Roswell Rods

Expanation of the rod effect.

You need Adobe Flash Player 9 to view this widget.

Get Adobe Flash player

  • Comments: 13
    Views: 3900

Comments




  • saw programme about rods on sky the other night.Fascinating still got open mind but will be visiting web sight .Definitely

    lanbag01, 3 weeks ago | Flag
  • If 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:



    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    Former Member , 3 months ago | Flag
  • I 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

    hyundisonata, 3 months ago | Flag
  • very good explenation. i would love to believe in rods but you gotta ask the question, if their everywhere then where are all the corpses?


     

    microscott, 5 months ago | Flag

    1. 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

    VARO, 6 months ago | Flag
Uploaded By: nixter
1 year ago
Description: The "rod effect" can be reproduced using a video camera, and can be duplicated in a repeatable scientific manner by anyone. Low light conditions in particular are contributing factors. Any objects rapid movement across the video sensors field of view will elongate as the frame rate of the camera cannot capture a clear image, the resulting sequence will show the classic rod phenomenon. Insects and even tiny gnats can look like Rods under the proper circumstances. Birds or windblown debris in a wide range of sizes can cause the effect. In outer space, ice particles and pieces of debris have also caused the effect. Often a type of undulating wavy structure can be seen running along the sides of the "rod." This repeating pattern gives grounds for believing that there was something moving rapidly on the object. An insects, or bird’s wings repetitive up and down motion is a likely explanation. A smooth appearance can result when the object is stable during its transit of the cameras field of view. A bird that was gliding or a non rotating piece of space debris is an example of the smooth looking objects. The translucent nature of the phenomena is dependent on the lighting angles and can cause them to appear to disappear when passing in front of clouds or anything with similar colorization. The illusion of a rod being very large and or fast moving is explained by the fly-by of a small object close to the lens. If we do not know the precise distance and speed of the objects in question, we cannot accurately assert the size or speed of the object.

Tags: explanation rod rods

Inappropriate Flag

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.

Inappropriate Comment Flag

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!

Email Friends

Your First Name (optional)

Email Addresses (comma separated)

Import friends

Message to Friends (optional)

Or, you can forward this video with your own email application.

Terms of Service

Login
Username or Email Address:
Password:
   

Join Now

Join the Roswell Rods community for the full, feature-rich experience. As a member, you'll be able to share your media and thoughts with other Roswell Rods users. It's free and easy. Join now.