Recently released Nasa footage shows the same "rods" in space. Space travelling moths?? These rods are moving at thousands of miles per hour. Maybe they're just weather balloons or swamp gas? Open your eyes and realize it is a real phenomenon...
The problem is that they RODS (skyfish) are also filming in winter in cold weather. Insects are usually killed by cold weather. proof, this is amateur video. See from 27 seconds (on Youtube) /watch?v=vNg2yeol0t4
If everybody had the same cameras as the Monday Night Football crews have, there would be no "ROD PHENOMENON"... If you people would just spend the, several thousand dollars, for one of those REAL cameras, you will never record another "ROD" again... By the way, those cameras are also very light weight. They only weigh a couple hundred pounds...
Case closed-Finally! Now; what ppl ought to know is that the only "rod" that has ever been described is exactly that-a rod or cigar-shaped object sometimes hundreds of ft. &up to a mile in length. Seemingly rare contrasted w/traditional UFO sightings of disc shaped objects or 'craft', not rarer than the 'flying boxcar' &which itself may be the same sort of thing depending on perspective viewed. This videographic age has ppl wanting to see everything cameras see as UFOs &otherowrld objects.
Just a thought... Have there been any sightings without the use of a camera? You know, with the human eye, which has no shutter speed or frames per second to confuse things... I mean, if several people witnessed these things at the same time, just using their eyes, then that would instantly prove or disprove their existence.
@torino390 The effective 'shutter-speed' equivalent of the human eye has been established to be around 1/30th of a second (1/10th in the dark). In cinematography, the human brain (minus some integration over time) will no longer perceive frame flicker at around 50hz, or 1/50th of a second, therefore you are unable to discern detail beyond that range once the phenomenon of 'motion blur' comes into effect.
@radionactive In rod photography, rods themselves usually begin to appear at speeds of around 1/60th of a second and higher, which is above the average threshold of human sight. Even though the brain is sensitive enough to have a 'sense' or awareness of objects moving at this speed, they will mostly appear like a brief blur or sudden streak across one's field of vision. At this speed any rod, or insect, would only be noticed once it had passed into one's peripheral vision.
eSCAMilla is just the latest in a long line of all american con artists... peddling his paranoid conspiracies this way is an excellent buisiness model. Great returns for very little outlay. He is a PT Barnum minus the style, grace, humour and manners.
yeah well science cannot explain what messed with me on a deck in Philly 2 years ago- this "thing" was soooo tiny- had great intelligence- was encapsulated in it's shell- freaked us all out before it shot away so I believe rods must be real
i don't say they are real because i think they are not.. but with all those tests, was that video with the moth the best they can do?? This video does not explain rods.
I took a photo a few years ago at night on film and when i got the photo back i saw someting i couldnt explain. After thinking about things i realised it was a pigeon that got spooked and flew infront of the lens and basicly it was shutter open for to long.
Yes, this solves the sightings of the average rods caught on camera, but I watched the video this clip was taken from, and they told a story of how a man filmed a rod flying at the same height and speed of an airplane, and the CIA "confiscated" it from him.
I like that the title of video is "Myth of Rods exposed" when the video has a doctor who says he doesn't believe the flight pattern of these "things" is anything like an insect...
Too bad that last piece really looked rather irrefutible
that was an excellent demonstration at the end, problem is what are the rods that are a few feet long? birds perhaps? also the odd number of wings? cant be explained as being a moth. this video should be entitled explanation for rods in one case lol
now wait a minute... a moth? really? when's the last time you saw a moth at the speeds these things have been filmed at? that's one fast moth... now, i don't know what they are, and frankly, i don't really care, we don't know everything and that's cool with me, but a moth??? surely not. more research needed me thinks...
@torino390 A moth moving close to a camera lens can look like another thing going very fast a lot further away. 12 inches from the lens it passes in a frame or two. If you assume it was several feet further away you will calculate these amazing speeds that a "Rod" was supposed to be travelling.
@torino390 You don't know what they are and frankly you don't care? Is that a way of saying you want you have your two-penn'orth but you don't want hear what anybody else has to say? The 'rod' at the end was shown beyond any doubt to be a moth because it was synchronised on both the high-speed and standard-speed cameras. On the standard-speed camera you can see it's a moth. Quite apart from which the bush was shaken prior to the experiment. Was the bush full of rods?
@torino390 I had a moth fly around in my room and let me tell you it's wings were flapping so fast that you can barely see it. So a high speed camera would make a moth appear to be a slow as a butterfly. Rods explained. :)
Nice theory and it might make sense. The only problem is what about cameras that record at 60p or high speed cameras? Not all cameras shoot interlaced. As this becomes more prominent in cameras it will be interesting to see what the future holds.
well, sorry for being a believer... nah i won´t sorry just because u think they don´t exist FUCKING BASTARD the one who is retarded is you because it seems that you haven´t learned that u have to respect the opinions of other people. And please, a FUCKING(like you!!!) moth? you have to be retarded if u think moths can fly at that speed stupid IDIOT. So suck my dick!!!!!! STUPID GAY BASTARD!!!!!
