This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rod (optical phenomenon) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 27 March 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UFO and Ghost documentaries can be hilarious, but "Flying Rods" what can top that as a hilarious "mystery" to examine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.29.190 ( talk) 15:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
"Alien of the gaps". It's a take on the "god of the gaps" argument. That if science can't explain it (yet) then a god did it. Now its "if scientists can't explain it, aliens did it".
-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.169.59 ( talk) 05:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
This article has some strange POV problems. Several times it unreservedly claims that Rods are only insects, which is rather POV. Not only that, but it then confusingly goes on to contradict this view by giving descriptions of Rods according to the "skyfish" theory (also POV). It's not really presenting both theories as opinions on the matter; instead it seems to be presenting *both* of these mutually exclusive theories as fact. 128.227.188.147 00:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I have three screen captures from August 15, 2003 showing the rod effect on birds in a Weatherbug photo, and how resizing the image changes the number of bird images, indicating the effect is a function of digital video scan rates. Anyone know if rods have been imaged before digital video? I can upload the pictures for the article, but I don't know if the Weatherbug and Ulead PhotoImpact windows shown would be fair use of copyright. Gentaur 06:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes. In short. The majority of the video is from NTSC Analog Video Cameras that film @ 29.95 frames per second. The majority of people seem to focus on exposure time and ignore the simple math facts. 30 frames per second with a bug that flaps its wings @ 120 times per second and each frame will have a total of FOUR complete flaps for every single frame in a linear manner. This creates a rod shape in the center where the body is and a sine wave type shape for the wing pattern.
I would suspect that digital video has even more artifacts, depending on the camera used. This would make ever changing effects with sometimes strange result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Cyndicate ( talk • contribs) 05:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The Sci-Fi Channel has aired a show concerning these things on 3-22-06, at 15:00(3pm) EST/EDT. Website is www.scifi.com. Martial Law 20:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC) :)
Hey, just browsing around when i saw this, I think a book for "D20 Modern" has something like this, 66.214.82.168 I've always called bugs "Air Plankton", these rods behave very much like squids, they to can maneuver at high speeds, change direction instantly, zoom up and down and all with total control. These seems to be "air squids" and there are several ocean species which have many of the same physical characteristics, the transparency, etc. I have once witnessed a small group of rod like critters travelling through the treetops of a forest, at first I thought I was looking at very fast moving smoke, but then realized it was seperate transparent rod shaped creatures movingin a small group. Looks likely that we have a species of critter that has escaped us because they move fast enough that our unaided eyes rarely catch them. Perfect! I hope they can keep as elusive as they are now.
Many of the so-called 'Rods' filmed at slow shutter speeds and close to the camera are almost certainly common insects. However, the somewhat larger 'specimens' that have been filmed approaching from a great distance, height or even in the upper atmosphere (filmed from the 'Space Shuttle' and the 'International Space Station') are, in my opinion, something else entirely.
Like the UFO phenomenon in general, 'Rods' will never be taken seriously or viewed as a genuine phenomenon until one lands in the U.S. President's lap while he takes tea on the White House lawn. Such is life.
---
I've noticed this article is listed under 'debunked cryptids'. Considering that, unlike creatures such as the jackalope that are OBVIOUSLY not real, Rods are still under at least some debate, I'm not sure they should be listed as 'debunked' just yet. Any thoughts? - Indy Gold 20:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Andy, I agree with you to some extent. Your beliefs and passion with the truth are admirable. However I think you are a little too innocent of a person to see the big picture on this subject.
It is pretty obvious to me that "Jose Escamilla" benefits from these "Rod" shows financially. Because of this, he has a strong interest in making people REALLY believe these things exist. The thing that bothers me about this, is he keeps producing more and more video of "Rods". To me, as a scientific person, this leads me to believe that he must know the truth in order to produce more/new video. He knows they are bugs with certain conditions, so he recreates these situation to produce more video.
This is a bald face scam. Period. It REALLY irritates me, because it makes ANYONE who believes in some sort of paranormal activity look foolish.
