Talk:Rod (optical phenomenon)

Nothing tops Flying Rods

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)

POV Problems =

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 agree, this article has some serious problems. Wikipedia doesn't have to pander to hoaxes, or even well-meaning errors, by presenting all sides as though they were equal. It's okay if the article is on the side of the insect hypothesis because there is evidence that rods are insects and not some new type of flying animal. Maybe it would be best to explain how rods were first presented to the public, in documentaries and on websites like RoswellRods.com, and then go on to say that similar effects were reproduced using insects. People who believe that rods are something other than insects are welcome to come in and present evidence supporting their views. Gary 20:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Screen Captures

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)

Sci-Fi Channel Show

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) :)

D20 Modern Menace Manual

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.

'RODS ARE INSECTS? MAYBE, BUT...'

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'll be ecstatic if you catch one in a net for me. All I want is evidence that they aren't insects filmed at a low shutter speed. I found the pictures of the thing viewed from the space shuttle, I don't know what it was for certain but I see no reason to think that it was alive. It just looks like a blurry piece of debris. Gary 04:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find rods would only be taken seriously if they were proven to be a new species or family. It's that simple. You can't expect anyone to take one guy's ideas seriously, solely because no-one else can prove they're bunk. Science requires more than a hypothesis to determine the truth. That's one of the reasons cryptozoology (like ufology, demonology and other paranormal pursuits) suffers so much ridicule - the very vocal few who insist on being right without even the slightest morsel of evidence. Dave420 17:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Space around the earth is filled with all kinds of junk. In space there is no atmosphere and ground that can light an object from all sides. So all you see in space is the bright direct light of the sun and pitch black shadow side. Like a half-full moon.

Now all this junk in orbit is rotating at constant speeds. Because of this rotation the sunlight is sometimes reflected back to you and sometimes not (or less so). So you get a similar light pattern to a flapping moth. And thus rotating junk in space should produce similar 'rods'.

Then there is the 'tether' space shuttle video. That one is a nice optical illusion.

On first sight it appears that there are many small objects (that kindof look like spheres due to lens flare) rotating around the tether. But if you look closely and enhance the brightness you will see that all objects fly straight. There is a powerfull spot light projected from the shuttle on the tether and bits of junk fly into and out of the spot light. When one piece of junk leaves the beam and another enters in approximately the same place your brain connects the dots and thinks that the first one made a turn. If you analyze the video you can see that the first one continues a straight line out of the light beam and another happens to enter the light beam nearby. Took me some time to get this one because on the surface it looks amazingly good. But completely falls apart after thorough investigation.83.87.238.229 (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Debunked?

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)

Yes, thoroughly debunked. There is actually no "debate" except among people who can't or won't understand how video cameras work. Those of us who routinely shoot videos of insects have plenty of footage as good as or better than Jose Escamilla's - but I think you'll find most entomologists are more concerned with their research than with getting into "debates" with people like Escamilla, or the people who fall for this and similar hoaxes. Don't mistake the point that most credible scientists don't like to waste their time debunking pseudoscience as evidence that scientists don't have the capacity to do so. Simply put, there's little satisfaction in beating one's head against a brick wall, and - as the Straight Dope link pointed out (incorrectly attributing it to P.T. Barnum) - there are still plenty of suckers born every minute. It stretches the entire concept of NPOV to give any credibility to the existence of "rods" since there is no actual evidence for that side of the "debate". NPOV is to allow for unbiased presentation when there are two sides offering different explanations, but there is nothing on the "pro-rod" side here that is not adequately explained by tangible evidence. It is disingenuous to cry that a WP article is failing to adhere to NPOV standards simply because it states that all available evidence indicates that something is a hoax (e.g., see Talk:Crop_circle). By that logic, it would be impossible to inform any WP readers that anything is a hoax, because there must surely be at least one person, somewhere, who truly does believe in every hoax in history (and would therefore claim that they find all of the articles on WP listed in Category:Hoaxes to be offensively biased). Hoaxes do exist, and there is no good reason that WP should be edited as if they do not as long as someone believes them. It should not require that the person perpetrating the hoax come forward and declare it, and as Talk:Crop_circle and Talk:Loch_Ness_Monster demonstrate, some people still won't even accept such confessions! That is no longer a matter of NPOV. Dyanega 23:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