Oh my God, grow up. You just said yourself that you should respect other peoples opinions, right? By the sounds of things you're not doing just that at all, are you?
Wow the facts have been just presented to you in this video and you still refused to understand the true ,are u retarded??? really are you ?? so i can stop bother you.
rods are just optical illusions created by motion blur from any ordinary fast flying insects like moths. the camera is unable to capture it relatively with its speed, thus the insect's body ends up to be even more lengthened due to motion blur as when the video is captured from a bad camera.
this does not explain rods, they need to go to a different place because all that guy did was stir up moths not rods. they dont just lay in the bushes. they fly around constantly
So, if someone was shooting with a video camera in progressive mode (not interlaced), the doubling of the image shouldn't happen, although a long shutter speed would cause motion blur. Therefore if a rod is caught on a bright day with short shutter speeds, in p mode, it's hard to explain?
Complete BS. Video a bird you dont see a rod split frame only applies to certain shots. There are old photos of rods taken with box cameras. Someone needs to spend the money for an expedition and catch one, I feel they live in trees, been seen around caves so they can see in the dark. They eat something and must sleep somewhere. A strange creature indeed....
A few months back, someone mentioned neutrinos. We can't film them, but we can passively detect them. Why haven't any experiments of that sort been applied to rods? If they exist, other animals with faster eyes than humans must interact with them. I'm not convinced either way, but trying to film something that supposedly moves so fast seems pointless, no?
I dont know what goes in space. But in our lower atmosphere, Insects. Its not rocket science. There are probibly different creatures that hace amazing speed. Imagine, The SCALE speed would be equal to a thousand or more MPH. Next, We discuss Sasquatch. I dont have one of those in my grill.
Sometimes the Rods will rotate for safety. This makes it very difficult for a preditor to eat the Rod. The Rod is actually an insect. I have a dead one I found in my car grill. Very interesting bug!!
By the way, if you're trying to find the footage I'm talking about, good luck. Really. It was broadcast in 73, 74, 75, something like that. Which, by the way, was about 20 years before the web even existed. I'm actively looking for it, but franky, I have little hope. I know. You'll say "because it doesn't exist." You're half right. It does exist, but I doubt it's on the web. By the way, why is there not a single reputable scientist looking for them? MIT? The government? Seems important, no?
Whatever, dude. I saw the whole "rod" thing "discovered" back in the mid 70's. Then debunked with stroboscopic videography. What's Escamilla using? 800 frames a second? A thousand? Big deal...
JFK was killed by a rod, you know. Oh, yeah. Damn thing flew right through his head. Splattered his brains all over the trunk of the convertible. Real mess. And you know, theyre still looking for that rod? Yep. After all these years, no one has seen it, heard it, found it, caught it, nothing. Sure is an elusive little bugger, isnt it? Just like the tens of thousands of other rods that are constantly flying around all over the place. And are never seen. Or heard. Or caught. :-/
oooh sarcasm, the skeptics best weapon! we havent seen them because the human eye has limits on speed that a video camera doesnt have and they are seemingly translucent. you cant hear them for the same reason you dont hear most of the other insects (which im sure they probably are) flying by. people havent caught them for the same reasons we cant see or hear them... have you ever seen, heard or caught a neutrino? no. just because science doesnt have the answer for this yet, doesnt make it fake.
30 frames a second? people actually believe this trash? the footage from the canyon where birds chase them was taken by a profession news camera... has no one seen a moth flying in real life? any news camera on a standard setting will easily show a moth as a moth. the history channel is a known source of misinformation... once again people are fooled by a simulation, these guys are camera and effects experts folks, they can simulate anything.
Dr. Hu? Oh boy where do the jokes begin? Did he escape from a James Bond set? Cause his theory is a little off. They came here with the other visitors a moth with alot of extra go power.
okay, obviously not an effect of the interlaced video. so they're suggesting that the moth traveled all that distance in ONE second? i understand interlacing and high speed cameras very well and this makes no sence
Most of rods could be probably some insects, but I think that some are not. You can see on some Escamilla's videos that some of the rods are really big and that they are flying BEHIND some objects that are very far in the sky. Everything that moves so fast will probably have same effect while filming. IMO most of those little fast flying rods are simply moths and flies, but some of rods are simply too big. Big fast creatures? Big fast birds? Fast UFO's? I don't know!
I knew all my weeks of watching MonsterQuest and all the goose chases would pay off. No conspiracy, just a video optics effect. makes you wonder about all the other conspiracies, doesn't it?
mynameislort & sami2987... "plausable and believable science" Yeah... what a lame way to debunk a myth that people with nothing better to do with their time desperately want to believe. Science shmience! DUH...looks different from DAYTIME "rods" because they shot at NIGHT for clearer image and thus used LONGER SHUTTER SPEED than would be used in daytime. The night time with BLACK BACKGROUND makes it easier to SEE CLEARLY. But by all means hold on to your pathetic fantasy if you need it so badly.
