has anyone ever heard of a thing called rods? basically they are a bug type creature thing on the earth that flys at speeds too fast for our eyes to see.

links for info on rods

video of rods

more video clips of rods

heres like a 42min video of rods

RODS are 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.



Here is more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_%28crypto...29#Explanations

ah right, well it was an interesting documentary any ways. wow that closed my thread down quick

No worries, we all learn something new everyday.

yep we do, so when did they discover that it was just bugs?

Good for biology class, bug swarms have been known long before the ufo.
Unless its polite to wonder.


non bug form speeding along on sparks of light and bright 'bug' follows:


moma tube with purple clouds and little 'bugs' at play:


assorted sparky 'bugs':


This is the one 'they' don't like and say are 'bugs':

That depends on who you ask. There are still some people who believe that they are spirits, aliens or some sort of unknown bug.

What do you think about my last picture posted, a spirit?

Most likely it was foolishness or a atherial entity, thats a good explanation.

Hey where did everyoe go?

Rods are cool. Spirits are cool, lets talk some more.

Have a look at my first post in this thread, and the link I provided. Thats what I think about rods.

i still think its interesting how bugs can form a "new fake bug" kinda thing. its like a common fly but because its flying so fast it forms one long bug on camera its quite funny. i mean yeah most of them may be bugs, buts whos to say that there are no such things as rods?

Jose Escamilla in Roswell, New Mexico was the first to film the bright star like air craft flying around and
started a new interest in Roswell, NM.
From that page:
{
The theories:
They are Extra Terrestrial beings.
They are natural earth creatures that have been here a long time, but we did not have the technology to see them until now.
They are lens effects or aberrations.
They are defects in the video-tape.
They are motion-blurred insects.


The most plausible explanation is the last one: motion blurred insects (see Sol's Rod Site).
This is a beautifully simple explanation: an insect flying past the camera will motion-blur -
that is while the shutter is open the insect will move, causing its image to smudge - the length of
}

Yup bug swarms are real, so that. Why did it take a bigtime movie just to find that out.

I think the reason is 'some' are 'actual' 'flying' 'craft' as picture in my post and people wish to
divert attention.

Well thanks for the rod topic, its fun.

Best.

A bug.


All bugs...

Saying that it is only bugs is a big error. That is like saying UFOs are only airplanes. Sure, it can account for many of them, but not all. Some rods are huge, they have been filmed flying ABOVE the clouds and other structures high in the air such as powerlines etc. Other skycreatures has also been photographed and filmed, that may or may not be related to rods, but in any case are still unsolved. Specially high up in the atmosphere, there has been worm-looking kinds of "creatures" floating around among other things.

rods are just another well documented, actually scientifically discovered phenomena...with a little biological scientific theory....it is that these undiscovered B.E. are infact environmentally tied to an atmospheric ecosystem of one of the layered bio-spheres which our planet needs to maintain a continuum of bio and environmental ecosystems...Rods are most probably tied to the diversity of carbon based life forms of which are conceived from and in an aero-dynamical environment......

rods have also been video captured near tornadoes and they are generally reallly big!!! explain THAT!

maybe they like them or they find them somewhat entertaining

yes your absolutely right, they have been captured on specialized film and tuned cameras, and there sizes have been quite extraordinary.....to say the least'
it does fathom the scientific community to just what there purpose is really for and to what there place in the diverse bio-sphere really is....?

yes your absolutely right, they have been captured on specialized film and tuned cameras, and there sizes have been quite extraordinary.....to say the least'
it does fathom the scientific community to just what there purpose is really for and to what there place in the diverse bio-sphere really is....?

yes your absolutely right, they have been captured on specialized film and tuned cameras, and there sizes have been quite extraordinary.....to say the least'
it does fathom the scientific community to just what there purpose is really for and to what there place in the diverse bio-sphere really is....?

yeah they are said to be 20' + in size. Its phenomenal to be sure if rods are real than we should try and catch one

I think the rod thing has been explained. As far as these 20 foot long rods I hear about, I have never seen anything even remotely compelling. The same goes for atmospheric "worms" and other "air bioforms". I admit, I was pretty interested in them a few years back myself, then in the last year or so I saw a video on-line that explained and documented the pheonomena very well, going as far as duplicating a rod video perfectly. It was a bit of a bummer to see something debunked so well, but at the same time it was cool that someone took the time to research it so well.

