Roswell Rods

[MayorofAvabruck]

Anecdotal evidence is still evidence.

[poopoo2paranormal]

@MayorofAvabruck

Oh God..... No, no its not...stay with me here...an anecdote is still an anecdote.

From the anecdotal evidence available, (IE your reply) you are an idiot.

That is an anecdote.

There is however empirical evidence (IE your reply) that you have no idea what either "Empirical" or "Anecdotal" mean.

[TheSquelzy]

i appreciate it when there are some things that science can't explain- science always seems to take away the magic of amazing stuff.

[poopoo2paranormal]

@TheSquelzy

Yeah bloody science taking away the magic of ignorance. Mmmm let me think, in a few hundred years we have gone from locking up Gallileo to viewing Google Earth on a kit-kat on an iPhone. From blaming the black death on evil odours to eliminating smallpox. Damn you science !!

[poopoo2paranormal]

@poopoo2paranormal

whooops... Kit-Kat sized iPhone.

Talking to morons makes me type bad....

[poopoo2paranormal]

@researchOne23

Ohhhh good grief . . so many logical fallacies and so much pseudo science in one little paragraph. Congratulations ! And to top it off ... you even started with a spelling error. A masterful display of idiocy. Well Done !!

[m80panther]

rogan



[poopoo2paranormal]

@researchOne23

Well, at least you got one thing right - an expert you are not.

You have however managed to break records with a logical fallacy dense paragraph.

Its just . . . . Epic.

Well don.

[genxer4life1]

now this is a lil moe belvable than the other ros video i watched i beieve in bifoot nd im upin theair about aliens but rods idk

[MrIronJustice]

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.

[poopoo2paranormal]

@MrIronJustice

Nah.

Explained over & Over & over again.

Sigh..... your a believer so ... you know... science & facts dont count so much huh?

You just go with your gut there big guy...... good grief.

[poopoo2paranormal]

@MrIronJustice . . . . . or, OR real close and inside the focal length... or just out of focus.. like so many other "supernatural" pics - just plain out of focus.

Riddle me this Mr Justice, with (LITERALLY) billions of cameras in use - how is that there are no decent pics of these (coughcough smirk) "unexplained" phenomina.

[Puck2442]

Stop trying to convince doubters and move beyond YouTube and TV shows. Invest the effort instead into figuring out how to catch one.

If you have the time/mechanical ability it's really not that hard.

Think about it.

[travesham]

Take the Fart Principle. If you were in an elevator and you had no sense of smell and someone let out a silent fart, you would be standing in someone's stink and not even know it. Why should people think that they have every sense needed to perceive the universe? It's entirely possible that there are things going on all around us and we don't have the means to understand it.

[poopoo2paranormal]

@travesham

Ahhhh yes a perfect example "Ad ignorantiam" logical fallacy with some "Personal Incredulity" thrown in for good measure. Wonderful !! Bravo.

[challywang]

oH, YEAH guys arguing over the internet... why? WHY!

[challywang]

I HAVE TO FAAAAAAAAAAAART

[poopoo2paranormal]

Missed it again didncha ?

Comprehension isnt high on your "list of things to help me understand the universe I live in" list is it ?

I might have got your math wrong tho' . . . 1+2=god/aliens did it. (is that better ?)

Or in your case invisible aliens that can only be caught on camera.

OK, Iv had quite enough trying to explain shakespear to a hamster.

Tootles.

[poopoo2paranormal]

Yep there are many unexplained thing in the Universe . . . . that what science does dufus - it answers questions. .... .and the Rod question has been answered time and time and time and time again.

And CLAYTOY, skeptics question. Thats what we do.

We are the opposite of you, we actually do ask questions and seek, above all, - The Truth.

We do this by following the scientific method.

You could try this by first understanding the difference between ANECDOTAL and EMPIRICAL evidence.