When dealing with any fringe science subject such as Cryptozoology, there is generally a concensus among mainstream scientists that the whole thing is debunked. So, you could easily say that all fringe science topics deserve the "debunked" label if any of them do. However, if you aren't going to label them all as debunked, then the only other measurement by which the "debunked" label could be determined is whether there is a concensus among experts in the particular fringe science field (in this case, a concensus among cryptozoologists) that the creature or phenomenon in question has been debunked. In the case of rods, I do not see citations that prove that rods have been more thoroughly debunked, or are more strongly regarded as a hoax, than Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster. Therefore, speaking of the hoax aspects like a proven fact does violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, unless someone can introduce citations that prove there is considerably more doubt about rods than about most cryptids (don't just introduce citations that say that mainstream scientists have regarded it as a hoax), or unless the debunked label is applied across the board to all unproven cryptids. Simply saying that something is a cryptid generally means that mainstream scientists think of it as debunked, so that giving something a label of both "cryptid" and "debunked" is kind of redundant. We could go in and put the "debunked" label on all mythical creatures too, but it would probably be contested for the same reasons: "debunked" by a concensus of mainstream scientists is implied by the label "mythical." The discussion of the hoax accusations could be left in almost as-is, if the tone was changed from the present highly loaded language to something that sounds like "source #1, #2 and #3 have described rods as a hoax, with the explanations and evidence used being such-and-such". When dealing with controversial subjects, inflammatory words can easily violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. From reading the article, I believe the language is not neutral enough for a Wikipedia article.Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The idea that in order to be considered a hoax, cryptozoologists have to agree with the "mainstream scientists" (which is itself an absurdly POV title - you are either a scientist - meaning you do science - or you do NOT do science, and are therefore not a scientist), is not a particularly useful criterion. I would maintain that if an encyclopedic reference like WP cannot refer to hoaxes AS hoaxes, then the whole NPOV policy is hypocrisy. Evidently, the idea that "neutral" = "objective" is where you and I differ. Objectively, all existing evidence is that rods are an imaging artifact. Accordingly, the NPOV is that "all existing evidence is that rods are an imaging artifact, but some people believe they are not". That is what the article says, and that's what it should say, to uphold NPOV. Further, my "inflammatory" remarks are here, in the discussion page, not in the main article. There is no policy requiring NPOV in the discussion. I'll also note that the phrase "Rods are not taken seriously even by most cryptozoologists" (which I did not write) does in fact imply that there is a consensus among "cryptozoologists." Or is your definition of "consensus" restricted to mean "if Jose Escamilla admits he's wrong"? I seriously doubt that will ever happen. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there is none. It's quite simple. Peace, Dyanega 01:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In referring to my disscussion, you said my idea was that "The idea that in order to be considered a hoax, cryptozoologists have to agree with the "mainstream scientists..." but that is not what I said. What I said was that there are degrees of plausibility amongst cryptids, and if you are going to come out and say that something IS a hoax instead of MIGHT BE a hoax, you'd better have some sources to show that it is regarded as a hoax MORE SO THAN CRYPTIDS IN GENERAL ARE. For example, the Cottingley_Fairies are considered quite heavily debunked, and the article has the sources to show that. Unless you are offering sources showing that Rods are more heavily debunked than other cryptids, then the article IS either violating Wikipedia:No original research (because someone independently offered their own conclusions as proof of the hoax) and/or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Arguing that it's a hoax because it sounds silly and is a cryptid just doesn't cut it according to Wikipedia rules. Nor does showing me a bunch of mainstream scientists who don't believe it, because that judgement colors ALL cryptids. Show me the sources. Show sources that paint Rods as more hoax-ridden than Bigfoot, and then you can use language in the article that discusses them as if they have been conclusively debunked. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Compliments on your debating skills, but this is not really a debate, as there is an inherent asymmetry. The burden of proof is entirely upon those who claim rods DO exist, not those who do not. If every one of the world's 50,000 entomologists knows that "rods" are insects captured on video, but none of them publish elaborate debunkings (because, say, it would be a waste of their time?) then are we to assume that this is tacit acceptance of the premise that rods are NOT insects? No. The evidence that "rods" are video artifacts IS cited in the article, and NO scientist needs to formally publish a debunking in order for it to be considered debunked GIVEN THE EXISTING EVIDENCE. It's not reasonable, nor logical, to claim that the evidence is meaningless unless it appears collated and expounded upon in a single published source. Has any herpetologist ever published a formal debunking of, say, the hoop snake? Probably not, yet people consider them mythical, even in the absence of debunking. Rods fall into the same category. Besides, what is there about, say, the "Straight Dope" link given that makes it NOT a source showing that debunking has occurred? Dyanega 18:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

