|
Author
|
|
Topic: Rods..... | Topic page views:
|
|
LWR
Cognitive Dissonance
Menlo Park, Ca, USA 224 posts, Apr 2001
|
posted 06-11-2001 02:34 PM
Info, theory, pix, video etc. All that and more can be gaped at Rat Cheer http://www.roswellrods.com/pre.html 
|
David
Chemtrail Information Agent
1290 posts, Oct 2000
|
posted 06-11-2001 05:46 PM
LWR thank you for the link. They sure are strange looking little things. Suprising what is on this planet that we never see. The ones I have seen do not appear very large, in fact quite small. I used the edge of the roof line to block the sun, then could see them. 
|
Lulu
ice behaving badly
right here 2553 posts, Dec 2000
|
posted 06-12-2001 10:43 AM
Good topic here LWR. Rods and aerial life forms are fascinating and just waiting to be discovered it seems. I received a cool e-mail this morning from mbx99 (Michael Bonnickson). He gave me another link of his work to check out at. Flight of the Seraphim is truly inspirational. Thank you Michael!! http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/angels/seraphim.html see also: http://liquid2k.com/mbx99/index.html for amazing animations. 
|
Lulu
ice behaving badly
right here 2553 posts, Dec 2000
|
posted 06-12-2001 02:19 PM
Another interesting link with a different theory/viewpoint I'd like to add to this thread sent to me from LTC8K6 today. Please check it out http://www.xenophilia.com/s/rods.htm Thanks LTC!
|
Lulu
ice behaving badly
right here 2553 posts, Dec 2000
|
posted 06-12-2001 05:08 PM
The following is LTC's thoughts on rods: Lulu,
The roswell rods page used to have a message board. We tried to explain to Jose what happens when insects fly in front of a video camera. The main thing being that the closer an object is to the lens, the shorter the distance it must travel to enter and exit the frame. Angular velocity is the fancy term for it. The closer something is to the lens, the faster it appears to be going. We had a long tussle over that and other issues such as how some video cameras operate and whether they do or don't default to a slower shutter speed with less light. Jose told everyone to use the "sports" setting, but we said that the camera would only use the highest speed possible for the available light, and that wouldn't necessarily be fast enough to freeze motion. At any rate, the place where Jose filmed a lot of his rods is called the cave of the swallows in Mexico, and swallows eat insects. You can draw your own conclusions, but Jose took down the message board during the discussions. Jose did some tests which were shot at 1/10,000sec shutter speed and insects were indeed frozen. None of his rods films were ever shot at those speeds, however, as indicated by blurry backgrounds and other blurry objects. The cave diver video was touted as a high speed shot until we pointed out the motion blurred cave walls. I am a hobby photographer and I always thought they were insects, particularly after I saw the video of a swallow chasing a rod and keeping up with it. Sol had a whole page which he called BUGRODS, but it seems to be down. He did a lot of work and concluded that they were insects and their angular velocity was causing them to look like rods. Also you have to remember that the video is shown at 30 frames per second, regardless of what shutter speed it may have been shot at. That is, each frame covers 1/30th of a second. Something traveling only 10mph still travels around 6 inches per frame or 15 feet per second. As an example, suppose we set up two poles that are 20 feet apart. We set up our camera so that the poles are lined up with the edges of the frame. An insect traveling 20mph flies across the frame in between our 2 poles. 20mph = 30 feet per second, so right away we know that we will have to be quick to see this insect on the tape. It will cross the frame in 2/3 of a second and will only be on 20 frames of the video at most. You would have to slow the tape down to see it, even though it is only going a measly 20mph. If we zoom in a little, we will have even less time to see it, because our frame width is now smaller and the insect will appear on even fewer frames, as it has less distance to travel to enter and exit the frame. Regards, LTC8K6 P.S. The high speed cameras that one guy set up were Redlake cameras from Kodak, I believe. Sorry this is so long winded, but the many reasons for motion blur are complex.

