And by the way, some people investigating these "rods" seem to be making a true effort in understanding what they are, because many of those people aren't ufologists, they are real scientist applying the scientific method.
@chromeinox I am currently working on a much better documentary using parallel high-speed and normal cameras which will show those classic daytime Rods you mentioned, and will include shutter speeds and other technical parameters used during filming as well. There is a HUGE variety of Rod footage out there, but I'm pretty confident that with enough information about each one, a non-paranormal rationale can be worked out for most. In any case, it's fun to try and figure them out! :-)
@JcmdiStockFootage Thanks for your answer. We seem to share the same idea that they are some kind of flying insect, but I think that it must be a new species that remains to be discovered. I mostly got that idea from those videos that show those parachute jumps into some deep cave.
That experiment , being good to explain motion blur, semms nothing like the rods I see in other vids. These vids are filmed at 1/10000 shutter speed and still we cannot discern very well what the hell these things are.
I think that's part of the reason... Also, the video itself is a decent representation of motion blur which is how most Rods are made, but not a very good example of the classic Rods that most people are used to seeing... However, I AM working on a much better one, and hope to hae that one out sometime soon :-) Thanks for checking it out!
>> the video itself is a decent representation of motion blur which is how most Rods are made, but not a very good example of the classic Rods that most people are used to seeing
I don't think there is significant difference. "Rods" are insects or sometimes fast flying birds, like swifts. I have examples of that.
@myshambhala I find "classic" Rod streaks in my still images all the time, and have even seen the insects/birds flying through the scene while the image was taken, so there's no doubt in my mind where they come from. I've been collecting these images for an upcoming documentary, and will show side-by-side high-speed vs. normal footage to show exactly how Rod streaks are made, with camera data and all. I just need to find some cooperative insects to fly through the scene on que! :-)
@starrdreams Ahhh let me clarify... The "classic" Rod is one which is typically filmed during daytime at higher shutter speeds, is long and straight, and often has what are called "membranes" on both sides, presumeably a propulsion method. I used a slow shutter and night flying insects in this video (since they were handy), but I feel that nearly all Rods (classic or otherwise) are simply motion-blurred insects/wingstrokes, birds, etc. and that's what my documentary will show :-)
So far as I've seen, pretty much all Rod images can be explained by motion blur of simple objects, or in many cases such poor quality images that it's difficult to identify anything at all... I do have more video/documentary coming of Rod effects and how different kinds of cameras/settings/conditions make them. :-) Thanks for checking it out!
sorry guv, good experiment, and i see why you demonstrated this,. BUT, this is absolutely dissimilar to some of the giant rods 1km + in size that have been witnessed,. also, the streaks of light in your video do not have the same width consistent that we see in rod video,. i am thinking that the rod videos which are credible,. are filmed at a high framerate as you can see wing structures
There does seem to be a LOT of different kinds of Rod vids out there, each one with its own particular features... I am working on a better video, with side-by-side comparisons of high speed and regular cameras, to show how the insect motion blur shows-up differently on each type of camera, even though it is the same object. It definitely won't cover ALL types of Rods, but should work for many of the typical ones. In any case, it's fascinating stuff! =)
I agree - this is definitely NOT a good example of classic daytime Rods, merely an explanation of motion blur as you mentioned. There's a HUGE variety of Rod footage out there, and many may never be properly identified (and thus shall remain "UFOs" in my opinion), but I think that the physics I explained in the vid details can cover the vast majority of Rods. I'm also working on a much better video showing more typical daytime Rods and the bugs which make them. Should be interesting! =)
I will post a link on this video, but subscribing is the best way to get an immediate notice. I don't release new vids very often so it should be easy to spot :-)
This is a PERFECT Example of RAVERS writing their names with Glow Sticks or drawing hearts in THIN AIR and can only be Perfectly Seen by taking a Picture...the shutter is slowed down to have the illusion your name hanging in mid air.
Indeed that is exactly the same method :-) I used that technique (writing with light) to make my closing "logo" on many of my older videos, too. Long exposure is interesting to experiment with, and even at faster shutter speeds, objects which are close to the lens, or moving quickly (or some combination of both) leave streaks as well. I'm working on a better demostration of insects making Rod streaks in daytime photos/video - hoping to finish it this year :-) Cheers!
Few things to point out. First, being able to reproduce the effect does not prove thats what is happening. Second, the most famous rod videos are not using slow shutter speed because they r capturing everything else in frame at a blatantly normal shutter speed. Third you couldnt even produce an identical image of what a classic rod looks like yet u call them classic rods. All your doing is making a similar effect - your not proving anything other than you arent a good scientist.
There are still lots of difficult to explain videos and still images to wonder about - so the fun's not ALL gone XD I do think most are just bugs or birds though. Thanks for checking it out! :-)
nothin but a big pointless "could have been"-speculation where none of them phenomena you created looks anything like most vids of rods. don't advertise you have proof when you clearly don't.
This is really intended to show how small moving objects can appear to be elongated, solid objects in photography, and those same principles apply to fast-moving, straight-flying bugs with fast shutter speeds just like they do here with slow-moving bugs and a slow shutter (the math is in the vid details). Granted, the object shapes are different than "classic" Rods, but only because they bugs are circling instead of flying straight. I have better, daytime stuff on the way... Cheers! =)
I watched a video on the news some years ago. Some scientists(TV station? I can't remember) in China set up a net in attempt to catch the RODs captured on camera under a tree or something, and they did catch something... moths. At first I was skeptical, then they re-created the RODs photos by changing the shutter speed.
There are some other videos on youtube to support this claim.
I think I saw that same show (on The History Channel)... It did make some good comparisons, but didn't really show typical daytime Rod effects. I'm working on a better documentary to capture classic daytime Rod stills/video alongside high-speed/slow motion video and show how the Rod effect is easily made by bugs on film. However, even though small object motion blur is pretty common, it's not always so easily explained by bugs/birds - which makes studying them so interesting :-) Cheers!
That's a good question. Nearly all the far-away Rod examples I've seen are of blurry objects, and it''s notoriously difficult to gage their distance from the lens. One example appeared to show a Rod pass BEHIND a treeline some several hundred yards away. On closer examination, it appeared that the object was much closer but roughly the same color as the trees and so blended-in against the tree background. There are lots of optical illusions like that in many Rod images. Fascinating stuff! =)
@jcmegabyte Thanks for the reply. It is very strange indeed. I'm inclined to think that it must be something other than planes because they typically move slowly across the screen from such a distance.
I agree- things just can't move so quickly in the atmosphere without heating up! XD Even distant meteors at many thousands of MPH, glowing brightly from friction seem to move fairly slow. Unless one can absolutely prove an object is far away, a closer one makes more sense, especially when lighting/physics fit. I've also learned not to trust all I see on film/video, as cameras can record things differently than expected, and settings/location data is frequently lacking in most cases. :-) Cheers!
This motion concept vid really just proves that bugs make streaks on photos/video. Even though the streaks aren't straight because the bugs are circling a light at slow speed, the same physical principals also apply to daytime images with faster, straight-flying bugs and higher shutter speeds. This isn't a great example, but I have better ones in the works. It's just hard to find cooperative bugs to fly through the frame while both high-speed and regular cameras are filming! XD Cheers! =)
I've seen a huge variety of Rod vids, with both straight (mostly) and curved (less often) streaks. Indeed this is not a classic Rod example, just staged demo to show how objects (bugs) leave motion streaks in photography, complete with membrane-like structures made by the wingstrokes, strongly resembling those in daytime Rod images. The same principles apply to faster objects in daylight with higher shutter speeds. There's more math and detail in the vid info. Fascinating stuff :-) Cheers!
This isn't proof of anything. Elsewhere here on YouTube there are great clips of these strange 'rods' flying at normal, slow-ish speeds, and such clips are being played back at normal (25fps) speeds, and they definitely appear to show long, thin creatures. Nothing to do with slo-mo, streaking, lighting etc. etc. I used to think they were insects, then changed my mind after seeing many inexplicable clips.
This, of course, doesn't cover every possiblity, but it does show how flying bugs leave streaks in photography, including those "membrane"-looking effects as the wings flap. I included some math in the vid description showing that even with much faster shutter speeds in daytime, bugs can easily leave Rod images on film/video. Unfortunately most Rod images don't come with camera/shutter/exposure data, so we have to speculate, but that's what makes them so interesting to study :-) Cheers!
Yea - most of these are curvy instead of straight, mostly because they were slow-flying bugs circling the light, filmed with slow shutter speed. In daytime, the shutter speeds is usually much faster and so are the bugs, hence the straight streaks instead of the curvy ones. I wrote a bunch more info in the vid details :-)
@jcmegabyte "In daytime, the shutter speeds is usually much faster and so are the bugs, hence the straight streak" Wrong! higher shutter speeds=frozen motion. 1/2000s, what I used to capture rods, will freeze things traveling faster than your eye can see. A much slower 1/500s would freeze the fastest known bug at 60 mph. The range of normal shutter speed, is 1/60s to 1/500s.
