NBC Cameraman Interrogated by FBI for 10 Hours After Catching "ROD" (insect) on Camera

Insects do NOT make or equate to aliens. Easy Peasy...

Sigh...

originally posted by: DJW001
File a FOIA request for the FBI's report. There will be none, confirming that the entire thing was a [HOAX!]

Or exactly the opposite is why there may be
no information on the matter.

Really, SO, I didn't know ATS has an official "policy" on rods, something even experts aren't sure as to what they are...

Once again, kudos...

Let me ask you this, for you and Springer. If the reporter is telling the truth, why was he interrogated by the FBI for hours? If you believe that's an insect, then why did the FBI think it dangerous enough for him to be given a polygraph?

a reply to: Mak Manto

I can't speak to the reporter's honesty. I can, however, refer to the extensive research our members have performed on the "rods" phenominon, which has concluded -- beyond doubt -- that they are insects.

Maybe, maybe not...

Maybe there's more than meets the eye, but if the FBI did interrogate him for catching "rods" on his camera, I'm going to tell you, they weren't interrogating him because of insects...

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: Mak Manto

I can't speak to the reporter's honesty. I can, however, refer to the extensive research our members have performed on the "rods" phenominon, which has concluded -- beyond doubt -- that they are insects.

I'm not sure what the point of claiming this footage to be a hoax is? Did the cameraman fabricate something? I would understand the classification if this was some sort of fraud, but I don't see the evidence of intentional fraud.

Of course the footage isn't new, it is from a documentary I watched 10 years ago

UFO: THE GREATEST STORY EVER DENIED

There are topics on this site that many would classify as bat *snip* crazy but it harms no one to discuss it. It does not make sense to risk offending your main user base over a topic that I doubt anyone could "prove beyond a doubt" either way. Wouldn't you need the original footage to do that?

Are you taking a strong stance on this because you feel it taints the image of your site?

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
There are topics on this site that many would classify as bat *snip* crazy but it harms no one to discuss it. It does not make sense to risk offending your main user base over a topic that I doubt anyone could "prove beyond a doubt" either way. Wouldn't you need the original footage to do that?

Are you taking a strong stance on this because you feel it taints the image of your site?

Except that I'm pretty sure that this 'main user base' you refer to understands that the whole rod situation has been thoroughly investigated and found to be nothing out of the ordinary. Now take that and add the claim that this individual was interrogated by the FBI for 10 hours because of a 'rod'...Doesn't sound very genuine to me.

There is a plethora of information available on the topic, do a little digging and you will find some pretty solid stuff to show EXACTLY how this happens. Notice as readily available camera tech improved these 'rods' have faded from existence?

In the end I guess people are going to believe whatever they want, but as has been said there has been significant research done (including here on ATS) on the subject. It's up to you to accept or ignore it, or to do your own experiments to prove it to yourself.

originally posted by: ChaosComplex

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
There are topics on this site that many would classify as bat *snip* crazy but it harms no one to discuss it. It does not make sense to risk offending your main user base over a topic that I doubt anyone could "prove beyond a doubt" either way. Wouldn't you need the original footage to do that?

Are you taking a strong stance on this because you feel it taints the image of your site?

Except that I'm pretty sure that this 'main user base' you refer to understands that the whole rod situation has been thoroughly investigated and found to be nothing out of the ordinary. Now take that and add the claim that this individual was interrogated by the FBI for 10 hours because of a 'rod'...Doesn't sound very genuine to me.

There is a plethora of information available on the topic, do a little digging and you will find some pretty solid stuff to show EXACTLY how this happens. Notice as readily available camera tech improved these 'rods' have faded from existence?

In the end I guess people are going to believe whatever they want, but as has been said there has been significant research done (including here on ATS) on the subject. It's up to you to accept or ignore it, or to do your own experiments to prove it to yourself.

