Flying Rod UFO's, The book should still be open

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
Can you post the link to the original video of this episode?

See if this link works for you.

Did they provide any reason why no daytime footage was included to debunk the rods?

They were trying to film the hummingbirds but they were hiding because a little time before there was an hawk on that area, so most birds were hiding at the time. That's what the woman presented as a "birder" said.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
Can you post the link to the original video of this episode?

See if this link works for you.

Did they provide any reason why no daytime footage was included to debunk the rods?

They were trying to film the hummingbirds but they were hiding because a little time before there was an hawk on that area, so most birds were hiding at the time. That's what the woman presented as a "birder" said.

The link worked, thank you. It raises some questions that they were tring to record hummingbirds, yet they concluded that the rods are moths.

a reply to: ArMaP

Good teaching tool.

x2awdf7

I got as far as the 1880's novel "Flat land" explanation.
Some of Kev's secret plasmas might even work for financial market modeling.
The brief sampling I got from your link didn't go much beyond the nodal aspects of Sin wave dances in superposition.
I don't want to get stuck on just the possibility of mirror ended crystal rods with civil war era ultrasonic pumps.
Did you notice any good Easter eggs in the link or do we need to watch the entire 45 minutes?

a reply to: Cauliflower

I don't have access to the video on that page, so I don't know what happens in there.

On the video I have the day time experiment with the high speed camera is at 25:30, the night time experiment at 37:47.

a reply to: ArMaP

Is that cave somewhere in the high desert?
According to your video the FBI is sensitive about how this information gets disseminated.
Some Video sources like Amazon prime offer 30 day free trials which is more than fair for copyright stuff.
Watching the Q thread it appears many of these esoteric video sources will not be displayable now.
I usually crop my private filing system information but now they even want that..

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
The link worked, thank you. It raises some questions that they were tring to record hummingbirds, yet they concluded that the rods are moths.

They didn't conclude that rods are moths, they specifically say "So, are all rods bugs? Not necessarily".

Rods appear to be any fast moving object on a slow shutter speed video, so bugs, birds or any other thing can appear as a rod.

originally posted by: Cauliflower
Is that cave somewhere in the high desert?

I don't know, I didn't even watch the video, I fast-forwarded it looking for that part.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
The link worked, thank you. It raises some questions that they were tring to record hummingbirds, yet they concluded that the rods are moths.

They didn't conclude that rods are moths, they specifically say "So, are all rods bugs? Not necessarily".

Rods appear to be any fast moving object on a slow shutter speed video, so bugs, birds or any other thing can appear as a rod.

I don't know the shutter speed, but the quality is horrible. This shows the guy casually walking and he is extremely blurred.


The next image shows the alleged rod entering the frame at a different spot than the moth. The times are also different.

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
I don't know the shutter speed, but the quality is horrible. This shows the guy casually walking and he is extremely blurred.

Yes, the shutter speed was obviously low, so it's no surprise a slow insect like a moth would appear like that.

The next image shows the alleged rod entering the frame at a different spot than the moth. The times are also different.

What's the time difference? The fractions of seconds are impossible to read on the slow shutter camera, but the seconds are the same.

To see if the images match I superimposed 49 frames that show the moth in the high speed camera to compare it with the common camera image, and this is what I got:


Here's a direct comparison.


You can see that the images match but that there's a slight difference in the camera lenses (no surprises there). It also looks like the high speed camera was slightly tilted in comparison with the normal speed camera.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
I don't know the shutter speed, but the quality is horrible. This shows the guy casually walking and he is extremely blurred.

Yes, the shutter speed was obviously low, so it's no surprise a slow insect like a moth would appear like that.

The next image shows the alleged rod entering the frame at a different spot than the moth. The times are also different.

What's the time difference? The fractions of seconds are impossible to read on the slow shutter camera, but the seconds are the same.

To see if the images match I superimposed 49 frames that show the moth in the high speed camera to compare it with the common camera image, and this is what I got:

Here's a direct comparison.

You can see that the images match but that there's a slight difference in the camera lenses (no surprises there). It also looks like the high speed camera was slightly tilted in comparison with the normal speed camera.