On top of the fact that anonymous edits to the main article on "Rods" here at Wikipedia originating from the SAME AREA that Jose Escamilla LIVES, continue to remove any comment that proves "Rods" are bugs, or talk negatively about "Rods". This shows that Wikipedia is being used as a propaganda machine to scam people and make money on this horrible activity. The Cyndicate ( talk) 05:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia should not have instructive sections (see Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information). This section needs to be reworded to explain that this is how some existing person has created this effect. Twelvethirteen 21:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I have no doubt that Jose's rods are fake. They still look damn cool, it should be noted. However, this doesn't change that the fact that certain calculations were used to directly debunk those rods. Those calculations, when used with other rods, calculated the length of some "Rods" to be several feet long! Also, how do you explain the "Devil's Trident"?
There are a lot of things I'd agree with skeptics on, but the idea that because most of them are debunked we should consider the abnormalities debunked too is ludicrous. Yes, it does seem strange that the original "rods" were fake and. But then again, Jose's weren't even the original rods, just the first popular ones. The "Giant Rods" could quite possibly be some species of enormous insect that will never be discovered thanks to Jose's escapades.
~ Kittie Rose
This really annoys me. It's good to be skeptical but if you insist something is "debunked" when there are instances of it that haven't been - you're not doing anyone a service. The problem with rods is that the most famous case is obvious horse shit, so the other ones get ignored.
The Devil's Trident, along with other rods, have yet to be debunked. It makes absolutely no sense to completely disregard this footage just because most of it worthy of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.239.1.153 ( talk) 20:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
There is NO clear debunk gone on here, I propose the entire 'debunked' section be rewritten as 'Proposed Explanations'. This section most definitely violates NPOV. There are rods on some commerical 16mm film shot years ago. Not all rods are video artifacts, not by a long chalk
82.21.206.85 (
talk) 20:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
To the "You haven't explained ALL video" crowd. Scientist and other fact believing person is not REQUIRED to sit down, and watch every single video made in order to help YOU understand that it is NOT an "Alien", it is a BUG or a BIRD. Just as an example, people could say that "Toilets are really butt sucking aliens from taco bell." Now I can prove that is not true, but I am not going to sit down, and watch every single TOILET video in order to explain to people it is just a TOILET! This is an INSANE EXCUSE for not excepting Scientific FACT!
Just to give the believers a chance at this, I will make this clear. I have NOT seen a SINGLE video on this subject that I cannot explain. Period. See, and this is where it will bite you in the butt. I would LIKE for this to be true. You see, I am not here to be AGAINST believers. I really do hope there are things out there we don't know about. I really would like some "Paranormal" things to be proven true. However, I am EXTREMELY Against Scam Artists. I think calling them "Artists" should be a crime. These are foul people that prey on innocent people and believers. They have no self worth and no value to society. The only thing they are good at, is LYING to get YOUR money.
Show me ANY video and I will gladly tell you what it is. The Cyndicate ( talk) 05:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I recently saw a documentary on these things, and I decided to read up on them on Wikipedia. Now, I really don't have an opinion about whether or not they are real, but the debunked section seems kind of silly to me. I mean, if I thought a raccoon was in my backyard and set up a trap, and instead of catching a Raccoon I caught at cat, that doesn't mean there isn't a raccoon that comes to my backyard and digs around in my trash or whatever. If Rods are really just the result of bad cameras, it doesn't seem to make much sense to use the same bad cameras to "prove" that they are moths. Also, it says in the response that security cameras use a slower recording speed, so doesn't that mean it isn't debunked? I mean "slower" is in comparison to other video cameras, and these guys are taking videos of Rods with different kinds of cameras.
I think a lot of the response on this page has been equally silly. Science is about exploring what is possible, not what makes sense to us at the time. Just because Rods would challenge our current view of the world, that doesn't really make it okay to just plug our ears and say "lalalala we know it all". Sure, it isn't the job of scientists to sit down and explain every little thing....but when you have big things like calculations and variables that pokes holes in your debunking, you do need to sit down and do some explaining. No one can argue against gravity or the existence of DNA because the science and explanations behind that are air tight. Then all this stuff about Nessie and Esp and the Ghost and the Machine sounds a lot like "slippery slope" argumentation. A lot of this sounds like phony baloney argumentation. I discover this and you believe that. Oh well. I really don't care enough beyond this.....