Google search "The "Rods" Hoax". THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RODS! Bugs beat their wings several times during the time when a camera shutter is open. High-speed photography has NEVER captured "rods." Carlos Escamilla is a former pro vidiographer who SELLS DVDs of his crap. He knows exactly the science of photography that causes this ARTIFACT in film. He is either a hoaxer or a complete idiot who knows nothing of the science of photography and any who believe this obvious crap are beyond ignorant!
I saw that whole show about rods on tv and it was so weird. If they're really organisms then they're my favorite animal lol. That part of the show did not explain it. There was much more said about it as well.
Debunking protocol...Sandwich disinformation between plausable and believable science....The easiest way to keep a secret is to make people believe they know the answer.
lol nothing has been debunked, u dumbasses must be stupid, what they caught at the end doesnt even look like a rod, a rod doesnt have that many side things on it, so FAIL as usual u dumb ass shmucks.
one of the blurred images of a "rod" flying, it's "wings" reminds me a lot of those sea slugs that glide through water, of course, now we know "rods" are just moths and bugs.
I actually watched this episode a few months ago, they couldn't explain all of the rods, it was still unknown what exactally rods were. That was just a small clip of it where they tried to do some tests, the whole episode is pretty interesting.
yup, they're moths. absolutely. the effect is due to the normal speed cameras we use. that's it. I am amazed. Towards the end, you can clearly see how the moth would have created that elongated effect. Wow.
modern consumer products - they truly are a mystery... for those that don't understand them. Dont worry, I wont steal your excitement. I can see you need to believe this stuff...maybe its the kid in you.
wow, true denial. even when the evidence is presented to you in a scientific fashion (with a control and experimetal) you still prove resilient. you are completely owned
Ditto. The school of Science has to reason the unreasonable, or it cannot sleep at night. I too delight in these mysteries, but I also suspect that there is a hell of lot more out there than meets the eye, so to speak. So hold on to your thinking caps 'cause there's something coming, and it's gonna blow mankind away. No exaggeration.
Explains the small "rods", but doesn't explain the videos of rods that happen to fly past airplanes and through clouds. The airplanes give a sense of the scale of the rods.
That explains the "small rods" that are obviously close to the viewer, but not the "big rods" that zoom through clouds and past airplanes, as clearly seen on some good video footage.
All things in motion can achieve the same effect.
The crossing of the woman's head is an optical illusion already explained.
In space are likely to be space debris (there are thousands).
Speedis only apparent and depends on the distance of the object with a video camera (distance unverifiable).
The most logical explanation, usually, is that true.
claudio12832 1 month ago
who plugs thier ears for a paintball gun what a pussy
phoenixbrown108 1 month ago
The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Occam's Razor. I'm comfortable with the moth answer.
Case closed Escamilla.
AbbyCadaver01 3 months ago
@tintin777ful u dum dum
ThexNerd 3 months ago
they move like squid
SuperHawkStar 5 months ago
they go through walls and stuff too,even through peoples heads plus can be huge in size.
tintin777ful 8 months ago
moth in outer space?? haha fucking idea..
mowizbeverly16 10 months ago
Recently released Nasa footage shows the same "rods" in space. Space travelling moths?? These rods are moving at thousands of miles per hour. Maybe they're just weather balloons or swamp gas? Open your eyes and realize it is a real phenomenon...
SuperTrustFall 10 months ago
@SuperTrustFall link to this vid pls or bullshit
FetidToecheese 3 months ago
Is he really called Dr. Who?
GlowWorm1962 11 months ago 2
@GlowWorm1962 Who ?
ReneeNme 10 months ago 2
The problem is that they RODS (skyfish) are also filming in winter in cold weather. Insects are usually killed by cold weather. proof, this is amateur video. See from 27 seconds (on Youtube) /watch?v=vNg2yeol0t4
ruythyrreify 1 year ago
If everybody had the same cameras as the Monday Night Football crews have, there would be no "ROD PHENOMENON"... If you people would just spend the, several thousand dollars, for one of those REAL cameras, you will never record another "ROD" again... By the way, those cameras are also very light weight. They only weigh a couple hundred pounds...
3006khz 1 year ago
I saw a video before of Rods under water. what kind moth can do that?
dare12288 1 year ago
yea they are moth like things
jackdorward 1 year ago
how about the ufo?
ravenmallofsayori 1 year ago
Case closed-Finally! Now; what ppl ought to know is that the only "rod" that has ever been described is exactly that-a rod or cigar-shaped object sometimes hundreds of ft. &up to a mile in length. Seemingly rare contrasted w/traditional UFO sightings of disc shaped objects or 'craft', not rarer than the 'flying boxcar' &which itself may be the same sort of thing depending on perspective viewed. This videographic age has ppl wanting to see everything cameras see as UFOs &otherowrld objects.