That is cool how you did that. I am still not sure they are the same. The wings look like they match, but the flight lines look different. The alleged rod kinda straightens out and the moth has kinda an S shape.

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
That is cool how you did that.

I downloaded the video, opened it on Avidemux, then moved one frame at a time, made a screen capture, pasted it into an image editor (I used an old version of Paintshop pro I have, but I could have done it on Gimp) as a new layer and repeated it for the next 48 frames. Then I changed each layer to show only the parts that were brighter than the layers below it, creating the same effect as the long shutter image. A side effect is that the clock also had all the lightened segments added, so it doesn't show the real time of the last frame.

The wings look like they match, but the flight lines look different. The alleged rod kinda straightens out and the moth has kinda an S shape.

The different lens and the slightly different positions of the cameras could give that result. Also, don't forget that a moth is a small animal, so for us to see it that size it means it was close to the camera, where lens distortion is stronger and difference in camera position affects more the final image.

a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

You think by asking the guy his opinion is proof of a bee?

NO.

That is not how proof works. Why do i need to contact the guy? You contact him, its you using his video to make your point.

I held your hand last time because you really cannot follow.

This is just becoming insane, no wonder you feel this way about RODS.

I am not using any videos to make my point.

You keep asking about the video and wanting proof it was bees as the guy filming claims it is because there was a bee flying around when he was filming.

That is why I suggested top contact him.

To me, its not really a wild claim and fits logic based on where they are.

They are at a wedding, usually there are flowers at weddings, Bee's like flowers for the pollen, bees are usually seen flying around on sunny days, the video looked like it was sunny.

To me its not a wild claim.

To you, claiming he is filming a bee is just ridiculous and needs to be proven, hence my suggestion to ask the guy who made the video to prove the claim you find so hard to believe.

Why was the video not good, you have much higher chances of seeing a bee appear as a rod if theres more of them.

Why?

for the reasons I gave previously.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

You think by asking the guy his opinion is proof of a bee?

NO.

That is not how proof works. Why do i need to contact the guy? You contact him, its you using his video to make your point.

I held your hand last time because you really cannot follow.

This is just becoming insane, no wonder you feel this way about RODS.

I am not using any videos to make my point.

You keep asking about the video and wanting proof it was bees as the guy filming claims it is because there was a bee flying around when he was filming.

That is why I suggested top contact him.

To me, its not really a wild claim and fits logic based on where they are.

They are at a wedding, usually there are flowers at weddings, Bee's like flowers for the pollen, bees are usually seen flying around on sunny days, the video looked like it was sunny.

To me its not a wild claim.

To you, claiming he is filming a bee is just ridiculous and needs to be proven, hence my suggestion to ask the guy who made the video to prove the claim you find so hard to believe.

Why was the video not good, you have much higher chances of seeing a bee appear as a rod if theres more of them.

Why?

for the reasons I gave previously.

You say I am the one not following, but you keep adding things that I havent written. Where did I say it was wild or irrational to speculate that the rod is an insect? The guy probably doesnt know what he recorded or he wouldnt have left the question open. He never says anything during the video. I will believe the rods or bugs when I see daytime video debunking them or proof that insects or birds move too fast to record without fast shutter speed.

a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

You say I am the one not following, but you keep adding things that I havent written. Where did I say it was wild or irrational to speculate that the rod is an insect?

I haven't added anything

You are indicating this by what you are posting.


The video, the 3rd clip at the end of the video where (to be as accurate so you don't reply with nothing was said)the text mentions that while filming the scene at the wedding there was a bee buzzing around seems to be something you cannot believe.

You called it written speculation and went on about if that is enough evidence for me to prove or disprove something.

I replied by pointing out that if you find it hard to accept it was bees as the video claimed then you should contact the guy that made it.

In a later post I went even further to explain that the claim + some basic thought about the time of day and where the scene is would be attractive to bees is enough to accept that claim there was bee flying around isn't something too hard to swallow.

For you, using your own words, it was written speculation which indicates you cannot accept the logic behind the simple claim and need further proof.

hence why I said take it up with the video creator.

The guy probably doesnt know what he recorded or he wouldnt have left the question open. He never says anything during the video.