For those of you that refuse to believe it has been debunked, (and we have seen several on this thread already), don't be so discouraged and refuse to let go of "rods". This is just one small mystery that was solved. There are tons more to go.

A high wind speed coupled with an asynschrous shutter speed on the camcorder...

Here are some strange objects that showed up in pictures that I took of lightning.











Missed the lightning, but this showed up


Missed the lightning, but this showed up


Missed the lightning, but this showed up


This one is facing the same direction of the lighning, yet there are no lights.


It is entirely possible that these are just strange camera reflections of the lightning inside the lens, but these streaks of light seem to appear even when no lightning strikes. I thought that maybe it was a car or something, so I repeated this test another night, taking picture of cars in the dark at the same place, and even moving the camera purposefully to try and make them blur. They barely showed up at all, and looked nothing like these.

Anyway, I thought that some of you might enjoy these. If you want to see the originals, you can download the zip that contains all of the pictures that I took of the lightning at http://mitchej0.web.aplus.net/images/lightning.zip

Some suggestions Jalorm. I assume you had the camera on a trpiod for relatively long shutter openings, but you've still got camera movement. Invest in a cable release or remote release to avoid shake when tripping the shutter - or place a piece of black card in front of the lens.

Some interesting images, but a lot of moving lights during a long shutter opening; and several 'duplicates' caused by reflections in the lens.

Attached is one of a curious set of images taken in 1996 during a lunar eclipse; in each image the bright 'light' appeared alongside the moon; it obviously didn't exist in the sky to the naked eye, binocs or a scope, yet afflicted every darned photo I took of the moon that night - logic suggests it was an internal lens reflection, but I never manged to replicate it with the same Praktica SLR camera/lens after that date.

those are really interesting pics. i liike the ones of the lightning and im impressed that you ruled out cars and such instead of jumping to rods. that lunar eclipse pic, does anyone know what that bright light was?

Thanks for the photography advice. I am going to invest in a much nicer camera after the holidays. The shutter delay was the only thing that I could think of causing the streaks in the lightning pictures, but they also appeared when there wasn't any lightning. The last photo is a picture of the same area that all of the others were taken in (in fact, it wasn't the last photo while I was taking them). I was too late taking the picture to capture the lightning, but as you can see, there are no other lights showing up in it as well. So the curious part is where the streaks come from in the other pics that did not have lightning? I was taking these pictures towards a mountain, so it wasn't city lights.

My guess is that it is just light refracting from somewhere into the lens, but since I can't say for sure, so I have hung on to them.

i remember on that documentary bbc done a few years back and that woman was film thousands of them near that cave...i cant remember the details of where and that huge one that was vid taped near an air show it was massive absolutely huge then there was that woman when recording her mates and children playing around near the woods this rod was buzzing around with a dragonflies inquisitiveness..,what did shock me though was some ufo sightings..not that im relating them at all, but some have a striking resemblance and the tether from nasa.

that was just food for thought people...dont dig at me.

look at my first post, i put that documentry up there

It is wrong to make a statement like that saying it has been completely explained and debunked. As I allready mentioned, yes indeed some of them can be explained, probably a lot of them too, but some can not be explained as bugs etc like the debunkers have done. Some of them are, like other people here have mentioned too, huge. These huge ones have been featured in several documentaries about rods. Its like saying all UFOs are balloons just because some of them has been proven to be so

Statements about 'huge' objects in any image or footage should be kept in perspective, because its a matter of perspective Why I am recalling the Father Ted episode with Ted explaining about the cows...

A photographic or videographic image is simply a 2D repesentation of a 3D situation; the camera doesn't lie, but it can misguide. Without proper reference the human eye is trying to guess where an unkown object actually exists within an image - if you point the camera at the sky you are left with few or no points of known reference. Rods and so-called Orbs are suffer from this same process of mis-interpreting unkown image data.

A colleague posted the following on another forum:
Rods are Bugs

That brings a smile to my face

Of course I have taken that in consideration. What I am talking about is the times the rods move behind obstacles so an idea of the size is possible. such as when flying above clouds and powerlines, or behind trees etc. When there are actual references to be able to determine size somewhat.

There comes a time, when one must know the right time to..let it go.