[777equals666]

@poopoo2paranormal I love your post. Here is an experiment that you can do in your own backyard to prove the UFO phenomenon is real. Add an IR lens to any night-shot capable video camera, and wholla, you have a video camera thats can capture the IR spectrum, perfect for observing any heat signature that would otherwise elude humans limited view of EM waves. I have 29 other individuals who use this technique and confirm the findings of the experiment on this channel: /user/Infraredskyalliance

[poopoo2paranormal]

@777equals666

hush silly person.

[777equals666]

@poopoo2paranormal You have no meat on the bone you’re looking to pick. I gave you the experiment, now bring the science and put your money were your mouth is.

[poopoo2paranormal]

@777equals666

Gosh, where do I start. Look, you quite clearly have no understanding of scientific methodology (or rational thinking for that matter.... & I am going to assume that by "wholla" you meant VOILA) so I shall couch it in terms you may grasp. Your proposal is not an experiment. Its just another way to gather meaningless data. How do you propose to differentiate the heat signatures ?

ITS REALLY SIMPLE: Use a high speed (High frame rate) video camera or capture one.

[777equals666]

@poopoo2paranormal Why don't you try the experiment first, then tell me what heat signatures pop up? Actually, to be more technical, some of my team are using Yukon Ranger night scopes which captures valuable infrared color data in its sensor allowing us the ability to objectify an objects luminous output allowing us a primer to test against other objects in the sky. Then again a round disc traveling 10X faster than any conventional airplane in the sky is a good indication you caught something!

[poopoo2paranormal]

@777equals666

AND lets get this straight:

Those who make extraordinary claims must provide extraordinary evidence.

Not Vice Versa.

Again I will make it simple for you.

Innocent until proven guilty.

It is up to the accuser to provide evidence of the accused guilt.

Simple rational logical thinking.

Something completely lacking from the Roddite community.

[777equals666]

@poopoo2paranormal Aside from handing you a dead ROD which can make this case Empirical, you can film in your own backyard and provide colloborating evidence that indeed these entities are real in our skies. If its not there, a signature would not be sent back to the camera. There is only so much I can do over YT to make my case considering the limited nature of the Internet (Photo, Video, Text). If your not convinced, its because you dont care to put your own money were your mouth is!

[poopoo2paranormal]

@777equals666

Thank you for so clearly illustrating your complete misunderstanding of the Scientific Method.

[777equals666]

@poopoo2paranormal LMAO, A straw man argument you have choosen. Typically, it usually takes a couple more post from an individual before they start to dodge the facts and use "straws" to subvert the content. Claiming I don't understand the Scientific Method, yet providing absolutely nothing to back that opinion up with some facts is called a Straw Man Argument. You might as well argue with yourself in the mirror, then maybe you will realize how lame your attempts are with subverting the Truth!

[poopoo2paranormal]

@777equals666

not only did you miss the point you have managed to misunderstand the logical fallicy you are quoting. Brilliant !

[777equals666]

@poopoo2paranormal Is this your best scientific negation against the reality of RODS?

[poopoo2paranormal]

@777equals666

Yeah you really got me there..... I tell you that you dont understand the words you are using and you somehow manage to construe my rebuke as the sum total of my questioning your complete lack of plausable evidence. So in that case: 1+2=banana !

oh just BTW you got yourself a double negative there cowboy.

OK, I am pretty much done with your little tautologies & nou-sequitors * reducto absurdiums... so cheerio .

[777equals666]

@poopoo2paranormal Since you have shared absolutely nothing to support your negation against the RODS Phenomenon, then you have absolutely nothing to complain about.

0 + 0 will always equal 0!

[Puck2442]

@poopoo2paranormal

I want to make sure I have this straight

A man 'claims' to have performed an experiment and produced a particular result

That is ANECDOTAL, yes?

A thousand others, sharing the same general belief system perform the same experiment and report the same result

The plural of ANECDOTAL is not evidence (So a million reported UFO sightings don't count) yes?