This isn't a scientific research site. It is a conspiracy site. You would have to be pretty cracked to take anything on this board as fact. It is ALL meant for us to make up our own mind about. I have stated before that I am all about a private site having the right to control the content that is shown on it's site, but this one I just don't get. Big foot has never been proven and there has been a tone of evidence to the contrary, yet the topics stay out of the hoax bin unless it appears the poster or producer of the video a purposely trying to dupe people.

Nobody has accused this camera man of making up his story. The question is simply "what is it".

How does it damage ATS reputation to discuss this video? How is it any more unbelievable than the thousands of other UFO videos posted here that never made it to the hoax bin.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

This isn't a scientific research site. It is a conspiracy site. You would have to be pretty cracked to take anything on this board as fact. It is ALL meant for us to make up our own mind about. I have stated before that I am all about a private site having the right to control the content that is shown on it's site, but this one I just don't get. Big foot has never been proven and there has been a tone of evidence to the contrary, yet the topics stay out of the hoax bin unless it appears the poster or producer of the video a purposely trying to dupe people.

Nobody has accused this camera man of making up his story. The question is simply "what is it".

How does it damage ATS reputation to discuss this video? How is it any more unbelievable than the thousands of other UFO videos posted here that never made it to the hoax bin.

You're correct, this is not necessarily a 'scientific research site'. However, there are some very sharp minds that participate in the discussions here, and not everyone here is a conspiracy 'nut' so to speak. Most of the time through cross referencing you can determine if someone who is speaking science knows what they are talking about, or if they are just pretending.

The thing about rods is that anyone can do the experiments to debunk them. Bigfoot may have little to no evidence to support it being real, but there really isn't any hardcore, easily duplicated evidence to prove it false either, only specific cases where the individual was truly trying to dupe the public. So the hoax ruling is more of a case by case basis. Rods, well they have been 'debunked' time and time again, and like I said anyone can do the experiments themselves.

You say the question is simply "What is it?", but that has been answered over and over.

It's not about hurting the sites reputation (I can't speak for the owners, this is just my opinion), it's just about beating a dead horse.

Sharp minds...?

Let me reiterate that no biologist, entomologist, or natural life researcher has yet to classify what rods are. So, if a website of conspiracists mind you, who aren't experts or those who have gone through years of schooling are saying they've investigated the matter, believe me when I say this.

I'll take their word with a grain of salt over the still unknowable definition...

My opinion is that they're not insects, but they're clearly not miniature spacecraft or extra-dimensional aliens. I would be inclined to think they're a natural phenomenon we haven't fully understand yet.

originally posted by: Mak Manto
Sharp minds...?

Let me reiterate that no biologist, entomologist, or natural life researcher has yet to classify what rods are. So, if a website of conspiracists mind you, who aren't experts or those who have gone through years of schooling are saying they've investigated the matter, believe me when I say this.

I'll take their word with a grain of salt over the still unknowable definition...

My opinion is that they're not insects, but they're clearly not miniature spacecraft or extra-dimensional aliens. I would be inclined to think they're a natural phenomenon we haven't fully understand yet.

Yes, very sharp minds. The number may be small in comparison to the total number of members, but there are certainly a few very intelligent individuals that I have had the pleasure of interacting with here. These people are the ones who generally use an understanding of REAL SCIENCE to explain things, and the people who have a firm rooting in reality. Notice how when I mentioned the research done I said "including here on ATS" indicating that this is only one of the places to find the information?

They haven't classified rods because they aren't a thing. Unless you consider "bull#" a classification. Your opinion is fine and dandy, but do the experiments yourself and your opinion will surely change. Or you can ignore the facts, like I said it's up to the individual when it comes to what they want to believe no matter what information is available for them to digest.

I still will hold the word of scientists over those who claim they know what they're talking about...

Let alone the fact that many in this thread are saying the reporter is lying that he was interrogated by the FBI. Do tell me, does anyone on here have any evidence this man lied?

No, I thought not...

Arguing that "rods" is anything other than the proven insect flying across the camera's field of view is pointless and beneath ATS. Thread closed.