Actually, if you re-read my post, I'm not really saying all rods have been debunked. I did say I have never seen a 20 foot long rod pic or video, and for teh most part, I BELIEVE tehy have been debunked.

Ok in such a case, no worries : )

I have never seen these rods personally, only on videos. So yes i guess that means it is possible they are fake too. But if the videos I have seen are real, then we have something more here than bugs, in my honest opinion. I think there is coming a new documentary on rods now soon btw, will be interesting to see if theres any new material in it.

I'm waiting for someone to claim this as evidence of invisible rods

Or how about this for a rod piccy?

record a ROD with this high speed camera and I'd buy into it:
http://www.redlake.com/gallery/videos/RDT.aspx

I agree with the person that commented on that video:

[heavypebble stated:"they're not even rods dork"]

Those things dont even look anything like what the guy's claim is suppose to be.

Lord, I need to quit mixing up my T's and H's. (I need a typing class). I saw my quote and thought " What a loser, learn to type".

I also really don't think that some of these "20ft rods" are even faked. I think it's likely the same bug twisting or changing its wing speed, or even just getting lost in odd lighting conditions, then reappering when the wingspeed or lighting changes again. To me, rods are debunked. I have seen a bug become a rod, and then become a bug again on film, unedited. I wish I had the link. And a picture of my face when I saw it. I was pretty bummed.

You believe rods can get up to 20 ft. but at the same time you believe that rods are bugs, so does that mean you believe that bugs can be 20 ft? in length

Are you being obtuse on purpouse?

If a rod is a bug, as you can see, they appear to be long rods, of greater total length than the bug in question. My thought is that maybe these bugs seem unusually long at slower shutter speeds. No 20ft long bugs.

I think you just misunderstood the ongoing posts.

All I'm going to say is that the closer to the lens...the longer and bigger a bug will look on film.
Its really common sense....but doesn't really seem to apply to all people....

im being inquisitive not obtuse-

Anyways, if using a point of reference such the footage shown on an episode hosted by Johnothan Frakes, you could note that its not hard at all to distinguish the size of the 'rods' unless if you have problems with depth perception. The equipment being used wasnt even an issue although it's fun to entertain that idea. Personally, I dont really care about rods nor dont see anything phenomenon about them but this thread is going somewhere perhaps.

I'm confused then.
I'm assuming the rods are bugs, about half an inch long. They appear to be much larger than that as rods.
As far as the equipment goes, I think in reality it is an issue, as the mechanics of the equipment is waht makes the bugs appear to be rods.
Thats's where I am coming from, the belief that they are indeed bugs, which appear to be rods due to framerate of film/video, or even lighting.

I have seen arguments that 'rods' can only be seen on film, not by the human eye. Have you ever seen a computer screen when filmed by an average camcorder? The lines that run through the screen can't be seen by the human eye. That does not mean they are paranormal. It just has to do with the mechanics (or electronics if you prefer) of the equipment used.

-If assuming that rods are bugs resembling phasmidae (stick insect) then of course this would lead into a discussion on adaptation perhaps.

-It would lead towards a discussion possibly on a new type of insect or 'undiscovered'

In my opinion there is not enough conclusive scientific data. This very same opinion is shared and is probably why the episode ended the way it did, a neutral stance. If the direction of rational objectiveness does give some latitude to merge science and phenomena together then explanations given will have to learn to adapt which will probably be at the insistence of the majority. Perhaps these 'bugs' will mutate to jellyfish substance but then again who really cares?

ok, so after reading all your feedback ive come to a conclusion....most RODS are real and some arent, there is that possibility that they are just bugs, but only the smaller ones

I'm gonna have a go at this again.
Rods are bugs. Some seem long, some not so long.
I have NEVER seen a 20ft long rod or bug. I have never seen a picture or video of one either.
It is my opinion that "rods" are bugs. Until I see a picture or video of a 20ft long "rod", that's where I stand.
If some one has a pic or video of a "rod" that can not possibly be a bug, please post it or a link to it.

RODS have been explained as an optical distortion of flying insects.
But that doesn't necessarily mean THEY DON'T EXIST!
The jury's still out. If someone captures one in a net or jar, then we have definitive proof they're real. But the frequency of sightings, coupled with the aerial jellyfish theories, makes it unlikely there's gonna be an end to the mystery any time soon.

look at the video i posted at the start of this topic, it has somewhere in it a really long rod, its on the tornado bit?