Real rods don't bend & curl in the air like a snake, like the bugs in this video. They're called rods because they're straight. Rods have appendages with membrane attached. these bugs don't. These bugs r small. Rods can b feet long. I've filmed rods using a very fast 1/2000s & higher effectively freezing them. Maker of this video used an extremely slow shutter speed probably 1/8s. To try to what, fool people? See my photos & videos on Roswell Rods under string1248
These bugs were moving very slowly, requiring long exposure (1/2 sec+) to get streaks. Scaling-up the bug and shutter speed (math&details in the vid desc), will produce the same effect, a concept which most people can understand, no fooling intended. You really do have some great shots, in surprisingly good focus for Rod images. The object looks like a white moth, 3-4 flaps (note the repeating pattern) per 1/30sec video frame in dusk light. I'd like to see your 1/2000sec shots, too. Cheers! =)
@jcmegabyte “I'd like to see your 1/2000sec shots, too. Cheers! =)” Those images where shoot a 1/2000s or higher. The sharpness & detail exhibited by the images should tell they where shoot at a high shutter speed. No tell tail motion blur. Not a moth. Filmed just 1 moth while capturing rods. Looked exactly like a moth 1 set of wings. They have different flying characteristics, moths flutter and land easily seen . Rods fly like cruise missiles hard to see. Moths r opaque, rods semi-transparent.
Normal settings 4 videos r like the 1st clip of bugs. U c them as bugs. Who in the heck shoots video with night vision, with the extremely slow shutter speed that u used? What is it 1/8 of a second. Sure looks like it. Normal shutter speed, is 1/60s to 1/500s The range, I'm u used for 1st set of bugs. Ur demonstration is not valid.
It's been shown they are just bugs and the shutter speed makes them look that way. This is just people trying to make and name and some money from people that will believe anything you tell them. This has been debunked many many times now.
Certainly the majority of them are bugs, and small birds, too. However, there are always those hard to explain cases (usually where the image quality and filming data is not so great) which makes these things fun and interesting to study... and of course they keep the paranormal enthusiasts going as well! XD Cheers! =)
Ya I hate when they do that, one thing I have noticed with all these channels like Discovery, is they will put on a show that tells you one thing and then the very next show could be one that debunks it. I mean why bother with the BS when you know the truth is coming next, why give any power to the BS at all?
It is weird to think that some kind of a multi-dimensional animal could be flying around us all the time,I heard of one guy saying he could see them without the need of a camera,he saw them with his eyes. I just cant beleive as long as Ive been around, That, Ive never seen anything of the like,clearly more study is needed,these might be the actual things that lead us to learning of other dimensions and such...
I've seen several indoor Rod video examples where the makers swear there were no bugs inside, but after watching the video it looks pretty clearly to me that they were indeed bugs (usually small moths). Perhaps the videographer just didn't see them at the time. Bugs can be pretty stealthy and are good at hiding - they can appear out of nowhere and then disappear, never to be seen again. Of course each photo or video example needs to be examined individually and a best guess analysis made. :-)
@jcmegabyte Very strange stuff,but im almost sure that the correct shutter speed is needed to produce the"rod"affect,with different speed settings,these things would almost surely be shown in their true form as a bug
Indeed - shutter speed is the critical factor that affects how a moving object appears in a photo/video. Distance/focus also matter... I am working on a better video with side-by-side cameras filming at high and low shutter speed/frame rates to show the same object as both a Rod AND the bug which made it. Knowing the camera settings is important to assessing moving objects in the shot, which most Rod vids are lacking (or incorrectly assumed/stated). It's definitely fascinating stuff! =)
@jcmegabyte I tell you man,talking to someone that actually has some sense on here is rare,I Feel like we could have a rational discussion about dam near anything!Its a breath of fresh air to not have some jerk,disagreeing with anything I say,even though its my opinion!Thanks for that bro!Way cool!
This video is not true true rods are paranormal and I can prove that. I have multiple rod videos with them flying around super fast and even appearing from a light source making popping noise when they appear sound like jets flying around the room then popping again and they are gone. So what you have to say about that no bugs are nothing does that besides rods.
It really scares me how retarded some people are to believe in rods...i mean can no one see that they are just bugs flying past the camera at high speed!!!!??!
The psychology behind belief in unseen/unexplained phenomenon is truly fascinating... It's like people don't even want to consider the obvious or mundane (and most likely) explanations. It's more fun to make up fantastic theories! It's also possible that many people are too lazy to learn and understand basic principles of light physics; objects don't even have to go very fast to leave streaks - 25mph will do the trick nicely at 1/250sec shutter speed, even in daylight. Cheers! :-)
NOT proof. You admit its a slow shutter speed. In other words reduced framerate. Regular footage of rods is at regular shutter speed. In the case of the base jumping video into the pit that was a higher than regular shutter speed. Only proof here is that you do a biased experiment forget to mention a few inaccuracies and then claim you got proof that everything else is wrong.
This is really a motion concept demo, showing how moving objects leave streaks in photo/video; I used slow frame rate/shutter since the bugs were really slow, but the same physics apply in daylight, with faster bugs and higher shutter speeds. I included some daylight math in the vid details. I've never seen any camera settings reported with any Rod documentation, but it seems likely that a videographer would use a slower shutter speed (to let more light in) when shooting into a dark pit/cave.
@jcmegabyte then as a 'motion concept demo' please don't claim to be proof. At current it cannot be proven until we are able to catch what this is and then record it in captivity to confirm it is or isn't a bug. Also, this cannot account for video footage showing the rods passing through walls etc as has been documented, never known a bug that can do that. Look it up if you don't believe me you might find it interesting.
True, many rod vids will go unexplained because of poor quality images and lack of information about the camera settings, light levels, angles, distances, etc., but there are so many kinds of rod videos out there that who's to say this doesn't qualify? These look like some rods I've seen and unlike many others but it's clearly proven that bugs made the streaks in this case. I'm with you though, if there really ARE weird creatures out there making these, I can't wait until someone catches one!
Yea, it seems the variety of "Rod" vids/images are endless! I have many pics with Rod streaks, taken from my thousands of time lapse stills (video coming) but what I really need is some side-by-side footage showing the same object clearly in high speed video, while leaving a streak in "normal" video at the same time. I now have the equipment to do this and I'm working on a setup. What I REALLY need is some cooperative bugs to fly through the frame in daylight at "normal" cruising speed! :-)
Yea, pretty much! XD While there are some interesting cases of difficult to explain images and video, the vast majority can be easily accounted for with basic principles of light and physics. The hard to explain ones are largely due to poor quality recordings and/or insufficient information... which, ironically, makes them UFOs! =)
I already do have lots of still images with classic daytime Rods , which occur randomly in the thousands of sky timelapse images I film (video coming soon), but I really want to get some side-by-side shots of high-speed video and regular video/still images to show them both ways simultaneously. I know where there are some bee hives which ought to provide a decent chance of fly-bys in front of the cameras, so that project is in the works, too! :-)
Rods? get a stick, put it in the fire and then wave it round. that what your vid looks like. not haven a go, just sayin looks nothing like Rods. Peace
That's a good point, and you're right, these are more like air spaghetti than Rods, but the method of creating them is about the same. Had they been flying straight, they'd look a lot more like other classic Rod images. This demo is mostly made to show how easy it is for moving objects to make solid-like streaks in photography, and the same physics also apply to higher-speed daytime images. There's a bunch of details in the vid description, and I'm working on a daytime Rod vid too :-)
Mostly I'm was just trying to show easy it is to capture streaks by filming moving objects. There's lots more info about this experiment in the vid details. Cheers! =)
first off ive seen rods on cameras with much higher frame rate. second ive seen rods enter the ocean, 3rd this video was a waste of time because it proves nothing.
this is so true. good job explaining. but what still bugs others is the fact that most of the home videos weve seen were shot using relatively old video cams, operating at normal setting(no night mode). these have no control over shutter speed and are by default set to higher shutter speeds so image exposure is faster..
That's absolutely true: even with modern equipment, nearly all Rod images are shot in daylight with much higher shutter speeds than this. I included some math and physics involved in the vid details, but basically objects doen't have to move much faster than 20 MPH to leave streaks on photo/video frames, even at shutter speeds of 1/250sec, especially if it's close to the lens. Many lighting and physical factors create all kinds of Rod effect possibilities, which are fascinating to study! :-)
I think the frame rate in "night" motion is something like 1-2 fps, but the bugs were also flying very slowly so it worked for the "making bug trails" purpose of this demo. Daytime frame rates (and bug flight speeds) would of course be a lot higher..