Others, not present at these experiments choose to believe on faith that they actually occurred

That is DOGMA, yes?

Is good?

[poopoo2paranormal]

@Puck2442

"A man 'claims' to have performed an experiment and produced a particular result" - Yes Dear, it is.

Yes, again you have defined Anecdotal evidence quite clearly ... but failed to understand it.

For the umpteenth time ... it does Not matter how much ANECDOTAL evidence there is...its STILL Anecdotal.

To clarify even further, Anecdotes are a good place TO START DOING SCIENCE.

No sweety, its not Dogma. Please do open a dictionary from time to time.

[Puck2442]

@poopoo2paranormal

You seemed to have missed the point. My definition of anecdotal describes the scientific method.

A chemist makes a discovery in the lab (cl\aims to have witnessed something, an experimental result)

Others repeat the experiment (additional claims to have witnessed the same phenomena)

The first report differs from anecdotal how?

Those repeating the experiment are just creating the plural of anecdotal, No?

Those members of science who accept without repeating indulge in dogma

[Puck2442]

Respond to this video...

It seems to me that science is based on the idea that many people are accepting anecdotal as 'evidence'

"First performed by Dr;. Whoever at Whatever University and then duplicated by Him and Her at Stanford

Why are these things accepted? Why do they not count as simply anecdotal claims?

It couldn't be as simple as acceptance by some form of scientific priesthood?

And accepting claims as truth on faith because that priesthood endorsed them does not count as dogma?

[poopoo2paranormal]

1.Define a question

2.Gather information and resources (observe)

3. Form an explanatory hypothesis

4.Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner

5. Analyze the data

6.Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis

7.Publish results

8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

The iterative cycle inherent in this step-by-step methodology goes from point 3 to 6 back to 3 again.

[poopoo2paranormal]

"Why are these things accepted? Why do they not count as simply anecdotal claims?"

They are not "just accepted", the theories are published and subjected to Peer Review and ALLWAYS remains subject to falsification.

Here are a few logical fallacies you have displayed:

False Continuum

False Dichotomy

Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable

Special pleading, or ad-hoc reasoning

Reductio ad absurdum

& finally: Tu quoque

[Puck2442]

@poopoo2paranormal

Sightings published in BIGFOOT MAGAZINE don't count. Only the journals that publish "approved" scientific articles qualify as being 'published and subjected to Peer Review' and only those that do not challenge the current scientific view will be published. Think about that why don'tcha

As for my flaws...

Reductio ad absurdum

Tu quoque

And you honestly can not smell the stink of intellectual elitism radiating from your post?

Pathetic

[poopoo2paranormal]

@Puck2442

Still dont quite get it do ya' there Puckypants.....?

A N E C D O T E S published in a "magazine" are still anecdotes ... and are not subject to falsification.

Oh hey, thanks - a perfect example of an Ad Hominem. Youre really rackin' 'em up there Puckpoo.

AS for errrrm " intellectual elitism"... oh dear, sweety.. .. did I use words not in your vocabulary ?

Dont let a little Latin frighten you. ;)

[MrBen451]

its stupid its just a moth hes the only one who can se it with the naked eye

[invaderzim7890]

Why is that these people tend to blame the government? I think this is stupid.

[laracroftfan2009]

amazing guy hope he finds out what they are

[crisgia]

@laracroftfan2009 all they are is something with the camera where if something moves too fast it stretches out the image to make it look like that

[pastadeity]

I bring glad tidings... escamilla has taken his silly site offline

[Momcilo97]

Q: Next question. Somebody sent me some information recently about something called "Roswell Rods." Can you tell me what these "Rods" are? A: Do you mean the life forms? Q: Well, that IS what some of the folks are trying to call them! A: 4th Density Life Forms. (...) Q: In terms of what we know about relative intelligence, could you give us an example of something in our density that relates here? A: Birds. Q: They are like 4th density birds? A: Maybe. That's close enough.

