Jose Escamilla's Roswell Rods

reply to post by intrepid


Regarding Klopp, okay if you say so. He is bent on insulting me rather than add to this thread. So if you feel it's okay for him to do this then so be it, it's your call as moderator. From now on I will just ignore it.

Jose Escamilla

reply to post by Solarskye


I had a specimen at one time that was sent to me from a woman in Michigan who claimed she was a nurse and knew, all sorts of insects, and things. She killed this thing and described it a Rod she had seen on Discovery Channel. About two weeks after she killed the Rod, she finally Fed Ex'd the specimen to me in Studio City. Jim Peters and I filmed the "chain of custody" from the time we received the Fed Ex pack to the unwrapping and opening of the container she had carefully enclosed the specimen into.

We did a close view of it and it is played out in the Rod DVD I made in 2001. We took the specimen to the Museum of Natural History LA, to have an Entomologist look at it. The scientist did a quick examination of the specimen and said it was no insect, but that it looked more like a plant like...thing. That was it!

The Japanese network who went with me to the Cave of The Swallows took a part of it to do a DNA test and they never followed through, nor did they ever send us back the part of the specimen they took.

I have had eyewitness reports that have claimed to have seen Rods with the naked eye, some dead in antifreeze tanks used to catch insects, others have been truck drivers that have seen Rods streak across the highway, things hitting the windshields and leaving no trace. I have two photos of what look like Rods in amber and one in a crystal rock found in Canada.

I have not been able to purchase these and as far as I know, they are still in the possession of the people that contacted me regarding them. I will include all this in my film next year.

Jose

reply to post by coven


I'll reply to this right now. First of all, I discovered in 1994, prior to releasing any information on Rods that, shooting at Normal or Auto or any low shutter setting below 1/1000 shutter settings is going to cause anything going fast across the field of view of the camcorder to have this elongated motion blur effect.

Anything such as a baseball, bird or insect whether close or far from the lens, will fool you into believing it's a long thing, when in reality, it is a baseball, bird or insect.

This is why I created the "Skyfishing Protocol."

Skyfishing because you never know when there will be anything in the sky and using the established protocol, shooting at anywhere from 1/2000 shutter setting which was the highest in 1994-1995, and up to 1/10,000 to 1/15,000 settings which are the current highest settings available.

Now, in order to explain, shutter settings, these are not 10,000 frames per second like in normal film cameras. This means that more light is being allowed to hit the CCDs, thereby eliminating any blurring caused by, let's say a baseball at 80 mph, a bird or insect passing by. At these high shutter settings, insects are insects, birds are birds, baseballs are baseballs and RODS are RODS! When you review them captured at these settings, and you see them frame by frame.

We tested a cross bow arrow traveling at 130 mph in Denver. We set up a Sony VX 1000 to film a "16 inch bolt" (cross bow arrow), shot across two posts thirty feet apart.

The camera was set at the optical zoom setting at 1/2000 shutter setting. Optical zoom means that we have zoomed into the scene which delivers an accurate optical view of the scene.

The camera was also set ten feet away, twenty feet away all the way to 100 feet away from the posts. There was also a yellow ribbon with red marks every three feet.

At the 100 feet away distance, I zoomed the lens into it's "digital zoom" mode, which is an electronic zoom, rather than a lens optical zoom.

In all the tests, we found that as the arrow passed by and was captured from the various distances, that the length of it kept it's integrity. So as long as the camera was set at optical zoom at any distance up to 100 feet away from the subject, it would stay in focus with no motion blur...(elongated arrow longer than what it really is), and the clincher was the "Digital Zoom!" This is where I personally thought that this would cause the arrow to be longer than what it really was. Guess what? The arrow, zoomed into with digital zoom from 100 feet away, was captured in two frame of video and it kept it's length! The only anomaly is that the arrow was "curved" slightly, rather than staying stiff and straight.

What this meant is that anything flying at 130 mph, lasting two frames of video, from 100 feet away, in digital zoom, that appears to fill the screen, is probably an object approximately 16 inches in length.

The optical zoomed shots delivered the 16 inch arrow in three frame of video. So that really gave an indicator about shooting at 1/2000 shutter setting on at least the Sony VX 1000, that what you get is basically what you see.

The Sony cam deliver a 130 mph arrow clearly detected as an arrow at 1/2000 shutter setting. So what this brings is that the debunkers have refused to shoot the insects at the highest shutter settings. Why? Because they know as well as I established early on, that anything shot using my skyfish protocol, will easily be dismissed and eliminted for what it is. Insects become insects. Birds become Birds, arrows become arrows, RODS are RODS!