No doubt about it - these are ALL small insects - gnats, mosquitoes, moths, etc... :-) ...but the interesting thing is how they leave long trails with embedded wingstrokes, very similar to (but not as straight as) the classic Rods we're all used to seeing... only the shutter time, bug flight speed and trajectory are different. I detailed a lot of the physics and math involved with daytime Rods in the video description as well. Cheers! =)
It is only optic "inertia" of modern digital cameras!. That where only normal insects and birds. On 100%!!!. Long time of exposition and all of U can "catch" rods !. It's CMOS or CCD effect, optical illusion. Nothing more!. Sorry for my english.
You can also get this effect on traditional film cameras.. Even the human eye is suseptable to blurred motion streaks under the right conditions - especially if one sees a fast-moving object "out of the corner of one's eye". The physics and perception of Motion and light are fascinating to study! Cheers! =)
It's interesting the variety of places/conditions where Rods can appear, but all have one thing in common: a camera. I detailed some math in the vid desc; making streaks in daylight isn't so hard, especially when objects are much closer to the camera (note Rods are always out of focus) than the main subject . Rods are definitely cool to study - there's so much variety and each one will have it's own answers. Birds, bugs, balloons, space debris, lens flares and more are all possibilities. :-)
@jcmegabyte True, but consider this. How many bugs on this planet exist which you do not see? In fact, is is usually the ones nearest you that you see and hear. The others, you don't pay attention to unless you are watching PBS which is brought to you for free via the magic of a television camera. ;)
Nice try but you can plainly see that they dont look like a vast majority of the rod photos and videos taken.... The speed is missing while in normal film speed.. and in daylight photos... Much like the 2 guys who said they can make crop circles using a 2x4 and a rope... it ends up looking remotely like a crop circle but nowhere near as complex or the nodule elongation, or the slight radioactivity at a real circle ... Close but no cigar. Tip of my hat you though 4 exploring this oddity.
Some good points there. Indeed most of these don't look like classic daytime Rods due to my lazy night time filming XD I was mostly trying to show how small moving objects look like longer solid ones on film/video. The concept applies to daytime images too (details in vid desc). I get bugs/birds in my daytime shots as well (leaving Rod streaks) but they are much less common so it takes much more effort to capture examples on both still image AND high speed video. I'm working on it tho! :-)
Man, people don't want to accept the truth. It's like they want aliens to exist on our planet. The the people who believe in Rods, well then, look at the video. Here is proof. The whole Rod thing is a scam. Don't believe all that you see. These scam artist get rich making you a believer of this Ros BS. Get a life.
So far, I haven't seen any Rod footage which couldn't be explained by terrestrial objects and "normal" physics, or just plain poor video quality such that the object can't reasonably be identified. It's true that people sure love their mysteries - and making up fantastic theories is much more entertaining than mundane rationale! XD No doubt the media makes a bundle hyping stuff like this... add some scary music and "what could it be!?" narration and you got instant income! Cheers! :-)
@rewilkins2 Well, that is Atmavut manyate jagat, wich means: if he's a fool, he thinks all others are fools. That is human nature, but intelligence teaches us to have an open mind. You have not seen the person who has seen God. Therefore you say like that. So that is no argument.
I agree that we must not believe everything we read.
Most of these definitely don't look like classic Rods, although a few come close... This vid was just to demostrate the concept of how bugs leave streaks on film/video. I plan to do a better one with more typical daytime Rod streaks, if I can only find a reliable place where bugs fly by during the day... that's the hardest part! Anyway, thanks for checking out =)
Actually, I think they're gnats, but either way my intent was to show how moving objects leave streaks on film/video as described in the vid details. I plan to do a better (more serious) one, showing daytime footage with classic Rod streaks, like that History Channel documentary did using high speed cameras to demonstrate the effect. The hardest part is just getting the bugs to fly by at just the right time! XD Anyway, thanks for watching!
Some resemble Rod images I've seen, but you're right - most of these are curved since these bugs are circling instead of flying straight. I posted some info on the light and physics involved with making daytime streaks on film/video as well, and I hope to duplicate more classic Rod images with daytime high speed photography at some point too. Thanks for stopping by! =)
@jcmegabyte There was a very short series (I think) on a cable channel (Discovery? Sci-fi?) about 10 to 20 years ago. In one episode they were visiting this house (up in Canada?) that is tilted, but things that SHOULD go down hill actually go uphill! In another episode they were talking about rods, then showed a clip from the tilted house shoot which had a rod flying across the screen! I've never seen anything more about rods ever since!!
I've seen some interesting stuff like that before - places with natural and man-made optical illusions where things seem to go uphill. As for Rods, there have been some cool documentaries on mainstream TV, such as this clip from a History Channel show with a bit about Rods: v=HEurk1JPo-w
There have been other some TV and news specials too but not surprisingly, most are very mysterious and speculative rather than scientific, since mysteries are better for selling airtime. :-)
@jcmegabyte I used to watch a Candian show called, "Psi Factor". Very interestng show & supposedly these were real cases each episode was based on. After a few seasons, it suddenly went from being a sort of documentary type show to a drama with sci-fi themes. That was around the time Matt Frewer took over as the lead character AND the producer of the show. One episode was about a hole in the ground in Canada where, any living thing that went in, usually aged dramatically & died before leaving!
That sounds like a cool show - especially if they put the effort into diggin up facts and documentation in addition to the speculation and movie magic most shows put into their productions to give them that extra "bang" for viewer attention. :-)
Conclusion: You are right when you say objects leave a motion trail when moving fast. But you are wrong when saying your video is Proof that rods are bugs.
Your opinion, vs highly acredited cientists opinions.
A History Channel documentary using high speed cameras also supports bug Rods, however, Rods in space, underwater, etc. must be something else, and that's what makes them so interesting to study! Most images lack any data except the image itself. Without shutter speed, scale or triangulation info, the size, distance and speed of an object can only be speculated, but in most terrestrial Rods images I've seen, 25MPH bugs can easily account for the vast majority. Definitely interesting stuff! =)
I do agree with you on the fact that any round object can leave a trail while moving at a high speed. But as various cientists have stated, there is a clear difference between an object leaving a trail and real rod videos. These videos, after being studied for hours, reveal that the body is in fact, long, and ranges from 5 cm to 35 meters long. There is also a video of a rod taken from a satelite near the atmosphere. No bug or insect can fly without air.
That's a good explanation. Only one little detail. You are using slow shutter speed to create a trail like motion with these bugs. But in real Rod videos, shutter speeds were normal. People were moving at normal speed while rods passed by at only fractions of a second.
In your video, you can clearly see that video speed is really slow. If there were someone in the background they would be moving extremely slow.
I definitely used an easier method of filming bug streaks for this demo vs. what it takes to film typical daytime Rod images, but the concept is still the same: bug streaks are very likely even in daytime images using faster shutter speeds. I detailed some math and physics involved in the vid description, and recently annotated the vid so viewers won't think this is supposed to show typical Rod images. Rather, it explains how small bugs can look like long solid objects in still frames.
Hey moron when is the last time you've actually viewed videos/pictures of rods? They look nothing like any of these insects. I believe rods are some sort of insect that has evolved to fly faster than the speed of light and that's why we only see them on our cameras.
I see new Rod images regularly, including in my own pics/vids. Normal laws of physics easily cover all the requirments as far as light, motion and cameras go. Bugs, birds, etc. only have to move at 25-35MPH to leave a long streaks on film/video, even at fast shutter speeds of 1/500sec. Lightspeed objects probably wouldn't be visible to eye OR fast cameras, but of course bugs can't account for all Rod images; in space, underwater, etc., but then that's what makes studying them so interesting...
@jcmegabyte Actually there are cameras that can "see" ultraviolet light. So, yeah ;p. A good portion of our "laws" are only in theory. But that's science for ya, almost nothing can be 100% true. Take gravity for example, it's only in theory.They're (scientists) claiming that the moon is slowly moving away from the earth. There goes some of the theory that the earth's gravity affects the moon. We've never even explored all of our ocean's floors, so who's not to say that there's something there.
I would definitely like to get ahold of some equipment that can see in different areas of the light spectrum, i.e. UV, IR, etc.... but that stuff's sure expensive! XD I agree - seems like every time someone discovers something new, it proves some old ideas wrong, so it's always best to keep an open mind... Besides, it's those new discoveries that make life interesting. While I do feel that the vast majority of Rods truly are known but mis-identified objects, you're right- nothing is 100%! =)
@jcmegabyteYou seem to be one of the few intelligent people I've spoken to on YouTube, I was joking when I called you a moron btw. Honestly I know almost nothing of rods, I simply viewed the MonsterQuest episode on rods, outside of that I really don't know much about them. That seems to be the case with rods. I do know a lot about cameras however, and I know how it is to find a "unidentified object" in video especially. A lot of times people misinterpret insects or dust as a rod or a ghost.
