Australian TV Production Crew Captures on Film Two UFOs in Queenstown, New Zealand

a reply to: Rob48

Alright Rob48, this time I stared hard at your gif and, yes, the objects emanate from in front of the trees seemingly from the base of the trees so I retract my opinion about that but I still do not accept the objects as being birds, bugs, etc. It's unfortunate that the image cannot stand high magnification because the more you magnify it the blurrier it becomes and only one blurry object is seen, dark against dark, until both are visible in the sky.

Thank you for your effort and the perseverance to prove your point.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Uggielicious

you fail because I agree that rods may be insects but you cannot blow out of the water the super-long, high in the sky rods and I have a few examples of them on videotape.

Well hurry up and get your 20 posts and start a thread with these videos.


Really looking forward to seeing these rods high in the sky.

What you suggest is something I've wanted to do for many years and I have the video-to-memory card dubber but I haven't proceeded because the Aliens & UFOs is not the right forum for such a topic and if I were to start a thread about rods the mods would move it and I would not be interested in getting involved in any other forum than this one. What I may do is place the resultant footage at YouTube and the ATS members may view it.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Uggielicious

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Uggielicious
The 2 objects are at a hell of a distance and like some others claim the objects did not emanate frofromtrees but at a distance behind them.

You mean the in-focus trees are in front of the blurfos?

Please show your measurements and calculations.

F.Y.I. "Hell of a" is not a unit of measure.

If the trees were in focus as you claim then it would simpler to see the objects. The trees are not in a clear and sharp focus, and the objects are not since they are hauling. I don't know about the camera used but I doubt that it was set for high-speed photography as the scene being filmed was static and the interest could have been the approaching motorcyclist necessitating a middle of the road focus.

And while "Hell" is not a measure of speed it indicates that whatever is being discussed it is hauling faster than normal. "Hell" can be applied to anything at high speed when the actual speed is not known.

What could help solve the distance versus trees problem would be to have a dub of the original footage which could stand magnification of the trees area. Nothing that has been shown so far by ATS members is solid that the objects are emanating from or in front of the trees, far from it.

So you're saying you have no measurements or calculations to support your assertions? Nothing at all to convince the average person that the blurry objects flying past the camera are actually huge distant objects traveling at incredible speeds from behind the distant treeline?

No, I have no measurements or calculations to support my assertions. All I base my assertions on are that my eyes/brain/mind tell me that whether the objects emanate from in front or behind the trees (I've accepted that they emanate from the base of the trees thanks to a gif) they do not behave like any known species that can fly that fast and show no wings, tails, etc., to convince me that they are living objects.

I have seen and have on tape objects that haul underwater but even though I have no concept of what they may be it's easier to think of them as living things. I cannot claim that it is a rod, but Jose Escamilla has shown videos of rods emanating from the ocean at high speed.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
Okay, here we go:

I downloaded the YouTube video. Took it into my Cyberlink PowerDirection video software.

Trimmed it to where I had the very first part they show that is not slowed down. Then I zoomed into the area and slowed it down by 75%.

You'll see that in the first part of this video.

Then I zoom in even more, and slowed it down yet another 75%, and you can clearly see that the "objects" are indeed IN FRONT OF THE TREES.

I repeat this part of the video and use the word "Here" for those having a problem seeing the objects.

Use the link to actually go to YouTube, and since I made the video 1080, you can watch it full screen if you desire:

Link To The The Video

edit: and of course YouTube is being a Butt Head and taking forever to process my video.....come on YouTube...it's only 30 seconds long.....DOH!

I admire your successful efforts which help all of us with doubts. I no longer have any doubts about the objects emanating from the area near the base of the trees.

They're UFO's, fast walkers. And if they're not ours, they have pilots.

I like these threads where somebody comes in with a picture of something, a dozen or more people present a perfectly reasonable explanation, and then several people simply refuse to accept it.

Well, this is all just a huge waste of time, anyway, isn't it? Unless it can be absolutely proven to be something very specific, the images, descriptions, and calculations all add up to exactly jack squat.

Keep thinking it's flying saucer alien drones. Go ahead. See where that gets you.

originally posted by: Uggielicious

I have seen and have on tape objects that haul underwater but even though I have no concept of what they may be it's easier to think of them as living things. I cannot claim that it is a rod, but Jose Escamilla has shown videos of rods emanating from the ocean at high speed.