Adrian Anansi ( talk) 03:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Adrian
After viewing the history channel special Monster Quest it seems there are a lot of diffrent ideas as to what rods can be and where they are from, obviously outside the debunkery. Transdimensional beings was an intresting thought, some have thought them to be experimental aircraft, others UFOs. Should we add a section for theories? -- 161.28.166.12 ( talk) 18:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't end a debate or make anyone a moron. It proves that one example was a moth. The evidence is undoubtedly in favour of the theory that your example supports, but those of us who seek wider knowledge than that which has already been proven cannot afford to go through life with such closed minds. 194.168.3.18 ( talk) 16:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC) The above comment can be credited to myself. DanTheShrew ( talk) 16:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I am really sad, people believe in this "rod"-crap, they are so clearly artifacts! To all the believers: Show me only ONE dead rod. Please. If they live, they have to die sometimes. Now, be so good to go out and look for it until you can come back to this discussion with real, hard evidence. Thanks. -- 77.179.237.21 ( talk) 21:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This text section appears to be OR, and if so, is in violation of policy:
Without a citation, this cannot be included in the article. Dyanega ( talk) 00:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
From all the photos i've seen of flying rods they seem to be in groups (Most of the time anyway) does this mean they are social animals? Also i thnik the reason that rods are in so many pictures is because they are attracted to the flash of a camera or something shiny. Many birds insects and sometimes flying mammals are attracted to a glitery object. One more thing i saw a video on youtube of an air show.In it there were to flying rods that looked like they were fighting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.195.62 ( talk) 23:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually recent interviews with bioligests from "monster quest" say that bugs can not have 4 pairs wings and Cannot move that fast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.11.57 ( talk) 19:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I have some cool photos of rods and i think I know what they eat! me and my brother were outside playing games and my mom took pictures. after they were shown to me i saw a rod do two cirlcles around the yard dive bomb a moth and then catch the moth when it was confused in flight. they must like to eat bugs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.195.62 ( talk) 01:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Enough of this rubbish, I have observed these a number of time, and they all disappear when I break the spiders web strand that is reflecting the light that causes this effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.185.145 ( talk) 21:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
In 1997 Alex Collier stated that the noticeable change between moving from 3rd density to 5th density will be that people will start video taping things called Rods. He said these were infact space craft in 4th and 5th densities, these E.Ts have no idea they're flying through us cos we're on 3rd density. I suggest people research more about Alex Collier and his encounters. Thanks.-- 90.209.199.81 ( talk) 21:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, like I said in the UFO page: The absense of proof does not prove the negative. There is proof that "Rods" are real, known objects. And if you've ever had a three pound piece of shrapnel whiz by your head, you'd think it was a rod too. With or without a camera. So therefor, if it is so far proven wrong, then it is wrong. Until someone captured one of these "Extradimensional Flying Fish Bugs", then they don't exist and are just attempts to bring short lived fame on their "discoverers". Mathimaticly, objects cannot exist outside the 3rd and 4th dimension (the only 3rd dimension object in the known universe is the Mobius Strip. Wikipedia has a good article on it).
Scientifically, we cannot prove extra-universal travel (By extra-universal I refer to the Sci-Fi Extra-Dimentional). The Dimentional Paradox Theory states that once you leave one reality and enter another, the one you left no longer exists for you (as you are in your new reality).
