Proof that UFO "Rods" are real! (they're BUGS!) - A staged motion concept demo

This is a staged *concept* demonstration, showing how moving objects leave streaks in photography: the "Rod" effect can occur with ANY camera; video/digital still image AND traditional film. Even the human eye perceives a fast-moving object as a blurred streak if seen "out of the corner of your eye" or you can't focus on it before it's out of sight.
It's been speculated that Rods are just bugs flying through the scene, leaving a streak on the image. This concept has since been proven conclusively using side-by-side high-speed and normal cameras, with documentaries airing on Discovery, History Channel, etc.

Straight-line daytime rod streaks are hard to demonstrate (due to the lack of cooperative insects), so I used readily available actors: gnats/moths circling a light! Because these bugs were flying so slowly, I used a very slow shutter speed to get the rod effect. This would NOT have been necessary if the bugs were flying at normal Honeybee or Dragonfly speeds. Yes, these are mostly curved/squiggly "Rods" because the bugs were flying at less than 1mph and staying around the light, where daytime Rod streaks are usually straight (bugs flying straight and fast at 20+mph), but the concept is the same: moving objects leave streaks in photography.

It's been suggested that long, rod-shaped objects would have to move at hypersonic speed if captured by the camera but nobody actually saw it. In reality, someone may have seen the bug, but because bug fly-bys are so common and their photos/video streaks look so different, people may think they're unrelated. This is where the science of light and physics comes in.
A camera records things a bit differently than the human eye, which is operating continuously (except when you blink), providing live image data to the brain. How you identify an object is determined by your ability to focus on it, assess its speed/distance (stereoscopic vision helps), and other data (buzzing/flapping sounds, etc.). The camera, on the other hand, only gets one piece of the puzzle; it simply opens its single "eye" for a short time (using its shutter) recording light reflected from all objects in the field of view. Speed and distance are difficult to gauge, and shutter speed/aperature data is rarely available. Note that video is just a rapid succession of still images.

Photos are great for static images, but what if something moves in the field of view while the camera has its eye open?
Most everyone knows that you have to keep still while taking a photo, or you get a blurry picture. If the subject in the picture moves, that part which moved will be blurred while the rest is clear.
Cameras simply record light reflected from objects in the field of view while the shutter is open. The longer the shutter is open, the more likely something will move and reflect light from more than one position in the shot. If a shutter were open for 10 seconds, you could walk through the entire scene, leaving a streak of your presence across the entire photo! (experimental photography is fun!) However, 10-second exposures are FAR longer than used in most daylight photography. So what's a "normal" shutter time and how fast does something have to be moving to leave a streak?
The amount of motion recorded in an image depends on shutter speed (camera's "open eye" time), speed of the object, and object distance from the lens. (Note: Honeybees flying from hive to a nectar source typically hit 20mph, Dragonflies reach speeds of 35mph while chasing airborne insects) Here we'll use 25mph for some basic calculations...

A fast-flying insect at 25mph (36 feet per sec) covers .88 inches in 1/500sec (a fast shutter speed). At 1/125sec (a more typical speed) that same object moves nearly 4". If it passed 12" away from the lens during the shot it would leave a streak across nearly the entire frame.
Slower shutter speeds are likely to be used in low ambient light, when lens filters are used, or with tight aperatures used to improve focal depth of field. These factors reduce the light getting through the lens, requiring longer exposures (slower shutter) for proper brightness. At slow shutter speeds, moving objects can be further away and/or don't need to move as fast to leave streaks.
Rods shot at a cave base-jumping site in Mexico are perfect examples of this. Photographers shoot into a fairly dark, distant background while foreground objects passing by are likely to be out of focus and well lit by the sun, a perfect setup for slow-shutter/bright moving object streak scenarios.
Also note that Rod images are always blurry, frequently with one or more alternating wing strokes alongside, fitting perfectly with insects wing-flapping as they propel themselves forward.

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• UFO
• Rod
• Rods
• unidentified
• flying
• object
• high
• speed
• insect
• bug
• moth
• fly
• mosquito
• slow
• shutter
• air
• spaghetti
• worms
• mysterious
• weird
• Santa
• Clarita
• California
• night
• mode
• shot
• video
• technician
• jcmdi.com
• demo
• staged
• light
• V03393
• mystery
• amazing
• strange
• photography
• experimental
• streak
• phenomenon
• explained
• detail
• explanation
• hoax
• creatures
• hypersonic
• invisible
• inter-dimensional
• parallel
• JCMDI

[gstanz67]

No such thing as rods.....just bugs and bad cameras.

[JCMDIweirdStuff]

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!

[lostpanther1]

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

[JCMDIweirdStuff]

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! =)

[yseeker23]

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.

[JCMDIweirdStuff]

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! =)

[Togemon5]

View Togemon 5 " A Moving Object"

[chromeinox]

@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.

[JcmdiStockFootage]

@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! :-)

[jcmegabyte]

@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 :-)

[starrdreams]

@jcmegabyte Ok, then what the difference between what you call "classic Rods" and insects? I mean what we see on photos and videos.

[jcmegabyte]

@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! :-)

[myshambhala]

@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.

[chromeinox]

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]

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.