Former Member , 3 months ago | FlagIf rods are as ubiquitous as it would seem they are, why is their existence not generally accepted? Justification for the existence of rods requires that four basic claims be proven or at least shown to be reasonable:
- There should be zoological precedences for the existence of undiscovered insects up to a meter in length. New species are being discovered all the time, so I think we should grant this one. It's certainly possible that there are undiscovered flying creatures a meter in length.
- We must accept the existence of creatures that are invisible, although they're up to a meter in length and perhaps up to several inches wide. Discounting microscopic organisms, the natural world offers no better than transparency, such as that found in some species of jellyfish. Transparency is not invisibility. Supporters of rods have not proven that invisibility in the animal kingdom is possible, and they will need to do so by presenting an invisible animal.
- Certain images must be visible only in the output of all types of visible wavelength cameras, but not visible to the naked eye. When cameras output their images to the final medium, be it film, paper, or a video screen, we see their output because our eyes see the same visible wavelengths that were recorded and output. We're not talking about thermographic or other non-visible-wavelength camera technologies here, so rod supporters will need to prove that all standard cameras can convert certain invisible wavelengths into visible ones, without affecting the visible wavelengths; which is something those cameras were not designed to do. Only with this proof can it be reasonably accepted that it's possible for a camera to see something that was invisible to the photographer.
- Even if all of the above can be substantiated, there needs to be a lack of a more likely explanation. If a simple procedure can be shown to easily reproduce the appearance of rods on camera, then we haven't even established that there is a phenomenon to be investigated.
hyundisonata, 3 months ago | FlagI and my wife must have very weird eyesight that operates as a video camera because we see them every night without a camera and I can assure you they must be gigantic insects we are seeing sometimes over a few square yards wouldn’t fancy getting a bite of something that big lol
microscott, 5 months ago | Flagvery good explenatio
n. i would love to believe in rods but you gotta ask the question, if their everywhere then where are all the corpses?
VARO, 6 months ago | Flag
- camera crap bull i seen one with my own eyes passed within a ft of me a few year ago only in the last two months have i seen rods on film through disclosetv
all i could describe what i saw was a flying eel until i found the RODS videos people who have seen the rods wont care less what you write because they know the truth
Flagging notifies the Roswell Rods webmaster of inappropriate content. Please flag any messages that violate the Terms of Service. Please include a short explanation why you're flagging this message. Thank you!
If you believe this content violates the Terms of Service, please write a short description why. Thank you.
Flagging notifies the Roswell Rods webmaster of inappropriate content. Please flag any messages that violate the Terms of Service. Please include a short explanation why you're flagging this message. Thank you!
Your First Name (optional)
Email Addresses (comma separated)
Import friends
Message to Friends (optional)