Its kind of a twist on the time paradox theory (You can't travel to the past beause by traveling to the past you change the past, thus regating the reason you went to the past). Therefor, like the Theory of Reletivity, it will stay a theory, because we cannot prove nor disprove it. 83.87.238.229 ( talk) 15:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Now granted, I saw the monster quest episode, and the Monster Quest hunters fought hard to prove the existance of "Rods". But they only succeded in proving that Rods are bugs (Thanks to their High-Speed Camera). If everyone had a Highspeed Camera, I'm sure there would be no more rod sightings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin.blodgett ( talk • contribs) 05:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Man, I remember the 1st time rods were mentioned back in the 90s, when they were showing the footage at Angel falls. I was flabbergasted at Human stupidity. The "rods", excuse me, "RODS!" clearly followed the same path as the bugs flyin around the camera. I'm glad this ridiculous charade has been put to a rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.184.136 ( talk) 23:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The majority of the intro was not referenced and strongly appeared to be original research. It also violated NPOV for pseudoscience and fringe theories by presenting a fringe view as if it were the majority view. I have removed this material. Locke9k ( talk) 19:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Same thing with the entire 'lightning rod' section. Locke9k ( talk) 19:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I was drinking a big bottle of lucozade around a lake. I closed the lid without thinking and something serpent like was inside it. i freaked out and threw the bottle in the lake and spat out in reaction to it. It looked a bit like an eel but more "fragile". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.186.116 ( talk) 17:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I added source tags to this article because as of september 2009 there are NO reliable sources for this article. None, not one, many of the in-line citations link to wikipedia articles, and one external link is to a page that is not in english, I realize there is a photo or video on there, but you cannot link to non-english pages. Voiceofreason01 ( talk) 18:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I marked the statement about the BBC event being a discredited rod because the given citation does not make that claim. Also it seems too big and fast to be a moth (which is what the rest of the article seems to be talking about). At best this seems to be OR, or it might be a hoax edit. 206.188.60.75 ( talk) 00:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NjzUHHKIEY RODS filmed in IR...
I find the "shutter speed" explanation as an inadequate and irrational explanation to what was captured within this amazing clip. Jose has been very specific in his wording and demonstration of the RODS phenomenon since UFO:The Greatest Story Ever Denied in 2006; that these anomalies exist in the Infrared Spectrum, (2 years prior to the Monster's Quest debunking episode which didn't even touch the IR aspect of his argument), and so I ask why isn't academia not addressing the key scientific points here such as the fact that RODS give off a very low, but distinguishable heat signature which can be captured on any IR apparatus?
JOSE deserves a major retraction and apology! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.127.9.2 ( talk) 21:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
---
Can the editor who added the map explain the 'location' of the flying rods as depicted.OK, I get Roswell, China and Indonesia, as they are all mentioned in the article, but is there some specific reason to only include these? Paul B ( talk) 11:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I feel I must add something to this discussion. While I am a Skeptic, I must offer this one piece of advice to those "debating" the existance of rods: The absence of proof is not proof itself. When science explains that Rods are in fact distortions caused by low speed video, then that is proof they don't exist in reality. From what little I understand, Rods only appear in low speed video clips. Unless someone can produce a real life rod, or one that cannot be explained by science (Such as a rod on a high speed camera), then the argument can continue.
That should end the debate there. While a scientific analysis cannot be done on every rod video, since not everyone filming has access to a high speed camera, it does not mean that rods must exist. Science proves what causes rods to appear, so why is the "debate still ongoing? SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army Infantryman ( talk) 16:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Please view this Painting; https://app.box.com/shared/s93990xm00 With a little study, this painting will be found with enough content to reveal a proper name for the rod phenomenon. For a little more context regarding the painting, it appears in the wordpress blog. https://gevluef.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/46605-docent/ The bottom line is that the painting 46605 causes the rod phenomenon. 76.79.113.210 ( talk) 18:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Gevluef
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Rod (optical phenomenon)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
RE: Flying rods I just wanted to edit the page to fix the punctuation. Quotation marks should go outside of all punctuation except semicolons... |
Last edited at 01:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 04:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Rod (ufology), redirecting this namespace to Rod cells. Thanks, and happy editing! ( non-admin closure) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 08:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Rod (optics) →
Rod (ufology) – Although they are an optical effect, "rods" aren't a topic of interest in the field of optics. The article is mainly about the folklore around them and the debunking/skepticism in response to that. I think changing the word in parentheses to "ufology" makes it more clear what the article is actually about. Another possibility would be to use an alternative name such as "Skyfish" or "Air rod" that doesn't require disambiguation.