Thanks for that... :-) On a good day, I'll shoot 5,000 - 10,000 still images to make into time lapse sequences, with shutter speeds ranging from 1/30 to 1/1000. All the while I see birds, bugs, bats, etc. fly through the field of view, many resulting in Rod objects of all different lengths and shapes in many of my frames. I have yet to put the effort into simultaneous stills + high speed video capture to show the bugs vs. classic Rod images, but I plan to do so some day :-)
this was really bad!! notice how your bugs look like "worms" where as rods have a "ribbon" like wings/motion. I was cracking up at this, reminds me of the military 'n nasa's weather balloons, debris, ice...oh 'n lets not forget about these holes around the world that are incredibly deep where underground lava veins burned trees from the roots up..leaving an "uncharred" hole. roflmao!!! Evidently you think people are that stupid as well. *rolls eyes*
I think mentally lazy is probably more accurate. Most people won't expend the brainpower to understand the physics of light, motion, and photography (brief details in the vid description) and besides, fabricating fantastic creatures is far more fun than boring 'ol science! Admitedly, this video is a poor example of "classic" Rods due to MY photgraphic laziness, but a few streaks come fairly close. Hopefully I'll have better stuff to come, even though Discovery Channel has already done it. =)
@jcmegabyte you are right. plz w/draw my comment. Now that I have met you I get it. u r definitely very creative, thanks for replying wish you best success in your video endeavors!! :-)
When you see them with your eyes they look like fast, long, flying many winged, in a hurry, and hardly visible. In daylight, they go in one direction, a camera photo is not proof. You got to see them. And there is more, if not the same thing, flying around. I saw one stop, and hover.
Interestingly, the human eye does work like a camera to some degree - things which go speeding past in day or night can often appear as blurred streaks when one is not focused-on and following an object, i.e. "seeing it out of the corner of one's eye". I have seen this effect too. However, being able to focus on and follow something elonged with multiple wings, etc., and then seeing it stop and hover is quite a different matter. I would definitely like to see that for myself! :-O
It has to more then 5 years ago when i first saw these rods on a television program.What they were doing at this time was recording video off news, and live events being recorded.They went over thousands of hours of video looking for these objects.They found many.Now I watch you making a video of something I learned in 8th grade art class.Nice try tho.
Since then, mainstrean TV (Discovery Channel, National Geo, etc.) have broadcast some very well done scientific studies of Rod objects in videos, with comparisons of side-by-side high-speed / normal video cameras that show that elongated rod objects in photos/videos can easily be made by bugs, birds, and other objects speeding past the camera. Of course you can't acount for ALL Rod phenomenon with bugs and birds, but that 's what makes studying these things interesting! Cheers! =)
Of course bugs don't account for ALL Rod footage (the space ones are likely to be space debris and such) but the concept is valid for just about any situation. Thanks for stopping by! :-)
In his book (see external links) Ruppelt described the demoralization of the Blue Book staff and the stripping of their investigative duties following the Robertson Panel. As an immediate consequence of the Robertson Panel recommendations, in February 1953, the Air Force issued Regulation 200-2, ordering air base officers to publicly discuss UFO incidents only if they were judged to have been solved, and to classify all the unsolved cases to keep them out of the public eye.
about 10 years ago there were people looking into "flying sticks" that one would see out of the corner of the eye etc...I look it up now and cant find a thing about it..anywhere??
I think that only the name has changed... The phenomenon is now commonly referred to as "Rods", and covers a vast array of flying objects and anomolies - most of which are elongated, blurry, and usually the result of the eye or camera's perception of motion, light, and physics. I researched and compiled a bunch of info in the video details, in case you're interested - it's fascinating stuff. :-)
That was a very cool trailer - I look forward to seeing the film! There's so much variety and so many possibilities - each case needs to be looked at individually, but in many cases, some effect of shutter speed and a known (or likely) moving object can be *reasonably* (although not always conclusively) deduced. In some cases there aren't any easy explanations, or enough data to work with so we just have to theororize, but that's what makes this stuff so cool to study!
View Togemon 5 " A Moving Object"
Togemon5 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
zoolook1000 2 months ago
And by the way, some people investigating these "rods" seem to be making a true effort in understanding what they are, because many of those people aren't ufologists, they are real scientist applying the scientific method.
chromeinox 4 months ago
@chromeinox I am currently working on a much better documentary using parallel high-speed and normal cameras which will show those classic daytime Rods you mentioned, and will include shutter speeds and other technical parameters used during filming as well. There is a HUGE variety of Rod footage out there, but I'm pretty confident that with enough information about each one, a non-paranormal rationale can be worked out for most. In any case, it's fun to try and figure them out! :-)
JcmdiStockFootage 4 months ago
@JcmdiStockFootage Thanks for your answer. We seem to share the same idea that they are some kind of flying insect, but I think that it must be a new species that remains to be discovered. I mostly got that idea from those videos that show those parachute jumps into some deep cave.
chromeinox 4 months ago
That experiment , being good to explain motion blur, semms nothing like the rods I see in other vids. These vids are filmed at 1/10000 shutter speed and still we cannot discern very well what the hell these things are.
chromeinox 4 months ago
Why people "dislikes"? Don't like the truth?
myshambhala 5 months ago
I think that's part of the reason... Also, the video itself is a decent representation of motion blur which is how most Rods are made, but not a very good example of the classic Rods that most people are used to seeing... However, I AM working on a much better one, and hope to hae that one out sometime soon :-) Thanks for checking it out!
JcmdiStockFootage 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JcmdiStockFootage
>> the video itself is a decent representation of motion blur which is how most Rods are made, but not a very good example of the classic Rods that most people are used to seeing
I don't think there is significant difference. "Rods" are insects or sometimes fast flying birds, like swifts. I have examples of that.
myshambhala 5 months ago
@JcmdiStockFootage Can you show example of "classic Rod"? As much as I saw videos and photos, all of them perfectly can be explained as insects.
myshambhala 4 months ago
@myshambhala I find "classic" Rod streaks in my still images all the time, and have even seen the insects/birds flying through the scene while the image was taken, so there's no doubt in my mind where they come from. I've been collecting these images for an upcoming documentary, and will show side-by-side high-speed vs. normal footage to show exactly how Rod streaks are made, with camera data and all. I just need to find some cooperative insects to fly through the scene on que! :-)
jcmegabyte 4 months ago
@jcmegabyte Ok, then what the difference between what you call "classic Rods" and insects? I mean what we see on photos and videos.
starrdreams 4 months ago
@starrdreams Ahhh let me clarify... The "classic" Rod is one which is typically filmed during daytime at higher shutter speeds, is long and straight, and often has what are called "membranes" on both sides, presumeably a propulsion method. I used a slow shutter and night flying insects in this video (since they were handy), but I feel that nearly all Rods (classic or otherwise) are simply motion-blurred insects/wingstrokes, birds, etc. and that's what my documentary will show :-)
jcmegabyte 4 months ago
No such thing as rods.....just bugs and bad cameras.
gstanz67 6 months ago
So far as I've seen, pretty much all Rod images can be explained by motion blur of simple objects, or in many cases such poor quality images that it's difficult to identify anything at all... I do have more video/documentary coming of Rod effects and how different kinds of cameras/settings/conditions make them. :-) Thanks for checking it out!
JCMDIweirdStuff 6 months ago
sorry guv, good experiment, and i see why you demonstrated this,. BUT, this is absolutely dissimilar to some of the giant rods 1km + in size that have been witnessed,. also, the streaks of light in your video do not have the same width consistent that we see in rod video,. i am thinking that the rod videos which are credible,. are filmed at a high framerate as you can see wing structures
lostpanther1 6 months ago
There does seem to be a LOT of different kinds of Rod vids out there, each one with its own particular features... I am working on a better video, with side-by-side comparisons of high speed and regular cameras, to show how the insect motion blur shows-up differently on each type of camera, even though it is the same object. It definitely won't cover ALL types of Rods, but should work for many of the typical ones. In any case, it's fascinating stuff! =)
JCMDIweirdStuff 6 months ago
@JCMDIweirdStuff
Thanks, you video is showing an important feature of the camera's people have.
There are indeed a couple bulls-eye examples in your video that looks a lot like the rods shown at suggested video's.
But there is still one thing that is off.
A lot of other rod video's show perfect length of rods, framerate, lighting and do not always use nightvision.
I am not saying those rod creatures are real, but I am merely saying what has to be said.