Jose Escamilla is a proven hoaxster. His videos of "rods" are - guess what? - insects, close to the camera. He knows this but he relies on enough people being dumb enough not to realise. As for the ones underwater, this 240p footage could be anything. www.youtube.com...

The one at the end is another bug, though.

Here's a perfect illustration of what a "rod" is. Not a Jose Escamilla video - it's actually high quality!



From this video:



Nice clear close-up footage, for once, and it's plain as day that it's nothing but a stretched-out image of an insect with the wings captured multiple times by the strobing effect of the camera.

Just cam to Post this. glad it is already done. Someone on FB said it looks like Ducks. lol. Ducks from Planet Kryptone Maybe??

originally posted by: Blue Shift
I like these threads where somebody comes in with a picture of something, a dozen or more people present a perfectly reasonable explanation, and then several people simply refuse to accept it.

Well, this is all just a huge waste of time, anyway, isn't it? Unless it can be absolutely proven to be something very specific, the images, descriptions, and calculations all add up to exactly jack squat.

Keep thinking it's flying saucer alien drones. Go ahead. See where that gets you.

Actually, what amazes me is how someone starts a thread like this......then yes, some offer their opinion, or point some things out. But then others will do more than that. Some of us actually do things like breaking the images down, or the video, etc, etc, etc. And our results, sometimes, show quite clearly that the claims being made are simply not true.

Like this video: these are not large objects, shooting out from behind some trees and tremendous speed. We have shown, LITERALLY shown that the objects are not behind the tree. They are even out of focus (not motion blur, but actually out of focus) with a camera that has been set to focus on infinity, meaning that if you get within 3 or 4 feet of the camera, they'll be out of focus. If they are flying bugs, then they'll appear to be out of focus objects, moving at tremendous speed.

When instead, they are small, mundane things, moving at normal speed.

And yet.....even with all the work with photos and videos.........showing this quite clearly is not what people in the video claim it is......you still have people here ignoring those facts and evidence presented.

:shaking head:

This is what is wrong with Ufology. Too many people putting things out there that are simply not true, and instead of being looked at critically, it's immediately embraced by people as actual UFO evidence.......when that's not true at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

It's why there are so many hoaxes out there. People doing them know that there are more than enough people to eat it up, hook, line and sinker.

This field would have a lot more respect if people would simply just STOP for a moment. Then THINK. LOOK. ASK. Once every possible mundane answer has been obviously thrown out, then maybe they have something that is truly extraordinary.

But instead, way too many people embrace it IMMEDIATELY as being real, and if anyone DARES to question it, or break it down, searching for the truth.....well, apparently WE are bad guys, and the reason that Ufology is not taken seriously. :rolling my eyes here:

But that's okay. Because of this, there will be no shortage of images or YouTube videos produced, and will be lapped up by those that want to believe so hard, that they've forgotten how to actually stop, think, and question things. People that put out these false things will always have an audience that will accept anything that they are shown, because they are so blinded by belief, that even when something is shown to be mundane or a hoax, they'll still cling to it and refuse to see the evidence presented.

And they call us skeptics closed minded???

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Uggielicious

I have seen and have on tape objects that haul underwater but even though I have no concept of what they may be it's easier to think of them as living things. I cannot claim that it is a rod, but Jose Escamilla has shown videos of rods emanating from the ocean at high speed.

Jose Escamilla is a proven hoaxster. His videos of "rods" are - guess what? - insects, close to the camera. He knows this but he relies on enough people being dumb enough not to realise. As for the ones underwater, this 240p footage could be anything. www.youtube.com...

The one at the end is another bug, though.

Here's a perfect illustration of what a "rod" is. Not a Jose Escamilla video - it's actually high quality!

From this video:

Nice clear close-up footage, for once, and it's plain as day that it's nothing but a stretched-out image of an insect with the wings captured multiple times by the strobing effect of the camera.

I cannot badmouth Jose as he and I have been friends since the 1990s. I don't agree that he sets out to hoax. I do agree that he has shown poor judgment in some of his questionable presentations especially his lunar anomalies videos. He is a very talented individual wearing many hats.

Since no one has captured a rod and put it under a microscope the jury is still out. I'm comfortable accepting that rods could be an unknown species and they do exist apart from known insects. Rods can be compared to sea life; you have shrimps and you have whales and everything in between all existing in the same domain.