|
Moose
Senior Member
Fargo, ND 24 posts, Jan 2001
|
posted 06-12-2001 08:43 PM
Several years ago, I was watching an episode of PBS's Nova one night, entitled "Kaboom" about the history of explosives. About 25 minutes into the story they showed a super-slow-mo film taken of a shack exploding somewhere out in the desert. Sure enough there was something that flew and curved in front of the camera as the explosion built in slow motion behind it, and even on the very fast film the object was still a blur. It looked alot like a "rod", and moved so fast that even watching the videotape of it on slow motion it was still hard to catch! I think local libraries sometimes carry the Nova series for check-out. 
|
LWR
Cognitive Dissonance
Menlo Park, Ca, USA 224 posts, Apr 2001
|
posted 06-12-2001 09:22 PM
There is a video I saw that was filmed by National Geographic...underwater, looking up. Damned if a rod did not break thru the surface as it entered the water and went by the camera man who saw nothing at the time. THAT was the one that convinced me. Any one else seen that? Anyone know where the clip is?
|
Thermit
Tech

Houston, TX 2733 posts, Jul 2000
|
posted 06-12-2001 09:27 PM
They mention the National Geographic rods here... http://www.rense.com/ufo6/rodstran.htm 
|
Lulu
ice behaving badly
right here 2553 posts, Dec 2000
|
posted 06-14-2001 01:02 PM
Ecerpt from an e-mail I received from mbx99 this morning concerning rods: "Please know that the images & animations from "Sky~View 2000" were made with the focus always set to infinity & the zoom factor was moderate. The roof line in many scenes was 8 feet from the camera. The small tree top when present was 30 feet from the camera. One of the animations seems to clearly show a white object rising from beyond the 30 foot distant tree top. Birds in my digital recording look exactly like birds. Some insects were noted in this recording & their behavior was as would be expected of insects. Most if not all of the objects that I have presented are unlike any insects that I know of. Please note the clusters of small white objects in some of the animations. These are examples of a swarming that I saw that day. Dozens of these swarms were seen. All swarming that I saw were at least 100 feet from the camera. I have been an avid sky watcher for decades & this is the only day I have ever seen such swarming. They were easily discernable from the multitude of other activity going on by their very rhythmic motion. Magnetics & the orbit of an electron would always come to mind when seeing them. StarGate-1 the TV show had some creatures that seemed similar. Spherical energy based life form. This show aired about 3-4 days ago on Dishnetwork. I will extract & send you some better examples of this as my time permits."
Thanks for the informative e-mail Michael!

|
Thermit
Tech

Houston, TX 2733 posts, Jul 2000
|
posted 06-14-2001 01:38 PM
You know, I could easily believe a lot of rods are actually bugs, but it is harder for me to see how this was a bug...
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Thermit on 06-14-2001] 
|
Thermit
Tech

Houston, TX 2733 posts, Jul 2000
|
posted 06-14-2001 02:24 PM
 
|
lotus perception
New Member

american 1 posts, Dec 2002
|
posted 12-02-2002 02:05 PM
I am wondering if these "rods" that are now the new fad in atmospheric anomalies, have anything whatsoever to do with the physics field of "superspace" because they term them as "space worms" that are collective particles of energy that are travelling in and out of our dimension through, suprise; "wormholes"!! I myself have been able to see these figures since long before 1994, and live nowhere near roswell???
|
zoobie555
Tired, need to get to bed earlier.

Conroe, Texas, USA 185 posts, Jan 2003
|
posted 01-05-2003 12:45 AM
Of all unexplained phenomenon, ie. aliens, ufos, bigfoot etc. I believe that the most likely to be real and that will be accepted by mainstream science in a relatively short time is the existance of RODS. Just a personal opinion. When I saw the first stills of them posted on the internet years ago, I was not at all convinced, but having seen more recent photos and videos, the visible evidence is overwhelming, more so even than chemtrails. We'll be hearing a lot more from the mainstream about rods in the next few years, although it may be a long time until we really know what they are.
|