143.244.37.89 (
talk) 23:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Awaiting administrative action Just waiting for Rod (ufology) to be deleted to make way for the move. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 12:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
(optical effect)to be a bit shorter, but there's WP:NORUSH. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rod (optical phenomenon) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 27 March 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UFO and Ghost documentaries can be hilarious, but "Flying Rods" what can top that as a hilarious "mystery" to examine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.29.190 ( talk) 15:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
"Alien of the gaps". It's a take on the "god of the gaps" argument. That if science can't explain it (yet) then a god did it. Now its "if scientists can't explain it, aliens did it".
-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.169.59 ( talk) 05:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
This article has some strange POV problems. Several times it unreservedly claims that Rods are only insects, which is rather POV. Not only that, but it then confusingly goes on to contradict this view by giving descriptions of Rods according to the "skyfish" theory (also POV). It's not really presenting both theories as opinions on the matter; instead it seems to be presenting *both* of these mutually exclusive theories as fact. 128.227.188.147 00:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I have three screen captures from August 15, 2003 showing the rod effect on birds in a Weatherbug photo, and how resizing the image changes the number of bird images, indicating the effect is a function of digital video scan rates. Anyone know if rods have been imaged before digital video? I can upload the pictures for the article, but I don't know if the Weatherbug and Ulead PhotoImpact windows shown would be fair use of copyright. Gentaur 06:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes. In short. The majority of the video is from NTSC Analog Video Cameras that film @ 29.95 frames per second. The majority of people seem to focus on exposure time and ignore the simple math facts. 30 frames per second with a bug that flaps its wings @ 120 times per second and each frame will have a total of FOUR complete flaps for every single frame in a linear manner. This creates a rod shape in the center where the body is and a sine wave type shape for the wing pattern.
I would suspect that digital video has even more artifacts, depending on the camera used. This would make ever changing effects with sometimes strange result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Cyndicate ( talk • contribs) 05:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The Sci-Fi Channel has aired a show concerning these things on 3-22-06, at 15:00(3pm) EST/EDT. Website is www.scifi.com. Martial Law 20:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC) :)
Hey, just browsing around when i saw this, I think a book for "D20 Modern" has something like this, 66.214.82.168 I've always called bugs "Air Plankton", these rods behave very much like squids, they to can maneuver at high speeds, change direction instantly, zoom up and down and all with total control. These seems to be "air squids" and there are several ocean species which have many of the same physical characteristics, the transparency, etc. I have once witnessed a small group of rod like critters travelling through the treetops of a forest, at first I thought I was looking at very fast moving smoke, but then realized it was seperate transparent rod shaped creatures movingin a small group. Looks likely that we have a species of critter that has escaped us because they move fast enough that our unaided eyes rarely catch them. Perfect! I hope they can keep as elusive as they are now.
Many of the so-called 'Rods' filmed at slow shutter speeds and close to the camera are almost certainly common insects. However, the somewhat larger 'specimens' that have been filmed approaching from a great distance, height or even in the upper atmosphere (filmed from the 'Space Shuttle' and the 'International Space Station') are, in my opinion, something else entirely.
Like the UFO phenomenon in general, 'Rods' will never be taken seriously or viewed as a genuine phenomenon until one lands in the U.S. President's lap while he takes tea on the White House lawn. Such is life.
---
I've noticed this article is listed under 'debunked cryptids'. Considering that, unlike creatures such as the jackalope that are OBVIOUSLY not real, Rods are still under at least some debate, I'm not sure they should be listed as 'debunked' just yet. Any thoughts? - Indy Gold 20:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Andy, I agree with you to some extent. Your beliefs and passion with the truth are admirable. However I think you are a little too innocent of a person to see the big picture on this subject.
It is pretty obvious to me that "Jose Escamilla" benefits from these "Rod" shows financially. Because of this, he has a strong interest in making people REALLY believe these things exist. The thing that bothers me about this, is he keeps producing more and more video of "Rods". To me, as a scientific person, this leads me to believe that he must know the truth in order to produce more/new video. He knows they are bugs with certain conditions, so he recreates these situation to produce more video.
This is a bald face scam. Period. It REALLY irritates me, because it makes ANYONE who believes in some sort of paranormal activity look foolish.