FearOfaBlackChannel 1 year ago
Just a thought... Have there been any sightings without the use of a camera? You know, with the human eye, which has no shutter speed or frames per second to confuse things... I mean, if several people witnessed these things at the same time, just using their eyes, then that would instantly prove or disprove their existence.
torino390 1 year ago
@torino390 The effective 'shutter-speed' equivalent of the human eye has been established to be around 1/30th of a second (1/10th in the dark). In cinematography, the human brain (minus some integration over time) will no longer perceive frame flicker at around 50hz, or 1/50th of a second, therefore you are unable to discern detail beyond that range once the phenomenon of 'motion blur' comes into effect.
radionactive 1 year ago
@radionactive In rod photography, rods themselves usually begin to appear at speeds of around 1/60th of a second and higher, which is above the average threshold of human sight. Even though the brain is sensitive enough to have a 'sense' or awareness of objects moving at this speed, they will mostly appear like a brief blur or sudden streak across one's field of vision. At this speed any rod, or insect, would only be noticed once it had passed into one's peripheral vision.
radionactive 1 year ago 2
no a low shutter speed makes everything like ten times as bright thats how i managed to capture a ufo go on my page to check it out
charlienethercoat094 1 year ago
Finally someone showed it.. I couldn't watch this rod sillyness allaround youtube
AniHipi 1 year ago
please man..explain this video: 8sDE1Z7h7xA but this will give you hard time because its not close to the camera, its behind a couple of ppl :)
0silator 1 year ago
OMFG just set up a massive net and catch 1 ffs RETARDS
jellyadult 1 year ago
@jellyadult they dismiss that plan by saying they can defy physics and move through solid objects. :-P
Spydiggity 1 year ago
hey guys??what is a rod ??^^
blitzker33 1 year ago
lol....Dr who!!!
fcukballthecamera 1 year ago 4
moths were like hey lets only breed the FASTEST BITCHES in our species okay? and they came up with these beasts
Ne0nLiteZ 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Just a very nice scam by Jose Escamilla.
eSCAMilla is just the latest in a long line of all american con artists... peddling his paranoid conspiracies this way is an excellent buisiness model. Great returns for very little outlay. He is a PT Barnum minus the style, grace, humour and manners.
JEblowsducks 1 year ago
yeah well science cannot explain what messed with me on a deck in Philly 2 years ago- this "thing" was soooo tiny- had great intelligence- was encapsulated in it's shell- freaked us all out before it shot away so I believe rods must be real
tippitytop1 2 years ago
Ohmygosh I love you. XD
See? They are bugs! What was with the guy that said that they were real and could move through the 4th dimension?
Eeveeninja77 2 years ago
Looks like a spiral nt a rod..
shiftas2 2 years ago
...
Why was a bug near a plane? :/
It works for some accounts, but certainly not all.
sireenn 2 years ago
aww, i wanted them to be real :(
kanserstyx 2 years ago
wow the ending to this video was so convincing im not sure if i believe there real anymore haha!
Jurassic343 2 years ago
i don't say they are real because i think they are not.. but with all those tests, was that video with the moth the best they can do?? This video does not explain rods.
guypi 2 years ago
Yes it does. Evidence is evidence.
phishthefish 2 years ago
1:19 Does that guy really think a paintball gun is going to be that loud...
DustinDeitch 2 years ago
not all rods are bugs and shutter speed, even if 99% are, wth is the other 1%.
RageMojo 2 years ago
I fuggin love it! a moth! ^.^
prepare2fire 2 years ago
I took a photo a few years ago at night on film and when i got the photo back i saw someting i couldnt explain. After thinking about things i realised it was a pigeon that got spooked and flew infront of the lens and basicly it was shutter open for to long.
8824snipe 2 years ago 3
Yes, this solves the sightings of the average rods caught on camera, but I watched the video this clip was taken from, and they told a story of how a man filmed a rod flying at the same height and speed of an airplane, and the CIA "confiscated" it from him.
ShokuaK 2 years ago 3
3:16
ryansheckler102 2 years ago
I like that the title of video is "Myth of Rods exposed" when the video has a doctor who says he doesn't believe the flight pattern of these "things" is anything like an insect...
Too bad that last piece really looked rather irrefutible
pdderek 2 years ago
BULLSHIT !!!!!!!
