering the real evidence to the public.

Obviously we cannot depend "even on The History Channel" which to my shock and dismay was the only channel I thought had the integrity and honesty to at least allow me to present all that YOU "their viewers" deserve to see. Man, was I ever wrong about that one.

They're still being held accountable for being paid by their sponsors to rape the awareness of their viewers. This is something they can't deny until they present ALL there is to the Rods phenomena.


http://www.roswellrods.com/

I have. That doesn't mean it was supernatural.

Oh, well that I havn't seen befor, wierd.

view the video...

if rods are bugs or birds...what are they doing in space?

I agree with capeo, its a videographic artifact based on the frame capture rate of the videocam versus the wingbeat frequency of the insects.

Essentially what you see is several wingbeat cycles of the insect on each frame of the video, creating the illusion of a "rod" with bulges along its length. The blurred body of the insect as it moves forward forms the "rod," and the oscillation of the wings up and down form the bulges. Anyone with a video camera can duplicate the effect, if you shoot enough footage of flying insects from the right distance

One more note about that video...
http://affiliate.kickapps.com/kickapps/ser...p;pageId=185263

Not only are rods in space, but also on Mars?
stop the video at 2:49

...curious...

Nature has its way of hiding itself from whatever it wants to be hidden from. Maybe these rods picked up on the video thing to keep themselves from being taken too seriously.

Whatever that is at 1:18-1:24 certainly looks odd. I can see some of the others being birds or bugs. But that one doesn't move NEARLY the same as the others.

I haven't studied rods outside of this thread, but I have discovered that phenomenon exist in space and on Mars too. Are there bugs and birds on Mars?

Not to my knowledge......which is obviously very limited on that subject.

Apparently, this video shows a rod like object photographed by the Mars pathfinder on Mars. Stop video at 2:49
http://affiliate.kickapps.com/kickapps/ser...94&as=16995

To quote someone else about this:

"Well, am now amazed at how the subject has moved on: rods in space, on Mars, out of the ocean. It seems this phenomenom is growing by the day. Insects clearly cant fly straight up out the sea or live in space, and they certainly dont live on mars! The good news is they seem to be in abundance so lets hope we solve this one in 10 years or so"

I just had a thought...

Everyone knows NASA needs money and is underfunded...all they have to do is say "hey UFOs are real and in space" and presto, their money troubles will be over...lol

That's just artifacting as well. It's just debris moving too fast for the camera to resolve. If that thing happens to be longer in one direction than the other and twisting you'll get the rippled effect on the edges. It's no mystery. As for the IMAX cameras you brought up earlier? I didn't want to get overly technical but you can produce the same effect with progressive scan video cameras and film cameras. You simply have to choose a slow shutter speed which, in effect, is accomplishing the same thing as the interlacing on regular video does. Slow shutter speeds are used in low light conditions (such as in space) or where you're trying to resolve dark shadows and bright areas in the same frame. I'm not familiar with the IMAX film you're talking about but it would seem they were using a slow shutter speed. This can also be chosen for artistic reasons as it gives things an exaggerated "tail" of blur. Extreme examples are often used in dream sequences.

This is also quite simple. The only one's you're seeing as "rods" are close to the camera. If you look far down into the cave you'll see all the bugs and birds look extended but only those close enough to the lense to resolve their wings have the oscillation effect. The short depth of field of video cameras makes it seem like these things are farther from the lense than they are. You'll also note that at normal speed our eyes see them as bugs. Our eyes are good at factoring out blur. If these things were actually as long as the stills make them appear they would also appear long to us at normal speed and seem ridiculously long to the camera, which they don't. It's just camera artifacting.

They used this exact footage on the show as perfect examples of how the birds and insects create this effect. If you want to believe that rods are a supernatural phenomea, be my guest. But I work in the videography field, and special effects field, and sound like Capeo does too. Would you argue with your electrician on how a light switch should be put in, when he has been doing it for years, and you have never touched one?? Leave this one to the people who know what they are talking about.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not claiming to be an expert in "rods", and claiming that nobody else knows what they are talking about. I just hve been in this field for years, seen this many, many times, and seen people mistake unusual video enomolies as ghosts, ufos, demons, pretty much anything you can imagine. These things are very easily explanable by the people who know what they are talking about(others besides me).

Exactly.

You were running fast, too. Whoa . . .

I have seen them as well with my bare eyes the first time I was 6 years old in the mountains by El Paso, TX.
If the sun angle is right like in the AM you can see them, they seem to frequent caves that have foliage around them.
I have 20/20 vision.