Rods- making a comeback?

[shrooma]

It was flying but it certainly wasn't slowly. I only caught it for a few seconds before it went into shade, out of sunlight.

.

so, would that put you in the believer's camp then sweet?

I mean, if they DO exist, then being some kind of insect makes sense, a lot more sense than trans-dimensional alien entities anyway!

take hummingbirds for example, we all know they have wings right, coz you can't see the little flames coming out of their jetpacks, but because their wings beat extremely fast, they're practically invisible, but nobody thinks they're fitted with anti-grav units, so why couldn't there be insects that move quicker than the eye can process?

[Sweetpumper]

so, would that put you in the believer's camp then sweet?

A believer in really fast flying bugs? Yes.

[_Only]

A believer in really fast flying bugs? Yes.

That wasn't quite the question. I think he meant a believer in a species of insect that has never been identified, except in high speed flight. It's like you're trying to push people into calling these things aliens or demons or something. Or maybe I'm wrong. Your extremely short answers leave much to interpretation.

[Hazzard]

Rods, again,... Seriously??

[FLOMBIE]

There you go:

[Sweetpumper]

That wasn't quite the question. I think he meant a believer in a species of insect that has never been identified, except in high speed flight. It's like you're trying to push people into calling these things aliens or demons or something. Or maybe I'm wrong. Your extremely short answers leave much to interpretation.

Ah, yes to that first part, I did misunderstand. I'm not trying to push people into calling them anything else.

[theSOURCE]

Hang on a second, this doesnt seem to fit in with the context regarding paranormal phenomenon.

Technically, you're correct.

However, as with the paranormal, I've heard that most claims of large rods are often made without verifiable proof to back them up. That goes for flying or otherwise.

[DBunker]

Rods are a camera artifact, there is nothing else to this. Proof is plentiful..... and ZERO that they are real.

You do the math...... wishing it were real doesnt make it so.

[DKO]

.

except it hasn't been proven 'thousands of times' WTS. it's been speculated thousands of times that they're insects, but speculation isn't proof. there's been tests that have tried to emulate rods by filming insects, and none of them have captured a single, convincing image that looked like a rod.

i'm not actually a believer in them myself, but I wouldn't class myself as a disbeliever either, as there's not enough information to formulate a definite answer one way or the other.....

I think I remember you saying you couldn't view youtube videos? I posted a video earlier where they capture the effect perfectly. One high speed camera and one standard camera both filming the same area. You will see a 'rod' on the standard camera footage and an insect on the high speed footage.

It has been proven to be insects.

Edited May 22, 2013 by DKO

[Sweetpumper]

It has been proven to be insects.

They are insects.

[DKO]

I was a big disbeliever, and am not still convinced.

The odd thing is I expected them to disappear by now. They were being picked up of digital camera's with a fairly slow frame rate hence why it could make a common flying insect looked longer and joined.

The thing is digital camera technology has come along millions of miles over the last 10 years and they still are being picked up. Even at a consumer level the frame rates are massively higher, they shouldn't look like rods but they do.

Think of 10 years ago, cameras had about 2 megapixels with 5 megapixels on the highest end cameras. For £60 you can pick up a Nikon nowadays with 16 megapixels and frame rates have risen from around 30fps to 120fps.

The effect is caused because the insects are flapping their wings at a faster rate than what the camera is filming. Some cameras are 120fps but most are around 24-60fps.

In any case insects beat their wings at roughly 5-200 beats/ps. Some as high as 1000 bps.

So even modern digital cameras will still catch this effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect_wing

http://www.steves-digicams.com/knowledge-center/video-frame-rates-24p-25p-30p-60i.html#b

[Wyverna]

Sorry for my delay in replying. Let me get started.

I don't think the interested people in the article propose that it's any type of alien or multi-dimensional thing. I got a strong sense that they felt it was a physical Earth dwelling creature yet to be identified,

I was referring to what people generally refer to them as, not just the people in the article.

I was a big disbeliever, and am not still convinced.

The odd thing is I expected them to disappear by now. They were being picked up of digital camera's with a fairly slow frame rate hence why it could make a common flying insect looked longer and joined.

The thing is digital camera technology has come along millions of miles over the last 10 years and they still are being picked up. Even at a consumer level the frame rates are massively higher, they shouldn't look like rods but they do.

Think of 10 years ago, cameras had about 2 megapixels with 5 megapixels on the highest end cameras. For £60 you can pick up a Nikon nowadays with 16 megapixels and frame rates have risen from around 30fps to 120fps.

How fast are insects exactly? If they're fast enough, even with higher fps they can still have the appearance of a rod. And this is ignoring the fact that rods can be a camera malfunction, which is also very possible.

.

except it hasn't been proven 'thousands of times' WTS. it's been speculated thousands of times that they're insects, but speculation isn't proof. there's been tests that have tried to emulate rods by filming insects, and none of them have captured a single, convincing image that looked like a rod.

It's been shown on MonsterQuest, on the History Channel (courtesy of the post from OTD) an I'm sure googling will reveal more articles on the subject.

[Rafterman]

[DBunker]

Rods and Orbs are as stupid as the paranormal can get.

[_Only]

I was referring to what people generally refer to them as, not just the people in the article.

I thought what was implied in the article is closer to what people generally believe. This is how I thought it goes:

People mainly believe they're camera effects of insects flying by.

Some think it may be a type of insect yet to be identified.

A few observers with healthy imaginations and/or interest in ideas not of this world call them other wordly.

The only thing is that the last type gets the most attention because it's an exciting idea, and filled with wonder.

But c'mon, people don't generally refer to rods as aliens, etc. They think it's probably a blur effect, but what if...

[Wyverna]

I thought what was implied in the article is closer to what people generally believe. This is how I thought it goes:

People mainly believe they're camera effects of insects flying by.

Some think it may be a type of insect yet to be identified.

A few observers with healthy imaginations and/or interest in ideas not of this world call them other wordly.

The only thing is that the last type gets the most attention because it's an exciting idea, and filled with wonder.

But c'mon, people don't generally refer to rods as aliens, etc. They think it's probably a blur effect, but what if...

Oh, really? Hm, I must've been mistaken then. I tend to read about people referring to them as aliens or inter-dimensional beings because on cameras, they only appear for a split second and disappear quickly. This made people believe that they were crossing into another dimension or that they had cloaking devices that were malfunctioning.

[EnderOTD]

They are insects, that's what my inter-dimensional annunaki-human hybrid imaginary friend told me. But I don't expect the close minded to understand or believe this, they are to caught up in the mundane and "logical" explanations. Orthodoxy slaves hahahahaha.