PindzMedia 2 years ago
Comment removed
sultan786able 2 years ago
would be interesting to know if any rods have been caught on a high speed camera
iliketha 2 years ago
that was an excellent demonstration at the end, problem is what are the rods that are a few feet long? birds perhaps? also the odd number of wings? cant be explained as being a moth. this video should be entitled explanation for rods in one case lol
iliketha 2 years ago
that explains it alright. so simple.
rionn214 2 years ago
now wait a minute... a moth? really? when's the last time you saw a moth at the speeds these things have been filmed at? that's one fast moth... now, i don't know what they are, and frankly, i don't really care, we don't know everything and that's cool with me, but a moth??? surely not. more research needed me thinks...
torino390 2 years ago 9
@torino390 A moth moving close to a camera lens can look like another thing going very fast a lot further away. 12 inches from the lens it passes in a frame or two. If you assume it was several feet further away you will calculate these amazing speeds that a "Rod" was supposed to be travelling.
theoldstigster 1 year ago
@torino390 You don't know what they are and frankly you don't care? Is that a way of saying you want you have your two-penn'orth but you don't want hear what anybody else has to say? The 'rod' at the end was shown beyond any doubt to be a moth because it was synchronised on both the high-speed and standard-speed cameras. On the standard-speed camera you can see it's a moth. Quite apart from which the bush was shaken prior to the experiment. Was the bush full of rods?
raggedmoorlander 1 year ago
@torino390 I had a moth fly around in my room and let me tell you it's wings were flapping so fast that you can barely see it. So a high speed camera would make a moth appear to be a slow as a butterfly. Rods explained. :)
edesir 1 year ago
@torino390 hi there, take a look at my recent videos I have posted, a rod event I have captured in my back yard, I cant explain what it is either.
cdbfort 1 year ago
Nice theory and it might make sense. The only problem is what about cameras that record at 60p or high speed cameras? Not all cameras shoot interlaced. As this becomes more prominent in cameras it will be interesting to see what the future holds.
vadervideo 2 years ago 3
people panic over the dumbest things
wombastic88 2 years ago
well, sorry for being a believer... nah i won´t sorry just because u think they don´t exist FUCKING BASTARD the one who is retarded is you because it seems that you haven´t learned that u have to respect the opinions of other people. And please, a FUCKING(like you!!!) moth? you have to be retarded if u think moths can fly at that speed stupid IDIOT. So suck my dick!!!!!! STUPID GAY BASTARD!!!!!
slayer999100 2 years ago
Oh my God, grow up. You just said yourself that you should respect other peoples opinions, right? By the sounds of things you're not doing just that at all, are you?
JuggaloAro 2 years ago 2
sup people
kidasterorig111 2 years ago
wow...bummer. I always wondered wtf they were and I never saw this. Got to admit I'm disappointed. But there is no argument, they are just insects.
Christ I hope Sasquatch is real...
rdeco73 2 years ago
sasquatch is real since my friend is one and he always says "i'm not a sasquatch" i know what to believe.
ilovetodayy 2 years ago 2
Funny, the phenomenon is so simple, but apparently many just don't get it. Is the concept of long exposures really so difficult to understand?
The interlacing is probably not relevant with these videocamera shots.
magi1969 2 years ago
1. if they are moths, explain the lenght
2. if they are moths, etc..., explain the number of wings
3. TELL ME IF YOU HAVE SEEN A THIN CYLINDRIC CREATURE OF MORE THAN 6M LONG THAT FLIES AT THAT INCREADIBLE SPEED!!!!!
do you know one? no? i knew it!
slayer999100 2 years ago
Wow the facts have been just presented to you in this video and you still refused to understand the true ,are u retarded??? really are you ?? so i can stop bother you.
maxpowerule 2 years ago
i can't tell.....i'm no scientist.......but sorry, i am not buying it.....with this i am not saying they do exist.....but a moth ???? mmmmmmm
mexicantraveler 2 years ago
rods are just optical illusions created by motion blur from any ordinary fast flying insects like moths. the camera is unable to capture it relatively with its speed, thus the insect's body ends up to be even more lengthened due to motion blur as when the video is captured from a bad camera.
macshit900 2 years ago
this does not explain rods, they need to go to a different place because all that guy did was stir up moths not rods. they dont just lay in the bushes. they fly around constantly
kmigs1991 2 years ago
This DOES explain ''ROD's''.
A Rod is a moth, which can fly at very high speed.
As they said, at almost every camera, (except for the 1000 FPS camera), the ROD is a long blurry thing.
The moth moves fastly in front of the camera, and depending on the fps of the camera, it decides how long the seen creature on the camera is.
The speed makes the moth make more Frames in one second, so you see a long thing.
And how would you know they fly constantly?
Do you have prove?
Regards
Puma126 2 years ago
no there are a few vidoes that you can plainly tell that they are not moths. look up photos of rods, or stirling rods 2 and you will see..
kmigs1991 2 years ago
Play stirling rods in 1000 FPS and you'll see that i'm right..
Photo's of rods, it doesn't plainly tell me it isn't a moth.
In this vid they clearly showed it are moths.
Closed.