Yezpahr 6 months ago
I agree - this is definitely NOT a good example of classic daytime Rods, merely an explanation of motion blur as you mentioned. There's a HUGE variety of Rod footage out there, and many may never be properly identified (and thus shall remain "UFOs" in my opinion), but I think that the physics I explained in the vid details can cover the vast majority of Rods. I'm also working on a much better video showing more typical daytime Rods and the bugs which make them. Should be interesting! =)
jcmegabyte 6 months ago
@jcmegabyte
Sounds interesting indeed. I'll hear it from you when you finished your work on the video?
Or should I just subscribe?
Yezpahr 6 months ago
I will post a link on this video, but subscribing is the best way to get an immediate notice. I don't release new vids very often so it should be easy to spot :-)
jcmegabyte 6 months ago
have you even seen the rods dumbshit?
mrheal420 7 months ago
This is a PERFECT Example of RAVERS writing their names with Glow Sticks or drawing hearts in THIN AIR and can only be Perfectly Seen by taking a Picture...the shutter is slowed down to have the illusion your name hanging in mid air.
im501337 8 months ago
Indeed that is exactly the same method :-) I used that technique (writing with light) to make my closing "logo" on many of my older videos, too. Long exposure is interesting to experiment with, and even at faster shutter speeds, objects which are close to the lens, or moving quickly (or some combination of both) leave streaks as well. I'm working on a better demostration of insects making Rod streaks in daytime photos/video - hoping to finish it this year :-) Cheers!
JcmdiStockFootage 8 months ago
Few things to point out. First, being able to reproduce the effect does not prove thats what is happening. Second, the most famous rod videos are not using slow shutter speed because they r capturing everything else in frame at a blatantly normal shutter speed. Third you couldnt even produce an identical image of what a classic rod looks like yet u call them classic rods. All your doing is making a similar effect - your not proving anything other than you arent a good scientist.
99Sorc 8 months ago
Well golly jee-- that kiils the fun!! I was watching for another Elvis sighting.
Rtfune 8 months ago
There are still lots of difficult to explain videos and still images to wonder about - so the fun's not ALL gone XD I do think most are just bugs or birds though. Thanks for checking it out! :-)
jcmegabyte 8 months ago
@jcmegabyte YOU betcha!!!!
Rtfune 8 months ago
nothin but a big pointless "could have been"-speculation where none of them phenomena you created looks anything like most vids of rods. don't advertise you have proof when you clearly don't.
yseeker23 9 months ago
This is really intended to show how small moving objects can appear to be elongated, solid objects in photography, and those same principles apply to fast-moving, straight-flying bugs with fast shutter speeds just like they do here with slow-moving bugs and a slow shutter (the math is in the vid details). Granted, the object shapes are different than "classic" Rods, but only because they bugs are circling instead of flying straight. I have better, daytime stuff on the way... Cheers! =)
JCMDIweirdStuff 9 months ago
Guys, RODS are not a mystery anymore.
I watched a video on the news some years ago. Some scientists(TV station? I can't remember) in China set up a net in attempt to catch the RODs captured on camera under a tree or something, and they did catch something... moths. At first I was skeptical, then they re-created the RODs photos by changing the shutter speed.
There are some other videos on youtube to support this claim.
So RODS are indeed BUGS, or so I believe.
formystudies 9 months ago
I think I saw that same show (on The History Channel)... It did make some good comparisons, but didn't really show typical daytime Rod effects. I'm working on a better documentary to capture classic daytime Rod stills/video alongside high-speed/slow motion video and show how the Rod effect is easily made by bugs on film. However, even though small object motion blur is pretty common, it's not always so easily explained by bugs/birds - which makes studying them so interesting :-) Cheers!
JcmdiStockFootage 9 months ago
Why wont any of these insect explanations address the rods seen against a clear sky far away? The super huge and super fast rods remain unexplained.
MrIronJustice 10 months ago
That's a good question. Nearly all the far-away Rod examples I've seen are of blurry objects, and it''s notoriously difficult to gage their distance from the lens. One example appeared to show a Rod pass BEHIND a treeline some several hundred yards away. On closer examination, it appeared that the object was much closer but roughly the same color as the trees and so blended-in against the tree background. There are lots of optical illusions like that in many Rod images. Fascinating stuff! =)
jcmegabyte 10 months ago
@jcmegabyte Thanks for the reply. It is very strange indeed. I'm inclined to think that it must be something other than planes because they typically move slowly across the screen from such a distance.
MrIronJustice 10 months ago
I agree- things just can't move so quickly in the atmosphere without heating up! XD Even distant meteors at many thousands of MPH, glowing brightly from friction seem to move fairly slow. Unless one can absolutely prove an object is far away, a closer one makes more sense, especially when lighting/physics fit. I've also learned not to trust all I see on film/video, as cameras can record things differently than expected, and settings/location data is frequently lacking in most cases. :-) Cheers!
jcmegabyte 10 months ago
This video proves nothing besides bugs are fun to look at in slow motion.
SMIshroomery321 10 months ago 2
This motion concept vid really just proves that bugs make streaks on photos/video. Even though the streaks aren't straight because the bugs are circling a light at slow speed, the same physical principals also apply to daytime images with faster, straight-flying bugs and higher shutter speeds. This isn't a great example, but I have better ones in the works. It's just hard to find cooperative bugs to fly through the frame while both high-speed and regular cameras are filming! XD Cheers! =)
JCMDIweirdStuff 10 months ago
this doesnt even come close to what is shown in rod videos
keto1979 10 months ago
I've seen a huge variety of Rod vids, with both straight (mostly) and curved (less often) streaks. Indeed this is not a classic Rod example, just staged demo to show how objects (bugs) leave motion streaks in photography, complete with membrane-like structures made by the wingstrokes, strongly resembling those in daytime Rod images. The same principles apply to faster objects in daylight with higher shutter speeds. There's more math and detail in the vid info. Fascinating stuff :-) Cheers!
jcmegabyte 10 months ago 2
This isn't proof of anything. Elsewhere here on YouTube there are great clips of these strange 'rods' flying at normal, slow-ish speeds, and such clips are being played back at normal (25fps) speeds, and they definitely appear to show long, thin creatures. Nothing to do with slo-mo, streaking, lighting etc. etc. I used to think they were insects, then changed my mind after seeing many inexplicable clips.
TheMightyHartley 10 months ago
This, of course, doesn't cover every possiblity, but it does show how flying bugs leave streaks in photography, including those "membrane"-looking effects as the wings flap. I included some math in the vid description showing that even with much faster shutter speeds in daytime, bugs can easily leave Rod images on film/video. Unfortunately most Rod images don't come with camera/shutter/exposure data, so we have to speculate, but that's what makes them so interesting to study :-) Cheers!
JcmdiStockFootage 10 months ago
youtube.com/watch?v=vPqRNho1194&feature=channel_video_title
SHOT IN HD!!
AcrobatTv 11 months ago
are you kidding me? what do this bugs have to do with rods???
Dimon12 11 months ago
this doesn't look like other ones
edbermeo 11 months ago
Yea - most of these are curvy instead of straight, mostly because they were slow-flying bugs circling the light, filmed with slow shutter speed. In daytime, the shutter speeds is usually much faster and so are the bugs, hence the straight streaks instead of the curvy ones. I wrote a bunch more info in the vid details :-)
jcmegabyte 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jcmegabyte "In daytime, the shutter speeds is usually much faster and so are the bugs, hence the straight streak" Wrong! higher shutter speeds=frozen motion. 1/2000s, what I used to capture rods, will freeze things traveling faster than your eye can see. A much slower 1/500s would freeze the fastest known bug at 60 mph. The range of normal shutter speed, is 1/60s to 1/500s.
string1248 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
its not the same as the flying rods
Trevithick1984 11 months ago
its not the same as the deemed flying rods
Trevithick1984 11 months ago
Real rods don't bend & curl in the air like a snake, like the bugs in this video. They're called rods because they're straight. Rods have appendages with membrane attached. these bugs don't. These bugs r small. Rods can b feet long. I've filmed rods using a very fast 1/2000s & higher effectively freezing them. Maker of this video used an extremely slow shutter speed probably 1/8s. To try to what, fool people? See my photos & videos on Roswell Rods under string1248
string1248 11 months ago
These bugs were moving very slowly, requiring long exposure (1/2 sec+) to get streaks. Scaling-up the bug and shutter speed (math&details in the vid desc), will produce the same effect, a concept which most people can understand, no fooling intended. You really do have some great shots, in surprisingly good focus for Rod images. The object looks like a white moth, 3-4 flaps (note the repeating pattern) per 1/30sec video frame in dusk light. I'd like to see your 1/2000sec shots, too. Cheers! =)
jcmegabyte 11 months ago
@jcmegabyte “I'd like to see your 1/2000sec shots, too. Cheers! =)” Those images where shoot a 1/2000s or higher. The sharpness & detail exhibited by the images should tell they where shoot at a high shutter speed. No tell tail motion blur. Not a moth. Filmed just 1 moth while capturing rods. Looked exactly like a moth 1 set of wings. They have different flying characteristics, moths flutter and land easily seen . Rods fly like cruise missiles hard to see. Moths r opaque, rods semi-transparent.
string1248 11 months ago
Normal settings 4 videos r like the 1st clip of bugs. U c them as bugs. Who in the heck shoots video with night vision, with the extremely slow shutter speed that u used? What is it 1/8 of a second. Sure looks like it. Normal shutter speed, is 1/60s to 1/500s The range, I'm u used for 1st set of bugs. Ur demonstration is not valid.
string1248 11 months ago
Rods are real!! I use them for fishing!!! >.<
kinismaster 1 year ago 2
Me too! XD Thanks so much for stopping by =)
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
@jcmegabyte : :D you're most welcome
kinismaster 1 year ago
It's been shown they are just bugs and the shutter speed makes them look that way. This is just people trying to make and name and some money from people that will believe anything you tell them. This has been debunked many many times now.