I know videos are for watching but when text is on a video you are allowed to read it as it usually is further info about what you watching.


Read the text in the video.

If you think he doesn't know what he is filming then that is between you and the guy that made the video, I have been saying this the whole time.

In this case I knew exactly what I was filming, a fly.



PS: the camera I used for this video was a very cheap camera that doesn't even have a name.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

You say I am the one not following, but you keep adding things that I havent written. Where did I say it was wild or irrational to speculate that the rod is an insect?

I haven't added anything

You are indicating this by what you are posting.


The video, the 3rd clip at the end of the video where (to be as accurate so you don't reply with nothing was said)the text mentions that while filming the scene at the wedding there was a bee buzzing around seems to be something you cannot believe.

You called it written speculation and went on about if that is enough evidence for me to prove or disprove something.

I replied by pointing out that if you find it hard to accept it was bees as the video claimed then you should contact the guy that made it.

In a later post I went even further to explain that the claim + some basic thought about the time of day and where the scene is would be attractive to bees is enough to accept that claim there was bee flying around isn't something too hard to swallow.

For you, using your own words, it was written speculation which indicates you cannot accept the logic behind the simple claim and need further proof.

hence why I said take it up with the video creator.

The guy probably doesnt know what he recorded or he wouldnt have left the question open. He never says anything during the video.

I know videos are for watching but when text is on a video you are allowed to read it as it usually is further info about what you watching.


Read the text in the video.

If you think he doesn't know what he is filming then that is between you and the guy that made the video, I have been saying this the whole time.

I had already viewed and commented on the video months before you posted it here. The youtuber doesnt respond to comments. Even if responded, it wouldnt be proof of a bee or not, so what would be the point?

a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

Close up of bees is pointless a bit like your claims all the classic rod images are few to tens of feet from the lens and crossing the field of view the video of the bee I posted was from a professional unlike yourself how the rod looks will depend on type of insect/bird size of object distance and speed and as ArMap has shown shutter speed is the real issue.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

Close up of bees is pointless a bit like your claims all the classic rod images are few to tens of feet from the lens and crossing the field of view the video of the bee I posted was from a professional unlike yourself how the rod looks will depend on type of insect/bird size of object distance and speed and as ArMap has shown shutter speed is the real issue.

Correction, it has been suggested that rods are the result of shutter speed, not shown. Someone that may be a professional taking pictures is hardly qualified in insect identification and motion blur. What I have seen so far leads me to believe the many rods are in focus without blur. Motion blur most often results in objects appearing longer than they are, but lack detail on the objects like wings.

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
Correction, it has been suggested that rods are the result of shutter speed, not shown.

If you consider the video I posted on my previous post as showing a rod then, in that case, I am sure that that specific rod was a result of shutter speed, as I was seeing the fly while I was filming it.

Someone that may be a professional taking pictures is hardly qualified in insect identification and motion blur.

Maybe not in insect identification, but is qualified in motion blur.

What I have seen so far leads me to believe the many rods are in focus without blur.

Motion blur still shows sharp edges, although they appear translucent.

Motion blur most often results in objects appearing longer than they are, but lack detail on the objects like wings.

True, unless you there's a light shining on the wings and the wings are big enough to be seen in the video.

I know how I would make a test to see if I could recreate a typical rod: I would need an insect with relatively big wings and reflective (a moth is good, specially if it's a fast one), a closed room (so I wouldn't lose my test subject and I could control the light) and a good camera. Finding the first is somewhat easy, the second I already have, but I am missing the third, as I only have access to low (or even bad) quality cameras.

a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

I think a professional would be well aware what motion blur is so that is a BS claim.

Here on the video a so called insect expert claims the wing motion cant be an insect from 2:59 on one of the images given as an example looks like the moth image on the standard camera.



There are many times experts on a subject are mistaken because of a lack of knowledge on how photography/video actually works the classic example is no stars in Apollo shots which is due to exposure, how images are captured and stored on digital video explains how small objects moving relatively fast against the field of view can end up looking the way they do.

Watch this around the 4 min mark

Rods appearing on video security camera a net set up watch the video showing to so called rod whats in the trap normal insects.