Puma126 2 years ago
Did you not see the end of the video? Watch the end of the video again.
psxwarrior 2 years ago
Dr Who?
al3699 2 years ago
So, if someone was shooting with a video camera in progressive mode (not interlaced), the doubling of the image shouldn't happen, although a long shutter speed would cause motion blur. Therefore if a rod is caught on a bright day with short shutter speeds, in p mode, it's hard to explain?
alanstarkie2001 2 years ago
You can expose my rod
Hahaha
mandoburgerful 2 years ago 2
wtf? lol
akonamanliwat 2 years ago
Complete BS. Video a bird you dont see a rod split frame only applies to certain shots. There are old photos of rods taken with box cameras. Someone needs to spend the money for an expedition and catch one, I feel they live in trees, been seen around caves so they can see in the dark. They eat something and must sleep somewhere. A strange creature indeed....
dreamstate4u 2 years ago
yap still not solve? they have to catch some to prouve it...even tho we cant see them naked eyes just put a net weres thers some!
alloverchronic 2 years ago
A few months back, someone mentioned neutrinos. We can't film them, but we can passively detect them. Why haven't any experiments of that sort been applied to rods? If they exist, other animals with faster eyes than humans must interact with them. I'm not convinced either way, but trying to film something that supposedly moves so fast seems pointless, no?
Oathblivion 2 years ago
great video. i hope they will catch one and research it. its amazing. i am speachless
PunjabiSquad 2 years ago
Still doesn't solve it! Stupid! The Documentary is not even complete.
Haziel83 2 years ago
Based on what I seen and heard here, I highly recommend the Doctor take a look at my site.
aerostockians 2 years ago
haha awesome.. 10 seconds of truth at the end making all the rod believers look like retards... or as in the movie hangover "retárds"
studiog 2 years ago
I dont know what goes in space. But in our lower atmosphere, Insects. Its not rocket science. There are probibly different creatures that hace amazing speed. Imagine, The SCALE speed would be equal to a thousand or more MPH. Next, We discuss Sasquatch. I dont have one of those in my grill.
MrJohnnyrace 2 years ago
wow, docter who regenerated into a chinese bloke lol.
now to be serios, at 3:20 that is the most strange, it could be a bird, but thats a wierd bird.
but now knowing there just moths or other bug, ive gone off of this rod thing, dam you science
crazykid236 2 years ago
Comment removed
engeladam409 2 years ago
Sometimes the Rods will rotate for safety. This makes it very difficult for a preditor to eat the Rod. The Rod is actually an insect. I have a dead one I found in my car grill. Very interesting bug!!
MrJohnnyrace 2 years ago
a dead one in your car grill eh...
uh-huh
and how come this wasnt on the news?
ColeJones83 2 years ago
wow it's confirmed. it was a cool phenomena anyhow.
greaval 2 years ago
they look like spiral wings
pippigladstone 2 years ago
RY:
A moth? Are you shitting me? Okay, maybe I don't know what these things are.
rsgrcg 2 years ago
i'm sorry.....did he say Dr Who? lmao
matparkinson 2 years ago 5
Only need to watch the last 25 seconds of this.
LtStarkiller 2 years ago
wait if the rods are bugs then how are they in space? Are they just debree moving so fast the shutter speed makes it look like that?
blazedbl 2 years ago
The word "rod" is never mentioned in any discussion of objects in space.
ChrissyHuber 2 years ago
By the way, if you're trying to find the footage I'm talking about, good luck. Really. It was broadcast in 73, 74, 75, something like that. Which, by the way, was about 20 years before the web even existed. I'm actively looking for it, but franky, I have little hope. I know. You'll say "because it doesn't exist." You're half right. It does exist, but I doubt it's on the web. By the way, why is there not a single reputable scientist looking for them? MIT? The government? Seems important, no?
mjmintexas 2 years ago
Whatever, dude. I saw the whole "rod" thing "discovered" back in the mid 70's. Then debunked with stroboscopic videography. What's Escamilla using? 800 frames a second? A thousand? Big deal...
mjmintexas 2 years ago
JFK was killed by a rod, you know. Oh, yeah. Damn thing flew right through his head. Splattered his brains all over the trunk of the convertible. Real mess. And you know, theyre still looking for that rod? Yep. After all these years, no one has seen it, heard it, found it, caught it, nothing. Sure is an elusive little bugger, isnt it? Just like the tens of thousands of other rods that are constantly flying around all over the place. And are never seen. Or heard. Or caught. :-/
mjmintexas 2 years ago
oooh sarcasm, the skeptics best weapon! we havent seen them because the human eye has limits on speed that a video camera doesnt have and they are seemingly translucent. you cant hear them for the same reason you dont hear most of the other insects (which im sure they probably are) flying by. people havent caught them for the same reasons we cant see or hear them... have you ever seen, heard or caught a neutrino? no. just because science doesnt have the answer for this yet, doesnt make it fake.
stochastikos 2 years ago
Science has found an answer. It's explained in great detail in the above video. It's not fake. Insects are real.
seth5495 2 years ago
30 frames a second? people actually believe this trash? the footage from the canyon where birds chase them was taken by a profession news camera... has no one seen a moth flying in real life? any news camera on a standard setting will easily show a moth as a moth. the history channel is a known source of misinformation... once again people are fooled by a simulation, these guys are camera and effects experts folks, they can simulate anything.
stochastikos 2 years ago
oh and btw jose escamilla, the guy who made rods famous uses high speed cameras... so there goes that whole explanation down the drain.
stochastikos 2 years ago
Dr. Hu? Oh boy where do the jokes begin? Did he escape from a James Bond set? Cause his theory is a little off. They came here with the other visitors a moth with alot of extra go power.
wanshei 2 years ago
High speed insects?! Motoring moths?!
carmalishiss 2 years ago
haha the sources revealed...a moth
hobojoe357 2 years ago
Roads are real ! I've got one right in front of my house !