On top of the fact that anonymous edits to the main article on "Rods" here at Wikipedia originating from the SAME AREA that Jose Escamilla LIVES, continue to remove any comment that proves "Rods" are bugs, or talk negatively about "Rods". This shows that Wikipedia is being used as a propaganda machine to scam people and make money on this horrible activity. The Cyndicate ( talk) 05:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia should not have instructive sections (see Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information). This section needs to be reworded to explain that this is how some existing person has created this effect. Twelvethirteen 21:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I have no doubt that Jose's rods are fake. They still look damn cool, it should be noted. However, this doesn't change that the fact that certain calculations were used to directly debunk those rods. Those calculations, when used with other rods, calculated the length of some "Rods" to be several feet long! Also, how do you explain the "Devil's Trident"?
There are a lot of things I'd agree with skeptics on, but the idea that because most of them are debunked we should consider the abnormalities debunked too is ludicrous. Yes, it does seem strange that the original "rods" were fake and. But then again, Jose's weren't even the original rods, just the first popular ones. The "Giant Rods" could quite possibly be some species of enormous insect that will never be discovered thanks to Jose's escapades.
~ Kittie Rose
This really annoys me. It's good to be skeptical but if you insist something is "debunked" when there are instances of it that haven't been - you're not doing anyone a service. The problem with rods is that the most famous case is obvious horse shit, so the other ones get ignored.
The Devil's Trident, along with other rods, have yet to be debunked. It makes absolutely no sense to completely disregard this footage just because most of it worthy of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.239.1.153 ( talk) 20:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
There is NO clear debunk gone on here, I propose the entire 'debunked' section be rewritten as 'Proposed Explanations'. This section most definitely violates NPOV. There are rods on some commerical 16mm film shot years ago. Not all rods are video artifacts, not by a long chalk
82.21.206.85 (
talk) 20:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
To the "You haven't explained ALL video" crowd. Scientist and other fact believing person is not REQUIRED to sit down, and watch every single video made in order to help YOU understand that it is NOT an "Alien", it is a BUG or a BIRD. Just as an example, people could say that "Toilets are really butt sucking aliens from taco bell." Now I can prove that is not true, but I am not going to sit down, and watch every single TOILET video in order to explain to people it is just a TOILET! This is an INSANE EXCUSE for not excepting Scientific FACT!
Just to give the believers a chance at this, I will make this clear. I have NOT seen a SINGLE video on this subject that I cannot explain. Period. See, and this is where it will bite you in the butt. I would LIKE for this to be true. You see, I am not here to be AGAINST believers. I really do hope there are things out there we don't know about. I really would like some "Paranormal" things to be proven true. However, I am EXTREMELY Against Scam Artists. I think calling them "Artists" should be a crime. These are foul people that prey on innocent people and believers. They have no self worth and no value to society. The only thing they are good at, is LYING to get YOUR money.
Show me ANY video and I will gladly tell you what it is. The Cyndicate ( talk) 05:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I recently saw a documentary on these things, and I decided to read up on them on Wikipedia. Now, I really don't have an opinion about whether or not they are real, but the debunked section seems kind of silly to me. I mean, if I thought a raccoon was in my backyard and set up a trap, and instead of catching a Raccoon I caught at cat, that doesn't mean there isn't a raccoon that comes to my backyard and digs around in my trash or whatever. If Rods are really just the result of bad cameras, it doesn't seem to make much sense to use the same bad cameras to "prove" that they are moths. Also, it says in the response that security cameras use a slower recording speed, so doesn't that mean it isn't debunked? I mean "slower" is in comparison to other video cameras, and these guys are taking videos of Rods with different kinds of cameras.
I think a lot of the response on this page has been equally silly. Science is about exploring what is possible, not what makes sense to us at the time. Just because Rods would challenge our current view of the world, that doesn't really make it okay to just plug our ears and say "lalalala we know it all". Sure, it isn't the job of scientists to sit down and explain every little thing....but when you have big things like calculations and variables that pokes holes in your debunking, you do need to sit down and do some explaining. No one can argue against gravity or the existence of DNA because the science and explanations behind that are air tight. Then all this stuff about Nessie and Esp and the Ghost and the Machine sounds a lot like "slippery slope" argumentation. A lot of this sounds like phony baloney argumentation. I discover this and you believe that. Oh well. I really don't care enough beyond this.....