[mizugawa]

This matter shouldn't take too long to resolve now, with high-speed video as the latest gimmick in consumer-level digicams. Let's hope Mr. Escamilla can put those to a good use - I know it must be hard to realize for anyone he was chasing an illusion, but he doesn;t seem like a complete douchebag. Than again ... (^__~ )

[TXxMDKxXT]

lol they actually paused a tape and saw that is was a moth....not a rod..

[appraiser1979]

I've seen them! Every time I drink, stuff makes me trip and they even hit my head 'cause I don't know what else I could have hit my head on. I've got friends that witness it too, Jack Daniels my other friend Sammy Adams. Thanks for finally proving my theory dude!

[christiantroconis]

Hi Mr. Jose, I`m Chris from Caracas Venezuela (South America).I`m a professional photographer and after finding out about rods, I took as a hobby to try to find out all I could about them. I got some film I`d like to try to get to you. Please let me know. I very much value your opinion.Thanks.

[glamourknight]

1:27 'my phones been tapped since 1994 tapped i can hear people coughing , belching farting' HAHAHA!! :D where did they dig this guy up?

[guthzammysara]

You think it's a laughing matter until it happens to you. I know what it's like, it's not funny at all. Douche bag.

[glamourknight]

to guthwhateverthefuck- BULLSHIT!!! IT IS A LAUGHING MATTER. PEOPLE WHO REALLY ARE BEING TAPED ARE DISCREDITED BECAUSE OF NUTS LIKE THIS GUY. AND YOU. GO PEE THROUGH A STRAW YOU TOOL

[guthzammysara]

That was rather unnecessary, child.

[glamourknight]

I am interested in the paranormal;and was at first curious about this . But"rods" "orbs" "swamp gas" are bullshit. Rods are an optical illusion of bugs/birds recorded at certain shudder clicks. On high speed film its completely 100% debunked. THE PEOPLE SELLING THIS ARE PURE HORSE SHIT.

[glamourknight]

to guth- RE: "people coughing, belching, farting" -- Who do you believe that was? The FBI? Or NSA? Are you THAT ignorant of reality to believe that wiretaps work like a two way radio? And you think that these covert ops would be so incompetent to be working the same seemingly meaningless case since 1994 without resolution, let alone be belching & farting into a microphone. And you call me a "child"?? This guy is an idiot & you are a fool.

[guthzammysara]

1st 2nd 3rd Q: No idea who it was.

4th Q: There have been taps and I have seen 2 way taps, very simple

5th Q: I call you a child because you say phone tapping is a laughing matter

[GearzVoNKod3]

"Go pee through a straw you tool"? What the fuck is wrong with you?

[joseescamilla]

MonsterQuest proved only one thing. They are debunkers. They shot the high speed cam test at night...deliberately knowing that in low shutter conditions all is a blur. They knew and refused to do this in broad daylight where using the high shutter settings (as in my "Skyfishing Protocols" ) would have eliminated their "insect theories. Most of you "brain stems" however will always believe the insect theories and that's okay too! (JE)

[poopoo2paranormal]

@joseescamilla

Hey Jose... why do they call you eSCAMilla ?

[moviefanguy]

that dude is fake because you cant see rods with the human eye there to fast and plus they proved that it was fake on monsterquest there nothing more then bugs and birds yea they even proved that it had something to do with the cameras i mean i beleive in ufos but rods are fake

[JohnLenardWalson]

nothing more then bugs and birds yea they even proved that it had something to do with the cameras, YES SLOW SHUTTER SPEED WILL MAKE BUGS LOOK LIKE THEM

[joseescamilla]

Well...welll...welll John Lenard Walson...commenting on RODS? Hmmm let's see...you breached a production contract with me last year, you have been smearing my name and still you can't confirm any of your own claims...because You R full of it my friend. .. as far as all those who think they have the answers...I'll be monkey spanking all of you soon with my new Rods film...!