Even the FBI was fooled by a rod confusing it for a missile and that made big news. If you're not familiar with the story, look it up as the rod was the large, sky-high cruiser, not the small ones you see flying around people. There is a famous cave used by base jumpers and flocks of swallows are shown flying in and out of the cave's entrance and their bodies and wings are clear. But I have video footage of a flock of rods and there are no bodies or wings visible.

When Jose started he showed footage from 2 side-by-side video cameras one set at "normal" shutter and the other at high speed. The bugs were clearly defined but so were the rods which did not resemble any known insects.

If you ever visit NYC let me know and I'll treat you to a rods video fest.

originally posted by: Rob48

From this video:

Nice clear close-up footage, for once, and it's plain as day that it's nothing but a stretched-out image of an insect with the wings captured multiple times by the strobing effect of the camera.

In order for your assumption to have validity regarding the rod shown in front of the masked face you are going to have to post an image of an insect that looks like the one in the video grab. It is not a stretched-out image of an insect that is a rod and the camera that captured it didn't "strobe" as cameras don't strobe. They are either in slow-shutter speed which will stretch anything that flies in front of it but the multiple images will be recognized as such. Because the movie featured is an action movie I'm sure the cameraman had the shutter pretty high to capture clear motion.

a reply to: alienjuggalo

Birds that figured out how to use warp drive?

a reply to: Uggielicious

It is not a stretched-out image of an insect that is a rod and the camera that captured it didn't "strobe" as cameras don't strobe.

A poor choice of words from me there. It's not the camera that strobes, it is the wings.

Look how brightly lit the "rod" is. Clearly there is a very bright light source on or near the camera to illuminate the scene.

Now think about what the insect's wings are doing as it flies. Beating very, very fast, dozens or even hundreds of times per second. At a particular point in each wing beat, the wings may be aligned just right to reflect the light brightly back into the lens. And that is precisely what happens here. Through most of the wing beat, the wings are invisible because they are virtually transparent and the light passes straight through them. But for a brief moment in each cycle, they reflect the light brightly and become visible. Meanwhile the insect's body is reflecting light all the time. Result: a bright streak with evenly spaced wings visible along it.

If you knew the camera shutter speed then you could easily work out the wing frequency, which is about four beats per frame here. (Notice how in the video the "rod" shows up first with three pairs of wings, then with four pairs!)

Here's a good "amateur" example. Not as sharp because they are further from the lens, out of focus and being photographed rather than filmed with professional equipment, but clearly the same thing happening. (This time with sunlight rather than a film lamp.)



Edit: The History Channel show MonsterQuest used simultaneous video and high-speed photography to show that the "rods" captured on the video were simply moths. E.g. see 8:20 in this video:



Of course, Jose was a bit miffed by this and put out a video in response. When called out on his rod BS he gets abusive in the comments. Does this look like a man who believes he has the facts on his side? What a charmer!




We now return you to your scheduled discussion of bugs in Kiwi land...

a reply to: Rob48

You have more or less proven your point. Don't expect him to listen to logic or reason though.

originally posted by: Uggielicious

Since no one has captured a rod and put it under a microscope the jury is still out. I'm comfortable accepting that rods could be an unknown species and they do exist apart from known insects. Rods can be compared to sea life; you have shrimps and you have whales and everything in between all existing in the same domain.

Actually they have.

On August 8/9, 2005, China Central Television (CCTV) aired a two-part documentary about flying rods in China. It reported the events from May to June of the same year at Tonghua Zhenguo Pharmaceutical Company in Tonghua City, Jilin Province, which debunked the flying rods. Surveillance cameras in the facility's compound captured video footage of flying rods identical to those shown in Jose Escamilla's video. Getting no satisfactory answer to the phenomenon, curious scientists at the facility decided that they would try to solve the mystery by attempting to catch these airborne creatures. Huge nets were set up and the same surveillance cameras then captured images of rods flying into the trap. When the nets were inspected, the "rods" were no more than regular moths and other ordinary flying insects. Subsequent investigations proved that the appearance of flying rods on video was an optical illusion created by the slower recording speed of the camera.[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Uggielicious

Why not start a thread just showing the footage, giving us your take and reasoning hopefully in the OP and seeing what others have to say.

It can be in the ufo forum and you can title it any way you want, if you want title it Rods captured on film you will have debunking or attempted debunking because the title makes a claim.

Why not just title it Video for analysis and in your OP you can explain why you think its rods and what they are and then we can go from there.