Adrian Anansi ( talk) 03:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Adrian
After viewing the history channel special Monster Quest it seems there are a lot of diffrent ideas as to what rods can be and where they are from, obviously outside the debunkery. Transdimensional beings was an intresting thought, some have thought them to be experimental aircraft, others UFOs. Should we add a section for theories? -- 161.28.166.12 ( talk) 18:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't end a debate or make anyone a moron. It proves that one example was a moth. The evidence is undoubtedly in favour of the theory that your example supports, but those of us who seek wider knowledge than that which has already been proven cannot afford to go through life with such closed minds. 194.168.3.18 ( talk) 16:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC) The above comment can be credited to myself. DanTheShrew ( talk) 16:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I am really sad, people believe in this "rod"-crap, they are so clearly artifacts! To all the believers: Show me only ONE dead rod. Please. If they live, they have to die sometimes. Now, be so good to go out and look for it until you can come back to this discussion with real, hard evidence. Thanks. -- 77.179.237.21 ( talk) 21:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This text section appears to be OR, and if so, is in violation of policy:
Without a citation, this cannot be included in the article. Dyanega ( talk) 00:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
From all the photos i've seen of flying rods they seem to be in groups (Most of the time anyway) does this mean they are social animals? Also i thnik the reason that rods are in so many pictures is because they are attracted to the flash of a camera or something shiny. Many birds insects and sometimes flying mammals are attracted to a glitery object. One more thing i saw a video on youtube of an air show.In it there were to flying rods that looked like they were fighting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.195.62 ( talk) 23:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually recent interviews with bioligests from "monster quest" say that bugs can not have 4 pairs wings and Cannot move that fast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.11.57 ( talk) 19:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I have some cool photos of rods and i think I know what they eat! me and my brother were outside playing games and my mom took pictures. after they were shown to me i saw a rod do two cirlcles around the yard dive bomb a moth and then catch the moth when it was confused in flight. they must like to eat bugs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.195.62 ( talk) 01:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Enough of this rubbish, I have observed these a number of time, and they all disappear when I break the spiders web strand that is reflecting the light that causes this effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.185.145 ( talk) 21:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
In 1997 Alex Collier stated that the noticeable change between moving from 3rd density to 5th density will be that people will start video taping things called Rods. He said these were infact space craft in 4th and 5th densities, these E.Ts have no idea they're flying through us cos we're on 3rd density. I suggest people research more about Alex Collier and his encounters. Thanks.-- 90.209.199.81 ( talk) 21:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, like I said in the UFO page: The absense of proof does not prove the negative. There is proof that "Rods" are real, known objects. And if you've ever had a three pound piece of shrapnel whiz by your head, you'd think it was a rod too. With or without a camera. So therefor, if it is so far proven wrong, then it is wrong. Until someone captured one of these "Extradimensional Flying Fish Bugs", then they don't exist and are just attempts to bring short lived fame on their "discoverers". Mathimaticly, objects cannot exist outside the 3rd and 4th dimension (the only 3rd dimension object in the known universe is the Mobius Strip. Wikipedia has a good article on it).
Scientifically, we cannot prove extra-universal travel (By extra-universal I refer to the Sci-Fi Extra-Dimentional). The Dimentional Paradox Theory states that once you leave one reality and enter another, the one you left no longer exists for you (as you are in your new reality).