Come with your high speed cams. I'm not afraid !
Joblakebars 2 years ago
okay, obviously not an effect of the interlaced video. so they're suggesting that the moth traveled all that distance in ONE second? i understand interlacing and high speed cameras very well and this makes no sence
collegestudent362 2 years ago
Most of rods could be probably some insects, but I think that some are not. You can see on some Escamilla's videos that some of the rods are really big and that they are flying BEHIND some objects that are very far in the sky. Everything that moves so fast will probably have same effect while filming. IMO most of those little fast flying rods are simply moths and flies, but some of rods are simply too big. Big fast creatures? Big fast birds? Fast UFO's? I don't know!
007koko007 2 years ago
moth?? ha .. thats the lousiest ATTEMPT at covering up! f*** this biased mainstream media
ma99ot 2 years ago
a fucking moth lol
shizzlepecks 2 years ago
the rod we seemed to capture was ugh.. just a flying moth lol what idiots
GraffWriter11 2 years ago
shutterspeed? no...can't explain the footages that show the rods changing directions.
moth? no...can't explain the footage of the rod that wen't behind a tree (that's one gigantic moth if that's the case!)
Slayton1978 2 years ago
at 4:05, it looked like a bacon...haha
junetwo1993 2 years ago
DRAGON FLYS HAVE 4 WIN GS
CrashmagProductions 2 years ago
4 wings, 2 pairs :]
ORLYYEARLYNOWAII 2 years ago
Dr Who? lol
carriemia12 2 years ago
I knew all my weeks of watching MonsterQuest and all the goose chases would pay off. No conspiracy, just a video optics effect. makes you wonder about all the other conspiracies, doesn't it?
joer123 2 years ago
mynameislort & sami2987... "plausable and believable science" Yeah... what a lame way to debunk a myth that people with nothing better to do with their time desperately want to believe. Science shmience! DUH...looks different from DAYTIME "rods" because they shot at NIGHT for clearer image and thus used LONGER SHUTTER SPEED than would be used in daytime. The night time with BLACK BACKGROUND makes it easier to SEE CLEARLY. But by all means hold on to your pathetic fantasy if you need it so badly.
AlienPet13 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Google search "The "Rods" Hoax". THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RODS! Bugs beat their wings several times during the time when a camera shutter is open. High-speed photography has NEVER captured "rods." Carlos Escamilla is a former pro vidiographer who SELLS DVDs of his crap. He knows exactly the science of photography that causes this ARTIFACT in film. He is either a hoaxer or a complete idiot who knows nothing of the science of photography and any who believe this obvious crap are beyond ignorant!
AlienPet13 2 years ago
how disappointing
apeocherio 2 years ago
loooool
AZoje 2 years ago
I saw that whole show about rods on tv and it was so weird. If they're really organisms then they're my favorite animal lol. That part of the show did not explain it. There was much more said about it as well.
natalie5102325 2 years ago
I saw that show, this doesn't debunk Rods in any way.
tjfreak 2 years ago
dipshit
marky2tablets 2 years ago
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahah
macgyverls2 3 years ago
Debunking protocol...Sandwich disinformation between plausable and believable science....The easiest way to keep a secret is to make people believe they know the answer.
mynameislort 3 years ago
mistaken them as ufo
ballboy102 3 years ago
lol nothing has been debunked, u dumbasses must be stupid, what they caught at the end doesnt even look like a rod, a rod doesnt have that many side things on it, so FAIL as usual u dumb ass shmucks.
sami2987 3 years ago
Ha ha. very very good debunking. Bravo!
Tubuletastic 3 years ago
Dr. Who?
99minerkc 3 years ago
one of the blurred images of a "rod" flying, it's "wings" reminds me a lot of those sea slugs that glide through water, of course, now we know "rods" are just moths and bugs.
Alucardhatesme 3 years ago
Dr. Who... lol
jesiyvonnelangdale 3 years ago 2
I actually watched this episode a few months ago, they couldn't explain all of the rods, it was still unknown what exactally rods were. That was just a small clip of it where they tried to do some tests, the whole episode is pretty interesting.
Allowei 3 years ago
If you v'e ever had a deja vu, even a mild one, then you must know that we haven't a clue what reality is.