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Uggielicious

It is not a stretched-out image of an insect that is a rod and the camera that captured it didn't "strobe" as cameras don't strobe.

A poor choice of words from me there. It's not the camera that strobes, it is the wings.

Look how brightly lit the "rod" is. Clearly there is a very bright light source on or near the camera to illuminate the scene.

Now think about what the insect's wings are doing as it flies. Beating very, very fast, dozens or even hundreds of times per second. At a particular point in each wing beat, the wings may be aligned just right to reflect the light brightly back into the lens. And that is precisely what happens here. Through most of the wing beat, the wings are invisible because they are virtually transparent and the light passes straight through them. But for a brief moment in each cycle, they reflect the light brightly and become visible. Meanwhile the insect's body is reflecting light all the time. Result: a bright streak with evenly spaced wings visible along it.

If you knew the camera shutter speed then you could easily work out the wing frequency, which is about four beats per frame here. (Notice how in the video the "rod" shows up first with three pairs of wings, then with four pairs!)

Here's a good "amateur" example. Not as sharp because they are further from the lens, out of focus and being photographed rather than filmed with professional equipment, but clearly the same thing happening. (This time with sunlight rather than a film lamp.)

Edit: The History Channel show MonsterQuest used simultaneous video and high-speed photography to show that the "rods" captured on the video were simply moths. E.g. see 8:20 in this video:

Of course, Jose was a bit miffed by this and put out a video in response. When called out on his rod BS he gets abusive in the comments. Does this look like a man who believes he has the facts on his side? What a charmer!

We now return you to your scheduled discussion of bugs in Kiwi land...

I do not mean to nitpick your words but wings don't strobe either. When a regular, known species of flying bugs, insects, whatever, is filmed or videotaped with a slow shutter speed they will almost always resemble a rod. Rods are real, they have validity. I already told you about the Albany rod which the FBI thought was a missile so go to UFO Casebook, link below, and read how a 100-foot-long (?) rod fooled the FBI!


www.ufocasebook.com...
The Albany International Airport UFO video
In a second conversation with Mr. Bazile on Tuesday morning, October 22 he apprised NUFORC that the original video tape of the object had been forcibly "confiscated" from the "young photographer" by "four FBI agents," from the Albany, NY, FBI offices, a statement which now is in question. [or had been changed, B J] p> Mr. Bazile went on to describe how the agents had invited the photographer outside the station, and that the agents had then "taken" the "original" tape from the photographer, who had it on his person at the time of the meeting with the FBI personnel.

Then see the original footage at YouTube
www.youtube.com...
UFO, Albany, NY; 2002 Raw Footage From Photographer

The video is 25 seconds long so be ready to pause at 13 seconds and pause/play, pause/play and at 15 seconds you'll see the huge rod appear from the lower right edge with the tail of the passenger plane still visible on the upper right corner. The rod will fly towards the upper left corner going behind a cloud and this is also pointed out by the second comment.

Sitting outside my apartment building one day I looked up and saw a rod approach a high seagull and make a sharp, angled turn.

Rods are superfast but there's plenty of them in all kinds of footage and are visible only when the videotape is played frame-by-frame.

a reply to: Uggielicious

do not mean to nitpick your words but wings don't strobe either.

Strobing, as in a fast regularly flashing light. Of course they are not actually emitting light, but they are periodically reflecting light into the lens, creating a regular strobing effect, or in the silhouette cases periodically blocking the light.

When a regular, known species of flying bugs, insects, whatever, is filmed or videotaped with a slow shutter speed they will almost always resemble a rod.

Right, because "rods" are artifacts of filming insects with a slow shutter speed. (I wouldn't say "almost always", though: the lighting has to be right.) It would be a bit of a huge coincidence if there was ALSO a real object that looked exactly like those insect images.

That video wasn't working on my phone. I just watched it on my PC. It is an insect, like all the others. You can see the wings. It doesn't "go behind a cloud". And if the FBI confiscated the footage, why can I watch it on YouTube? Sounds very fishy to me.

Plus, you claim this is a rod above the clouds. You claim to have seen rods high up in the sky. And yet you also claim that the video I posted shows a rod IN FRONT OF SOMEONE'S FACE! You don't seem to know whether rods are tiny and close up or huge and distant and buzzing airliners! Which is it?

It is just so plainly obvious: RODS DO NOT EXIST. They are insects, and people like Jose Escamilla are using blurry camera artifacts to make money from the gullible.