What I found is that the naive and gullible public has bought the simplistic explanations used by debunkers filming in low shutter settings while claiming to be shooting in high shutter settings. Bottom line? Not true. Rods are very real!

reply to post by Jose Escamilla



Awesome!!!! Thank you so much for you detailed and scientific response... I hate to admit that I may have fallen victim to the debunkers on this issue.. After watching the rod videos posted on page one (by a different member) I see exactly what you are saying as what I believed to be insects actually look more like rods with a spiral pattern to the exterior of the central rod object (what I assumed to be the insects body). As Always I am skeptical (human nature eh ) but willing to look at this from both perspectives.

Thanks for opening my eyes on this subject a little further... (How I wish I could experience ANY of these sightings (rods, UFOs, Et's etc.) personally... maybe then I would lean more to the side of the believers as opposed to a skeptical view)

One other question for you Mr. Escamilla... Do you think the ET's (not specifically rods but ET's in general) have a malicious intent behind their visits here?

I concluded several years ago that rods are probably an unidentified living species. I also think that larger "sky creatures" exist that are sometimes misidentified as U.F.O.s. Further, I think that some of the round disk shapes that look like a "cell" captured on space shuttle film also behave like a life form of some kind rather than a machine. What do you think of my ideas, Mr. Escamilla? I lived near Clovis, N.M. a few years ago where I one night saw a fireball type U.F.O. Much of your work has been done just south of Roswell?

Welcome to A.T.S.

Out of curiosity since I am unfamiliar with the phenomenon (if there really s one) can someone present a video or photo example of one of these "rods" please?

Thank you for the time.

- Lee

Originally posted by lee anoma
Out of curiosity since I am unfamiliar with the phenomenon (if there really s one) can someone present a video or photo example of one of these "rods" please?

Thank you for the time.

- Lee

ufopunx has kindly provided a couple of vids on page 1 of this thread. Enjoy.

reply to post by coven


Pertaining to ETs, I really can't comment until I can provide back up materials on them. I have had personal experiences with the Praying Mantis types, the white ones, and a reptoid I ran across during a UFO sighting in 1974 on my way to Clovis, New Mexico.

There was a girlfriend of mine from Arizona I have since lost contact with, but while we were parked at the side of the highway, and while I was flashing the headlights at them trying to get their attention, in my rear view mirror, I saw what appeared to be a reptile looking humanoid. I had the tails lights on and when I hit the brakes, this thing was illuminated and I saw it. She didn't because she was too freaked out by the objects I was flashing the headlights to.

This thing was built like Mike Tyson! It had this turtle looking head, and a sleeveless vest. That's what I remember, before I hit the peddle to the metal, because after I saw this thing, I finally got freaked out and felt the chills at the base of my neck, and a feeling that I better get out of there.

I never heard from her ever again, and I would like to hear from her to compare notes after all these years. WHo knows maybe I'll get in touch with her again someday?

Jose

reply to post by TheAvenger


I agree that there are living biological organisms in the upper atmosphere and in space. Trevor James Constable is a very big influence in my study of Rods and UFOs. Especially those UFOs that display behaviors as if they are alive.

The Airforce has gone on record saying that the reason they are spraying (chemtrails) in the upper atmosphere is to kill "harmfull" bacteria that exists in the upper levels of our atmosphere! In essence, in explaining away their reason for releasing toxic chemicals in our skies, they are inadvertantly admitting we have biologicals that exist in the upper atmosphere!

There is also a great piece of evidence I found while editing Trevors segment in my film UFO-The Greatest Story Ever Denied, where he describes the STS 76 footage and the dozens of objects that seem to be alive that have that familiar "notch and central hole" as they fleetingly zoom behind and in front of the twelve mile long tether.

If you look closely as the tether breaks, you can hear the command center proclaim, "well if it needed to break, they broke it at the right spot." Meaning that if the tether break would have occurred differently, the astronauts may have either been killed or had a serious accident in space. What happens is that these "critters" appear to "attack" the tether and seemingly because of their close and high speed fly-bys, at the there, they seem to have "broken it" themselves!

I can't prove this, but it certainly appears highly coincidental thatb there is a lot of "Dropa" activity right about the time the tether broke loose!

(Dropas are what we think these might be called). See Dropa Stones from China. These are ancient stones found in caves from 12,000 years ago in China. Skeptics say it's all hogwash, but they look very much like these things in space. The stones have a notch and hole.

So there is credence to there being living entities in the upper atmosphere, even mentioned in newspapers from a hundred years ago and before.

Rods, as Trevor James Constable says, are only one of the many living organisms that exist in the upper areas of the atmosphere.

I hope this adds to your thoughts.

Jose

All I can say is WOW

Jose Escamilla - You are the man!

Thank You for coming to ATS and not only sharing this incredible information with us but letting us be apart of it.