KING777TUT 3 years ago
yup, they're moths. absolutely. the effect is due to the normal speed cameras we use. that's it. I am amazed. Towards the end, you can clearly see how the moth would have created that elongated effect. Wow.
defaultname365 3 years ago
CRACK THIS RODS UNDERWATER /watch?v=amnNgXRK_vo @ 2.38
AweSomo84 3 years ago
What discovery , called a rod is NOT a typical rod.
They filmed a moth that looked like a Rod .
Rods are real people
AweSomo84 3 years ago
5:09 01253328
5:12 01253408<--- next frame , oeps discovery
1000 frames a second , nice frames to show us .
Oooh thats right you have a paid out come , there was no really test here .
RODS A REAL PEOPLE DO YOUR RESEARCH
Why mas with the counter? It's to obvious ,..
5:29
AweSomo84 3 years ago
Nice work on the counter btw , look how it's being tampered !
AweSomo84 3 years ago
watch?v=amnNgXRK_vo 2:40 watch this video and see that rods are mots lol , how can a insect make the same underwater , bs
AweSomo84 3 years ago
Look closely at 5:00 You see several rods fly , but they take the "rod" they doesn't look like the normal shorter rods on film,
Rods are filmed underwater CAN any one explain that?
AweSomo84 3 years ago
modern consumer products - they truly are a mystery... for those that don't understand them. Dont worry, I wont steal your excitement. I can see you need to believe this stuff...maybe its the kid in you.
joeybell01 3 years ago
Its true , that's why they don't try to explain , why we see the same thing swimming in the sea ,... that can't be a moth .
Discovery channel terrible failed to debucke this
AweSomo84 3 years ago
omg so many of those were contrast issues. puaha. so gulible you are. obviously these rod conspiracy theorist dont use cameras =/.
joeybell01 3 years ago
and fly under water this shit is bullshit
AweSomo84 3 years ago
Lol this is a bs video
AweSomo84 3 years ago
LOL a moth
arbiter555 3 years ago
lol no wonder americans are dumb..
they haft to sit down and watch this piece of crap!
SecretJustice 3 years ago
History channel is completely owned don't believe the channel for a second
KING777TUT 3 years ago
wow, true denial. even when the evidence is presented to you in a scientific fashion (with a control and experimetal) you still prove resilient. you are completely owned
joeybell01 3 years ago
No you have the true denial .
Your the one who is brainwashed here , I agree with King777tut.
Everything that discovery does is smelly , and paid.
And some who is paid , will give the one who paid them there result ;)
AweSomo84 3 years ago
I'm disapointed.
wawaweewa94 3 years ago
What is the title of the program from which this clip was taken from?
miamimanni 3 years ago
'The flying wooden dildo's of Barbara Streisand'
QioOty 3 years ago
hah
BabieshatetheBible 3 years ago
HAHAHAHAHAHA
robboz71 3 years ago
what's the name of this documentary?
tutorialparadise1 3 years ago
booger mountain rods
BabieshatetheBible 3 years ago
ow, now you made me cry ;_;, every single mystery bout them was a lie =,O
XargothHellington 3 years ago 2
The moth at 5:05 didn't move like the traditional "rod" that I saw on other videos. It certainly WAS a moth
hunkyducky 3 years ago
How disappointing! Another mystery explained, and the world is a little more boring.
Rickerbyland 3 years ago
Ditto. The school of Science has to reason the unreasonable, or it cannot sleep at night. I too delight in these mysteries, but I also suspect that there is a hell of lot more out there than meets the eye, so to speak. So hold on to your thinking caps 'cause there's something coming, and it's gonna blow mankind away. No exaggeration.
hartistry1957 3 years ago 2
what are you getting at there hartistry?
BabieshatetheBible 3 years ago
This is just a part of the whole show. It hasent been solved yet, at least thats what i think.
GimmeCookieDamnit 3 years ago 2
..."No more than a bug flying through our field of view.".....well, so much for Rods in Space. NEXT!
translationwiz 3 years ago
Explains the small "rods", but doesn't explain the videos of rods that happen to fly past airplanes and through clouds. The airplanes give a sense of the scale of the rods.
fdfederation 3 years ago 3
All the big rods are is moth's but they are close to the camera so it makes them look big
cky08 3 years ago
That explains the "small rods" that are obviously close to the viewer, but not the "big rods" that zoom through clouds and past airplanes, as clearly seen on some good video footage.
fdfederation 3 years ago
This is kind of BS cause the rods in videos dont have anything behind them or sometimes near them.
foxygirl299 3 years ago
oh wait a bit didnt watch hole vid :)
foxygirl299 3 years ago
It's about time somebody shut Jose Escamilla up, and forced him to get a real job. Dr. Who saves the day again, but this time from a real charlatan!
reptilianshifter 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
people are gullible..
ESP1EMG 3 years ago 2
are u think we're stupids?
open this video on 2 windows pause one at 5:21
and the other at 5:09 the rod has not the same position
korlash3000 3 years ago