Its kind of a twist on the time paradox theory (You can't travel to the past beause by traveling to the past you change the past, thus regating the reason you went to the past). Therefor, like the Theory of Reletivity, it will stay a theory, because we cannot prove nor disprove it. 83.87.238.229 ( talk) 15:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Now granted, I saw the monster quest episode, and the Monster Quest hunters fought hard to prove the existance of "Rods". But they only succeded in proving that Rods are bugs (Thanks to their High-Speed Camera). If everyone had a Highspeed Camera, I'm sure there would be no more rod sightings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin.blodgett ( talk • contribs) 05:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Man, I remember the 1st time rods were mentioned back in the 90s, when they were showing the footage at Angel falls. I was flabbergasted at Human stupidity. The "rods", excuse me, "RODS!" clearly followed the same path as the bugs flyin around the camera. I'm glad this ridiculous charade has been put to a rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.184.136 ( talk) 23:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The majority of the intro was not referenced and strongly appeared to be original research. It also violated NPOV for pseudoscience and fringe theories by presenting a fringe view as if it were the majority view. I have removed this material. Locke9k ( talk) 19:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Same thing with the entire 'lightning rod' section. Locke9k ( talk) 19:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I was drinking a big bottle of lucozade around a lake. I closed the lid without thinking and something serpent like was inside it. i freaked out and threw the bottle in the lake and spat out in reaction to it. It looked a bit like an eel but more "fragile". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.186.116 ( talk) 17:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I added source tags to this article because as of september 2009 there are NO reliable sources for this article. None, not one, many of the in-line citations link to wikipedia articles, and one external link is to a page that is not in english, I realize there is a photo or video on there, but you cannot link to non-english pages. Voiceofreason01 ( talk) 18:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I marked the statement about the BBC event being a discredited rod because the given citation does not make that claim. Also it seems too big and fast to be a moth (which is what the rest of the article seems to be talking about). At best this seems to be OR, or it might be a hoax edit. 206.188.60.75 ( talk) 00:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NjzUHHKIEY RODS filmed in IR...
I find the "shutter speed" explanation as an inadequate and irrational explanation to what was captured within this amazing clip. Jose has been very specific in his wording and demonstration of the RODS phenomenon since UFO:The Greatest Story Ever Denied in 2006; that these anomalies exist in the Infrared Spectrum, (2 years prior to the Monster's Quest debunking episode which didn't even touch the IR aspect of his argument), and so I ask why isn't academia not addressing the key scientific points here such as the fact that RODS give off a very low, but distinguishable heat signature which can be captured on any IR apparatus?
JOSE deserves a major retraction and apology! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.127.9.2 ( talk) 21:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
---
Can the editor who added the map explain the 'location' of the flying rods as depicted.OK, I get Roswell, China and Indonesia, as they are all mentioned in the article, but is there some specific reason to only include these? Paul B ( talk) 11:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I feel I must add something to this discussion. While I am a Skeptic, I must offer this one piece of advice to those "debating" the existance of rods: The absence of proof is not proof itself. When science explains that Rods are in fact distortions caused by low speed video, then that is proof they don't exist in reality. From what little I understand, Rods only appear in low speed video clips. Unless someone can produce a real life rod, or one that cannot be explained by science (Such as a rod on a high speed camera), then the argument can continue.
That should end the debate there. While a scientific analysis cannot be done on every rod video, since not everyone filming has access to a high speed camera, it does not mean that rods must exist. Science proves what causes rods to appear, so why is the "debate still ongoing? SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army Infantryman ( talk) 16:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Please view this Painting; https://app.box.com/shared/s93990xm00 With a little study, this painting will be found with enough content to reveal a proper name for the rod phenomenon. For a little more context regarding the painting, it appears in the wordpress blog. https://gevluef.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/46605-docent/ The bottom line is that the painting 46605 causes the rod phenomenon. 76.79.113.210 ( talk) 18:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Gevluef
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Rod (optical phenomenon)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
RE: Flying rods I just wanted to edit the page to fix the punctuation. Quotation marks should go outside of all punctuation except semicolons... |
Last edited at 01:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 04:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Rod (ufology), redirecting this namespace to Rod cells. Thanks, and happy editing! ( non-admin closure) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 08:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Rod (optics) →
Rod (ufology) – Although they are an optical effect, "rods" aren't a topic of interest in the field of optics. The article is mainly about the folklore around them and the debunking/skepticism in response to that. I think changing the word in parentheses to "ufology" makes it more clear what the article is actually about. Another possibility would be to use an alternative name such as "Skyfish" or "Air rod" that doesn't require disambiguation.
143.244.37.89 (
talk) 23:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Awaiting administrative action Just waiting for Rod (ufology) to be deleted to make way for the move. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 12:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
(optical effect)to be a bit shorter, but there's WP:NORUSH. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)