Have you started to talk to the owners of ATS yet AKA the Three Amigos?

Question:

What do you think of the so called Orbs? I think that the whole Orb phenomenon is bogus. I think that its just people catching lint and dust partials in the air with their cameras.

The information that you have shared with us convinces me that Rods are real, however IMO I don't think that they are extraterrestrial. Sounds to me like they seem to be more of a new living organism that is native to earth but yet to be discovered.

Keep up the good work.

Also, if people keep giving you a hard time, I Got Your Back Man!

reply to post by housegroove23


Pertaining to the Orbs phenomenon, here are my thoughts. First of all, yes, there are dust particles that when you take a cloth towel and flap it, it will release microscopic dust particles into the air, and when you snap a photo, whether on film, or digital, you get the dust particles appearing as "light Orbs" and I agree, this has occurred many times on photos.

On the flip side of the coin, we have these things "Orbs" appearing in space on ultraviolet / infra-red films provided to us by NASA shuttle cameras, and they appear to look just like the dust orbs, but these are "huge" round Orbs, traveling from space "into earth" AND to top it off, they're being filmed in the "invisible light spectrums of the ultraviolet and infra-red zones, so the astronauts are "not going to see these invisible orbs with the naked eye, but if they happen to be peering through the cameras view finders, then they will catch these things coming into earth.

I recently saw the most ridiculous explanation for the NASA orbs on You Tube or Google video. Someone thinking they have the nitty on the gritty, posted this comical explanation on these "huge Ice Crystals / Debris" that not only fly in, but when they hit the atmosphere, they first turn into a black orb that is disrupted by the friction as they enter the earths' upper layer of the atmosphere, then as the Orb(s) continue in, they suddenly turn into a bright white orb!

Turning into the familiar other white orbs that are already hovering inside the earths atmosphere.

So just because a towel can produce dust "orbs" effect, it doesn't mean there is no such thing, that is unless, someone in space is flapping a gigantic towel, releasing three mile in diameter "Ice/Debris" in space, that is capable of being not only invisible, but able to enter the earth's atmosphere without melting and then continuing to fly in various directions, under their own control, inside earths skies.

My take on the Orbs, is they are real. Most stuff can be explained away. Granted, just like most low shutter insects filmed that resemble Rods, but the ultimate conclusions are that you cannot dismiss all the evidence because someone says, you can produce Rods or Orbs with insects or by flapping a towel respectively.

Orbs & Rods exist!

Jose Escamilla

What's next ? Debating about the possibility of a flat earth again ?

Rods are a proven scam, plain and simple.

www.opendb.com...

www.amsky.com...

www.randi.org...

This has been proven, duplicated, debated and explained several times. What i see here from Mr. Escamilla is rude behaviour and self promoting, nothing less.
If at least he would call them "vectored alien energy anchors", that would be a lot more fun

Are you just going to ignore the stuff in the nasa videos?

Originally posted by Jose Escamilla
IMAX footage of RODS at 4800 feet above sea level in the Fjords of Sweden

Pff. You just said "Fjords" to make it look cool

4800 feet above sea level would just about match the highest situated lakes in Sweden. Problem is, "fjords" are connected to the OCEAN by definition.

reply to post by Phil J. Fry


Thanks. You saved me searching for these links.

reply to post by alaskan


Which stuff?

reply to post by TheAvenger


Ah I see, thank you for pointing that out. Skimmed through a few posts and didn't noticed the links he made in the text of his post.

Very strange.

What I saw looked like some sort of life form (insect maybe?), but I can't say for sure. Looks like I'll have some digging to do. The videos seemed authentic at least.

Thanks again folks!

- Lee

Could they be an electromagnetic phenomena or more creature like? I guess they could be an electromagnetic creature. Hmmm. ----PC

Hi Jose,
Great you are on ATS!!
Concluding that rods where just flying bugs I never give the topic any attention anymore. I did some testing myself with HD camera's a while ago and had convincing images of "rods" that where in fact flying insects.
So you say I'm wrong, OK then:

-What do you think they are?
-Earth organisms or ET?
-What does it take for me to see them?
-Where's/what's the best time/place/weathercondition to film them?
-How can I see the difference between a bug and a rod on film?

Don't get me wrong here Jose, I admire your work and I'm not a debunker.

Originally posted by commodore64

reply to post by alaskan

 

Which stuff?

Look at some of these videos, then compare them to what jose mentions in his sixth reply on this page.





[edit on 16-12-2007 by alaskan]

Dear Jose,

While reading about your method of using two cameras to film UFO's and Rods... I came upon this news release dated Dec 14, 2007...

Electrophysics Introduces High Definition Infrared Camera

Is this the type of camera that would be used for seeing UFO's and Rods??

Electrophysics web site