[YYYYYYYAAAAAAAHHHHHH]

if rods are fake, go on my page and click on the first vid on favorites.

[YYYYYYYAAAAAAAHHHHHH]

rods arent fake. thats like saying humans dont exist, or water cant change form. you realize what your saying is crap right? if they are just bugs or birds than how come you can ONLY see them in a camera? if you are using a camera, and you see these things when you are looking at the camera but nothings there when you up at the sky, how can you say its fake?

[throwny]

alright not to really rain on the non-beilever's rants that these rods are merly insects(which I believe most captured on tape are after seeing the Moth photage on the Discovery Channel) but what kind of insect at 00:34 could burst out of the water like that at such a high speed? I think that may have been a rod. Just given my 2 cents worth.

[EviLotus01]

this is retarted hippys

[NerdyNation]

OMG he looks so dumb. Hes was like oh yeah that was about a 2 fotter. Mhm oh yeah 7 footer right there

[PDJ11]

Quote "Rods are a videographic artifact based on the frame capture rate of the videocam versus the wingbeat frequency of the insects. Essentially what you see is several wingbeat cycles of the insect on each frame of the video, creating the illusion of a "rod" with bulges along its length. Anyone with a video camera can duplicate the effect, if you shoot enough footage of flying insects from the right distance."

[EdgeStormcrow]

people get confused,.. and this guy is confused..there are no small rods. the only rods that exist are the 400ft observation craft.

[ufoaleli]

I know what they are, but i like em they look kool! whats the best setting on a hdd video camera to use?

sports

or

25fps

or

50fps

or

100+fps?

[hollowx9]

because normal cams only shoot at 30 FPS. the history chanel did a test setting up a normal camra runing at 30 FPS and then a camra runing at 500-2000 FPS new to a strobe light attracting insects. what looked like a rod on the 30 FPS cam was only when cros-checked on the hi-speed cam was only a moth.

[Saechem]

I think this phenomena should be really examined because I myself have videotaped rod clouds and gotten in examination have fish heads in them. Maybe what this is a smaller version. They can be detected perhaps when large masses of birds fly and they move sometimes it's almost as if they follow a giant fish. It can be detected through negatiev imagery.

[TheClayToy009]

Have you(BladeJones) ever seen a bird or insect that can't be visible by human eye. Why is it that only animals can see them with their naked eye. If it's video interlacing or motion blur, than how come every person that's taped or captured one on film, can see them, all of their camera's can't be messed up. There ARE things in this world we can't explain, you (like all the other skeptics in the world) will have to accept that fact!

[BladeJones]

This guy can go back to being a janitor (or whatever his day job was) ever since the History Channel exposed rods as a combination of video interlacing and motion blur. "Rods" are merely insects and birds.

[TheClayToy009]

How would you know! have you seen them before!

[BrandynBoyles]

comon dont be gullible and accept the bs on television, history channel obviously spun it and did not show all the evidence

[mikess]

.....bird brain....

[mephisto4444]

LOL"my phone has been tapped since 94 i know this i can hear coughing,belching,farting" I ALMOST DIED AT THAT PART! lol yeah but seriously titan UP URS HIPPIE! this is real how can millions of videos shot from this many many cameras do this as well as people seeing them while filming you tard i know it's easier to disperse than even faked ufo photos DO YOU really think that all these people would fake this shit or have dirty lenses They may be bugs

but.... not of any kind know to man }:) idiot

[TitaniumDragon]

Rods are insects caught on film; they aren't weird at all. The reason they look blurry is that most video cameras have too long of exposure times to capture them correctly, so they appear to be blurry rods.

[michiokaku]

your very correct

[firstpastline]

Could they be jinn's

[Dhimmicrats]

No because Jinns don't exist. Nether does the moon god allah.

[firstpastline]

Its clear from your channel that your full of ignorance and not someone to communicate with.