Flying Rods?

[skinbath]

;D
Anyone here have any views or takes on so called flying rods.I watched a program on T.V. a few years ago that I dismissed as "scientific soap" and whilst it may seem another fantasists paradise,lol,some of the "pics" are of better quality than the UFO brigade offer.I`ve even seen a supposed biblical reference offered though this may just be interpretation.Are there any scientific evaluations or is this just lunatic fringe stuff?

Hey,I`m just asking,lol...........................

edited to add;
Since posting the above I`ve looked over a couple of related sites,both pro and con,and the debunker view seems to be that if not a hoax,then the rods "occur" due to the type of camera and speed used.Those who claim to have experimented with different types of high speed camera/camcorder etc and still report the same results,do so due to lack of technical knowledge,(this is the category I fall into).Still,if this is all a deliberate hoax,I can only marvel at the creativity and ingenuity of the hoaxers.Wonders,indeed,never cease.
Also,proof that to the uninitiated, the camera does indeed lie .

Here`s a couple of links:- www.amsky.com/ufos/rods/

this one where a guy discovers for himself the nature of what he thought he saw:- home.flash.net/~storyink/hotrods/hotrods.htm

Top paragraph left for its amusement value .

[PhantomWolf]

I seen a little on them, and I'm curious. They are most likely some sort of insect that is blurred as its image is taken, but well, there are all sorts of wierd creatures in the world, so wh knows. The major evidence against them is the lack of any corpses, but even that might be explainable, so......

[skinbath]

I like the link given where some "rods" are captured on film and you can follow the process through,from "believer" to the
final conclusion,where he sees that what have been assumed to be "rods" are in fact just wasps.This sums it up for me pretty much.
It seems to be a fairly simple process easily reproduced, even by laymen,and I guess is another example of wild claims made without much backup or evidence.Its`also not that difficult to find these relevant pages and perhaps is another example of when evidence,contrary to a belief,is not being examined or ignored.

A telling remark I remember from the original documentary is how anybody could record "rods" on film.All you needed to do was set up a recorder and film,come back at a later time,examine the results,and maybe you too could prove the existence of this "new" and previously unknown species/phenomenon.Obviously,there doesn`t seem to have been a methodical approach to evaluating the evidence.I`ve a feeling of.......here we go again......

[PhantomWolf]

Some of the footage is interesting, but yeah, I'm about 99% for insects, 1% hoping for a new speices, though mostly because a new speices would just be so cool. Even if they do really exist, and the odds are pretty much against it, I'd doubt they were in anyway alien s some like to claim.

[turbonium]

Can't somebody just zap them with Raid? ;D

[Stout Cortez]

Once in the Southwest of the U.S. I videotaped a passing swarm of locusts. Whenever I got them against the bright sky, they became rods indistinguishable from any I've seen in footage of "actual" rods.

[Kiwi]

I recently watched a movie on DVD and there were some scenes where insects were flying around. They were backlit by the sun and the background was dark pine trees trees or similar. Having seen a programme on TV a few years ago about these mysterious "rods," I freeze-framed a few times, and there they were, more rods.


So how many oddball things are now talked about by CTs and woowoos that are simply in-camera, film or digital imaging effects?

1. Rods -- Fast-moving insects caught on movie film or video and not frozen, therefore showing an elongated body and more than one cycle of their wings.

2. Orbs -- Specks of dust in the air, caught by the flash units on digital cameras.

3. Gigantic glass or even crystal geodesic domes on the moon -- Lens flares that show the shapes of the diaphragm blades in the lunar Hasselblads.

4. Fiducials pasted behind bright objects in the lunar surface photos -- Halation or some other form of in-film flare, along with low-resolution digital scans not fully showing the fine lines of the fiducials.

5. Ruins of city blocks on Mars -- individual pixels and the effects produced by over-enlarging and altering digital images.