Argors1 1 year ago
Certainly the majority of them are bugs, and small birds, too. However, there are always those hard to explain cases (usually where the image quality and filming data is not so great) which makes these things fun and interesting to study... and of course they keep the paranormal enthusiasts going as well! XD Cheers! =)
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
@Argors1
yeah i wasted an hour of my life watching some Discovery show that waited till the last few minutes to prove its the camera's fault
BigBadPolack 1 year ago
@BigBadPolack
Ya I hate when they do that, one thing I have noticed with all these channels like Discovery, is they will put on a show that tells you one thing and then the very next show could be one that debunks it. I mean why bother with the BS when you know the truth is coming next, why give any power to the BS at all?
Argors1 1 year ago
It is weird to think that some kind of a multi-dimensional animal could be flying around us all the time,I heard of one guy saying he could see them without the need of a camera,he saw them with his eyes. I just cant beleive as long as Ive been around, That, Ive never seen anything of the like,clearly more study is needed,these might be the actual things that lead us to learning of other dimensions and such...
roro879 1 year ago
has anyone ever filmed "rods"inside?Where there are no insects flying around?
roro879 1 year ago
I've seen several indoor Rod video examples where the makers swear there were no bugs inside, but after watching the video it looks pretty clearly to me that they were indeed bugs (usually small moths). Perhaps the videographer just didn't see them at the time. Bugs can be pretty stealthy and are good at hiding - they can appear out of nowhere and then disappear, never to be seen again. Of course each photo or video example needs to be examined individually and a best guess analysis made. :-)
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
@jcmegabyte Very strange stuff,but im almost sure that the correct shutter speed is needed to produce the"rod"affect,with different speed settings,these things would almost surely be shown in their true form as a bug
roro879 7 months ago
Indeed - shutter speed is the critical factor that affects how a moving object appears in a photo/video. Distance/focus also matter... I am working on a better video with side-by-side cameras filming at high and low shutter speed/frame rates to show the same object as both a Rod AND the bug which made it. Knowing the camera settings is important to assessing moving objects in the shot, which most Rod vids are lacking (or incorrectly assumed/stated). It's definitely fascinating stuff! =)
jcmegabyte 7 months ago
@jcmegabyte I tell you man,talking to someone that actually has some sense on here is rare,I Feel like we could have a rational discussion about dam near anything!Its a breath of fresh air to not have some jerk,disagreeing with anything I say,even though its my opinion!Thanks for that bro!Way cool!
roro879 7 months ago
Over grown flagella
TheRichieCShow 1 year ago
Wow! Absolutely incredible! Tio stuff n thanks for the sub n post!
peace;]
lovosazul 1 year ago 2
Thanks so much for stopping by! =)
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
@jcmegabyte Mate, your very welcome! its an absolute pleasure to watch these type of quite remarkable events caught on film!
Peace;]
lovosazul 1 year ago
This video is not true true rods are paranormal and I can prove that. I have multiple rod videos with them flying around super fast and even appearing from a light source making popping noise when they appear sound like jets flying around the room then popping again and they are gone. So what you have to say about that no bugs are nothing does that besides rods.
Truelyhaunted 1 year ago
It really scares me how retarded some people are to believe in rods...i mean can no one see that they are just bugs flying past the camera at high speed!!!!??!
SaturnAndItsRings 1 year ago
The psychology behind belief in unseen/unexplained phenomenon is truly fascinating... It's like people don't even want to consider the obvious or mundane (and most likely) explanations. It's more fun to make up fantastic theories! It's also possible that many people are too lazy to learn and understand basic principles of light physics; objects don't even have to go very fast to leave streaks - 25mph will do the trick nicely at 1/250sec shutter speed, even in daylight. Cheers! :-)
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
@jcmegabyte well its good to know at least one person has some sense left!=)
SaturnAndItsRings 1 year ago
NOT proof. You admit its a slow shutter speed. In other words reduced framerate. Regular footage of rods is at regular shutter speed. In the case of the base jumping video into the pit that was a higher than regular shutter speed. Only proof here is that you do a biased experiment forget to mention a few inaccuracies and then claim you got proof that everything else is wrong.
cyberjunky 1 year ago
This is really a motion concept demo, showing how moving objects leave streaks in photo/video; I used slow frame rate/shutter since the bugs were really slow, but the same physics apply in daylight, with faster bugs and higher shutter speeds. I included some daylight math in the vid details. I've never seen any camera settings reported with any Rod documentation, but it seems likely that a videographer would use a slower shutter speed (to let more light in) when shooting into a dark pit/cave.
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
@jcmegabyte then as a 'motion concept demo' please don't claim to be proof. At current it cannot be proven until we are able to catch what this is and then record it in captivity to confirm it is or isn't a bug. Also, this cannot account for video footage showing the rods passing through walls etc as has been documented, never known a bug that can do that. Look it up if you don't believe me you might find it interesting.
cyberjunky 1 year ago
True, many rod vids will go unexplained because of poor quality images and lack of information about the camera settings, light levels, angles, distances, etc., but there are so many kinds of rod videos out there that who's to say this doesn't qualify? These look like some rods I've seen and unlike many others but it's clearly proven that bugs made the streaks in this case. I'm with you though, if there really ARE weird creatures out there making these, I can't wait until someone catches one!
bugvision 1 year ago
Yea, it seems the variety of "Rod" vids/images are endless! I have many pics with Rod streaks, taken from my thousands of time lapse stills (video coming) but what I really need is some side-by-side footage showing the same object clearly in high speed video, while leaving a streak in "normal" video at the same time. I now have the equipment to do this and I'm working on a setup. What I REALLY need is some cooperative bugs to fly through the frame in daylight at "normal" cruising speed! :-)
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
oops flying rods busted
antefesam 1 year ago
Yea, pretty much! XD While there are some interesting cases of difficult to explain images and video, the vast majority can be easily accounted for with basic principles of light and physics. The hard to explain ones are largely due to poor quality recordings and/or insufficient information... which, ironically, makes them UFOs! =)
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
bad job of trying to debunk the rods
TheSpitmitt 1 year ago
now try and do it with high speed, :0), see if you can get some good rods
SPAGHETTIMONSTER1 1 year ago
I already do have lots of still images with classic daytime Rods , which occur randomly in the thousands of sky timelapse images I film (video coming soon), but I really want to get some side-by-side shots of high-speed video and regular video/still images to show them both ways simultaneously. I know where there are some bee hives which ought to provide a decent chance of fly-bys in front of the cameras, so that project is in the works, too! :-)
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
You discovered shutter speed. Good for you!
smokkapi 1 year ago
Rods? get a stick, put it in the fire and then wave it round. that what your vid looks like. not haven a go, just sayin looks nothing like Rods. Peace
EbensR4Real 1 year ago
That's a good point, and you're right, these are more like air spaghetti than Rods, but the method of creating them is about the same. Had they been flying straight, they'd look a lot more like other classic Rod images. This demo is mostly made to show how easy it is for moving objects to make solid-like streaks in photography, and the same physics also apply to higher-speed daytime images. There's a bunch of details in the vid description, and I'm working on a daytime Rod vid too :-)
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
so there UFO Rods because there faster then you and they can fly?
DatsDoodoBaby 1 year ago
Mostly I'm was just trying to show easy it is to capture streaks by filming moving objects. There's lots more info about this experiment in the vid details. Cheers! =)
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
LOL, that's conclusive then :) You've really nailed it!
WeirdFields 1 year ago
Pants slowed Down flys
tonstar1111 1 year ago
first off ive seen rods on cameras with much higher frame rate. second ive seen rods enter the ocean, 3rd this video was a waste of time because it proves nothing.
Necronaut 1 year ago
this is so true. good job explaining. but what still bugs others is the fact that most of the home videos weve seen were shot using relatively old video cams, operating at normal setting(no night mode). these have no control over shutter speed and are by default set to higher shutter speeds so image exposure is faster..
bleed04 1 year ago
That's absolutely true: even with modern equipment, nearly all Rod images are shot in daylight with much higher shutter speeds than this. I included some math and physics involved in the vid details, but basically objects doen't have to move much faster than 20 MPH to leave streaks on photo/video frames, even at shutter speeds of 1/250sec, especially if it's close to the lens. Many lighting and physical factors create all kinds of Rod effect possibilities, which are fascinating to study! :-)
JcmdiStockFootage 1 year ago
how many frames did you use? 12?
BjorklundSimon 1 year ago
I think the frame rate in "night" motion is something like 1-2 fps, but the bugs were also flying very slowly so it worked for the "making bug trails" purpose of this demo. Daytime frame rates (and bug flight speeds) would of course be a lot higher..
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
cool beats
AndrewKH85 1 year ago
Thanks for checking it out! =)
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
you're probably right, but to me it seems that overlapping images xD
IlRincreTeam 1 year ago
friend at 0:18 are mosquitoes, moths and flies,not rods...
IlRincreTeam 1 year ago
No doubt about it - these are ALL small insects - gnats, mosquitoes, moths, etc... :-) ...but the interesting thing is how they leave long trails with embedded wingstrokes, very similar to (but not as straight as) the classic Rods we're all used to seeing... only the shutter time, bug flight speed and trajectory are different. I detailed a lot of the physics and math involved with daytime Rods in the video description as well. Cheers! =)
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
not exactly !
vouyero 1 year ago
SO NOW RODS LOOK LIKE SPERM IN THE SKY???
GabrielS14 1 year ago
I thought they looked more like spaghetti, but you never know what those clever Rod creatures might turn-up looking like next! XD Cheers! :-)
JcmdiStockFootage 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is only optic "inertia" of modern digital cameras!. That where only normal insects and birds. On 100%!!!. Long time of exposition and all of U can "catch" rods !. It's CMOS or CCD effect, optical illusion. Nothing more!. Sorry for my english.
oron42 1 year ago
You can also get this effect on traditional film cameras.. Even the human eye is suseptable to blurred motion streaks under the right conditions - especially if one sees a fast-moving object "out of the corner of one's eye". The physics and perception of Motion and light are fascinating to study! Cheers! =)
JcmdiStockFootage 1 year ago
Re: Skyfish - Flying rods ufo
type this and get it over with....
MyWordizBond 1 year ago
I'm glad you figured it out for all of us!!!!!!!
MyWordizBond 1 year ago
this was a waste of 1:24 minutes of my life
spencerhopkins91 1 year ago
thats alot of ufo's. This video makes me a believer of aliens
squishfaceofsaryrn 1 year ago
honestly how do you explain rods at thousands of feet above the surface, what about rods moving while other footage appears normal speed?
0nymous1 1 year ago
It's interesting the variety of places/conditions where Rods can appear, but all have one thing in common: a camera. I detailed some math in the vid desc; making streaks in daylight isn't so hard, especially when objects are much closer to the camera (note Rods are always out of focus) than the main subject . Rods are definitely cool to study - there's so much variety and each one will have it's own answers. Birds, bugs, balloons, space debris, lens flares and more are all possibilities. :-)
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
@jcmegabyte True, but consider this. How many bugs on this planet exist which you do not see? In fact, is is usually the ones nearest you that you see and hear. The others, you don't pay attention to unless you are watching PBS which is brought to you for free via the magic of a television camera. ;)
Kangsryche 1 year ago
Nice try but you can plainly see that they dont look like a vast majority of the rod photos and videos taken.... The speed is missing while in normal film speed.. and in daylight photos... Much like the 2 guys who said they can make crop circles using a 2x4 and a rope... it ends up looking remotely like a crop circle but nowhere near as complex or the nodule elongation, or the slight radioactivity at a real circle ... Close but no cigar. Tip of my hat you though 4 exploring this oddity.
MasterMark123 1 year ago 2
Some good points there. Indeed most of these don't look like classic daytime Rods due to my lazy night time filming XD I was mostly trying to show how small moving objects look like longer solid ones on film/video. The concept applies to daytime images too (details in vid desc). I get bugs/birds in my daytime shots as well (leaving Rod streaks) but they are much less common so it takes much more effort to capture examples on both still image AND high speed video. I'm working on it tho! :-)
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
Man, people don't want to accept the truth. It's like they want aliens to exist on our planet. The the people who believe in Rods, well then, look at the video. Here is proof. The whole Rod thing is a scam. Don't believe all that you see. These scam artist get rich making you a believer of this Ros BS. Get a life.
rewilkins2 1 year ago
So far, I haven't seen any Rod footage which couldn't be explained by terrestrial objects and "normal" physics, or just plain poor video quality such that the object can't reasonably be identified. It's true that people sure love their mysteries - and making up fantastic theories is much more entertaining than mundane rationale! XD No doubt the media makes a bundle hyping stuff like this... add some scary music and "what could it be!?" narration and you got instant income! Cheers! :-)
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
@jcmegabyte I know right. This is very true. Glad this mystery was figured out. Take care --Peace to you.
rewilkins2 1 year ago
@rewilkins2 Well, that is Atmavut manyate jagat, wich means: if he's a fool, he thinks all others are fools. That is human nature, but intelligence teaches us to have an open mind. You have not seen the person who has seen God. Therefore you say like that. So that is no argument.
I agree that we must not believe everything we read.
MyWordizBond 1 year ago
@MyWordizBond I agree to your point, makes since...... :)
rewilkins2 1 year ago
those are weather balloons.
jamesandrew2000 1 year ago 2
i KNEW there was something odd about them - and cleverly disguised as Gnats, too! XD Thanks for stopping by!
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
@jamesandrew2000 LOL!!
rewilkins2 1 year ago
FAIL
spitwerk 1 year ago
Dude, those aren't rods, they don't stay with each other and they aren't Aliens!
liater890 1 year ago
Most of these definitely don't look like classic Rods, although a few come close... This vid was just to demostrate the concept of how bugs leave streaks on film/video. I plan to do a better one with more typical daytime Rod streaks, if I can only find a reliable place where bugs fly by during the day... that's the hardest part! Anyway, thanks for checking out =)
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
that just mosquitos man! get serious
satjathamma 1 year ago
Actually, I think they're gnats, but either way my intent was to show how moving objects leave streaks on film/video as described in the vid details. I plan to do a better (more serious) one, showing daytime footage with classic Rod streaks, like that History Channel documentary did using high speed cameras to demonstrate the effect. The hardest part is just getting the bugs to fly by at just the right time! XD Anyway, thanks for watching!
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
But they don't look like rods.
RedVynil 1 year ago
Some resemble Rod images I've seen, but you're right - most of these are curved since these bugs are circling instead of flying straight. I posted some info on the light and physics involved with making daytime streaks on film/video as well, and I hope to duplicate more classic Rod images with daytime high speed photography at some point too. Thanks for stopping by! =)
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
@jcmegabyte There was a very short series (I think) on a cable channel (Discovery? Sci-fi?) about 10 to 20 years ago. In one episode they were visiting this house (up in Canada?) that is tilted, but things that SHOULD go down hill actually go uphill! In another episode they were talking about rods, then showed a clip from the tilted house shoot which had a rod flying across the screen! I've never seen anything more about rods ever since!!
RedVynil 1 year ago
I've seen some interesting stuff like that before - places with natural and man-made optical illusions where things seem to go uphill. As for Rods, there have been some cool documentaries on mainstream TV, such as this clip from a History Channel show with a bit about Rods: v=HEurk1JPo-w
There have been other some TV and news specials too but not surprisingly, most are very mysterious and speculative rather than scientific, since mysteries are better for selling airtime. :-)
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
@jcmegabyte I used to watch a Candian show called, "Psi Factor". Very interestng show & supposedly these were real cases each episode was based on. After a few seasons, it suddenly went from being a sort of documentary type show to a drama with sci-fi themes. That was around the time Matt Frewer took over as the lead character AND the producer of the show. One episode was about a hole in the ground in Canada where, any living thing that went in, usually aged dramatically & died before leaving!
RedVynil 1 year ago
That sounds like a cool show - especially if they put the effort into diggin up facts and documentation in addition to the speculation and movie magic most shows put into their productions to give them that extra "bang" for viewer attention. :-)
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
those are not flying rods theyre just bugs
lleanamarie 1 year ago
Conclusion: You are right when you say objects leave a motion trail when moving fast. But you are wrong when saying your video is Proof that rods are bugs.
Your opinion, vs highly acredited cientists opinions.
Sunsfallen 1 year ago
A History Channel documentary using high speed cameras also supports bug Rods, however, Rods in space, underwater, etc. must be something else, and that's what makes them so interesting to study! Most images lack any data except the image itself. Without shutter speed, scale or triangulation info, the size, distance and speed of an object can only be speculated, but in most terrestrial Rods images I've seen, 25MPH bugs can easily account for the vast majority. Definitely interesting stuff! =)
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
I do agree with you on the fact that any round object can leave a trail while moving at a high speed. But as various cientists have stated, there is a clear difference between an object leaving a trail and real rod videos. These videos, after being studied for hours, reveal that the body is in fact, long, and ranges from 5 cm to 35 meters long. There is also a video of a rod taken from a satelite near the atmosphere. No bug or insect can fly without air.
Sunsfallen 1 year ago
That's a good explanation. Only one little detail. You are using slow shutter speed to create a trail like motion with these bugs. But in real Rod videos, shutter speeds were normal. People were moving at normal speed while rods passed by at only fractions of a second.
In your video, you can clearly see that video speed is really slow. If there were someone in the background they would be moving extremely slow.
So, your video explanation = FAIL.
Sunsfallen 1 year ago 2
I definitely used an easier method of filming bug streaks for this demo vs. what it takes to film typical daytime Rod images, but the concept is still the same: bug streaks are very likely even in daytime images using faster shutter speeds. I detailed some math and physics involved in the vid description, and recently annotated the vid so viewers won't think this is supposed to show typical Rod images. Rather, it explains how small bugs can look like long solid objects in still frames.
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
do some research you wanker
lochnessaloe27 1 year ago
Hey moron when is the last time you've actually viewed videos/pictures of rods? They look nothing like any of these insects. I believe rods are some sort of insect that has evolved to fly faster than the speed of light and that's why we only see them on our cameras.
iHaveNothingtoGein 1 year ago
I see new Rod images regularly, including in my own pics/vids. Normal laws of physics easily cover all the requirments as far as light, motion and cameras go. Bugs, birds, etc. only have to move at 25-35MPH to leave a long streaks on film/video, even at fast shutter speeds of 1/500sec. Lightspeed objects probably wouldn't be visible to eye OR fast cameras, but of course bugs can't account for all Rod images; in space, underwater, etc., but then that's what makes studying them so interesting...
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
@jcmegabyte Actually there are cameras that can "see" ultraviolet light. So, yeah ;p. A good portion of our "laws" are only in theory. But that's science for ya, almost nothing can be 100% true. Take gravity for example, it's only in theory.They're (scientists) claiming that the moon is slowly moving away from the earth. There goes some of the theory that the earth's gravity affects the moon. We've never even explored all of our ocean's floors, so who's not to say that there's something there.
iHaveNothingtoGein 1 year ago
I would definitely like to get ahold of some equipment that can see in different areas of the light spectrum, i.e. UV, IR, etc.... but that stuff's sure expensive! XD I agree - seems like every time someone discovers something new, it proves some old ideas wrong, so it's always best to keep an open mind... Besides, it's those new discoveries that make life interesting. While I do feel that the vast majority of Rods truly are known but mis-identified objects, you're right- nothing is 100%! =)
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
@jcmegabyteYou seem to be one of the few intelligent people I've spoken to on YouTube, I was joking when I called you a moron btw. Honestly I know almost nothing of rods, I simply viewed the MonsterQuest episode on rods, outside of that I really don't know much about them. That seems to be the case with rods. I do know a lot about cameras however, and I know how it is to find a "unidentified object" in video especially. A lot of times people misinterpret insects or dust as a rod or a ghost.
iHaveNothingtoGein 1 year ago
Thanks for that... :-) On a good day, I'll shoot 5,000 - 10,000 still images to make into time lapse sequences, with shutter speeds ranging from 1/30 to 1/1000. All the while I see birds, bugs, bats, etc. fly through the field of view, many resulting in Rod objects of all different lengths and shapes in many of my frames. I have yet to put the effort into simultaneous stills + high speed video capture to show the bugs vs. classic Rod images, but I plan to do so some day :-)
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
exposed!!!!!!!!!!!
antking1117 1 year ago
this was really bad!! notice how your bugs look like "worms" where as rods have a "ribbon" like wings/motion. I was cracking up at this, reminds me of the military 'n nasa's weather balloons, debris, ice...oh 'n lets not forget about these holes around the world that are incredibly deep where underground lava veins burned trees from the roots up..leaving an "uncharred" hole. roflmao!!! Evidently you think people are that stupid as well. *rolls eyes*
HigherWaysWoman 1 year ago
I think mentally lazy is probably more accurate. Most people won't expend the brainpower to understand the physics of light, motion, and photography (brief details in the vid description) and besides, fabricating fantastic creatures is far more fun than boring 'ol science! Admitedly, this video is a poor example of "classic" Rods due to MY photgraphic laziness, but a few streaks come fairly close. Hopefully I'll have better stuff to come, even though Discovery Channel has already done it. =)
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
@jcmegabyte you are right. plz w/draw my comment. Now that I have met you I get it. u r definitely very creative, thanks for replying wish you best success in your video endeavors!! :-)
HigherWaysWoman 1 year ago
When you see them with your eyes they look like fast, long, flying many winged, in a hurry, and hardly visible. In daylight, they go in one direction, a camera photo is not proof. You got to see them. And there is more, if not the same thing, flying around. I saw one stop, and hover.
MrGlennveiga 1 year ago
Interestingly, the human eye does work like a camera to some degree - things which go speeding past in day or night can often appear as blurred streaks when one is not focused-on and following an object, i.e. "seeing it out of the corner of one's eye". I have seen this effect too. However, being able to focus on and follow something elonged with multiple wings, etc., and then seeing it stop and hover is quite a different matter. I would definitely like to see that for myself! :-O
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
It has to more then 5 years ago when i first saw these rods on a television program.What they were doing at this time was recording video off news, and live events being recorded.They went over thousands of hours of video looking for these objects.They found many.Now I watch you making a video of something I learned in 8th grade art class.Nice try tho.
ysaws 1 year ago
Since then, mainstrean TV (Discovery Channel, National Geo, etc.) have broadcast some very well done scientific studies of Rod objects in videos, with comparisons of side-by-side high-speed / normal video cameras that show that elongated rod objects in photos/videos can easily be made by bugs, birds, and other objects speeding past the camera. Of course you can't acount for ALL Rod phenomenon with bugs and birds, but that 's what makes studying these things interesting! Cheers! =)
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
So its not Hitlers secret moon bases?
mobilechief 1 year ago
Thank you! Thats what I thought
Mew4U 1 year ago
Of course bugs don't account for ALL Rod footage (the space ones are likely to be space debris and such) but the concept is valid for just about any situation. Thanks for stopping by! :-)
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
In his book (see external links) Ruppelt described the demoralization of the Blue Book staff and the stripping of their investigative duties following the Robertson Panel. As an immediate consequence of the Robertson Panel recommendations, in February 1953, the Air Force issued Regulation 200-2, ordering air base officers to publicly discuss UFO incidents only if they were judged to have been solved, and to classify all the unsolved cases to keep them out of the public eye.
ghostman3331 1 year ago
That's pretty sad that we don't get to see/hear/know about such interesting and potentially important sightings and discoveries.
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
about 10 years ago there were people looking into "flying sticks" that one would see out of the corner of the eye etc...I look it up now and cant find a thing about it..anywhere??
tautogg 1 year ago
I think that only the name has changed... The phenomenon is now commonly referred to as "Rods", and covers a vast array of flying objects and anomolies - most of which are elongated, blurry, and usually the result of the eye or camera's perception of motion, light, and physics. I researched and compiled a bunch of info in the video details, in case you're interested - it's fascinating stuff. :-)
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
But how do you explain rods underwater and 3,000 m up in the air?
watch?v=ylvNgHfJZoc
codrutoctavian 1 year ago 2
That was a very cool trailer - I look forward to seeing the film! There's so much variety and so many possibilities - each case needs to be looked at individually, but in many cases, some effect of shutter speed and a known (or likely) moving object can be *reasonably* (although not always conclusively) deduced. In some cases there aren't any easy explanations, or enough data to work with so we just have to theororize, but that's what makes this stuff so cool to study!
jcmegabyte 1 year ago
@codrutoctavian Moths can fly that high. Not sure about underwater rods though - they can't be rods.
Dragonfree97 1 year ago