One thing worth noting is that cryptozoology is not pseudoscience; it is simply that a large number of people who engage in what they claim to be cryptozoology are in fact cranks. Additionally, cryptids certainly do exist; a good recent example would be the grizzly bear-polar bear hybrid. Just because people believe in things like rods and Champ doesn't mean that the whole field is bunk, simply that a number of cranks and sketchy individuals with poor research habits, great naivite, insufficient skepticism, insufficient adherence to the scientific method, and/or people who simply don't understand what science is are associated with the field. I'd hardly call magnetism pseudoscience, but people regularly try and sell magnets which supposedly have all sorts of entiely unconfirmed and highly unlikely properties. I think its an issue of the field being somewhat hijacked by people who are cranks, rather than the field itself being pseudoscience. A similar thing happened with ESP/telepathic research, which is why most people won't touch it with a ten foot pole anymore (though that has been more throughly debunked, and probably doesn't exist, as opposed to cryptids, some of which probably exist, though don't hold your breath waiting for Nessie). Titanium Dragon 21:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with mermaid. The other point of view would make all cryptids debunked, just bacause biologists haven't got a body. Since one or two of the cryptids probably do exist, you end up putting Debunked on something that actually exists, and I don't know how the giant sloth would feel about that! Puddytang 08:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. There is a difference between a complete lack of evidence for something, and evidence that something isn't what it is claimed to be in the form of an explaination of how the equipment used and the conditions under which the images were captured would combine to produce the effect. That is enough for most reasonable observers. Hey, when Penn and Teller show you how a couple common magic tricks are done, does that still leave room for other magicians to really have POWERS? Metaphysically, maybe, but not in a courtroom. When you refuse to accept evidence that something is false and instead go hunting for other explainations, no matter how tenuous, no matter how unlikely, and no matter how unrelated, you are not being open-minded. You are rendering your belief unassailable. No one will ever prove it false, because whatever they disprove will be replaced with some other baseless explaination. This is magical thinking. No matter what someone does to try and prove or disprove your belief, if they fail to produce the result you want THEY MUST BE DOING IT WRONG. This is as closed-minded as you can possibly get. That's why the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. Andy Christ 21:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

To prove conclusively weather these exist or not you should have a normal camera and a high speed camera looking at the same point, then when the normal camera shows what appears to be a rod the high speed camera would either agree showing a long rod or disagree showing a small bug moving at high speed. It's an idea but I don't know if it's practical in any way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.87.193.40 (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

That wouldn't satisfy anyone who cares. They want too much to believe. Andy Christ 21:26, 29 June 2007 (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.

Believing in paranormal activity is normal for humans and it's due to a part of the brain that will try to find an explanation for sensory input no matter the quality of the input. The most common example is seing moving shadows in the dark. Our eyes start to fail and low level noise from the retina competes with the actual light input. That said to believe in paranormal is still pretty foolish because there is no scientific evidence whatsoever despite many attempts to prove it. Hundreds of years of observation cannot lead us to conclude that there is any form of paranormal activity. In fact, the more we understand about our universe the smaller the niches become where believers can hide their perception. Same goes for the concepts of the various gods people believe in around the world. If you believe in paranormal things it realy just means that you don't understand the universe very well. An educated person must nessesarily dismiss facts to be able to belief in the paranormal. Even better, it has been shown that our concious perception is a product of the brain. Humans are unable to perceive the raw data as it comes out of our senses. It is heavily processed and knit into what your brain at that time believes should be real. It's an internal stage that incorporates all the senses into one continuous experience. But that stage can be pretty far off from reality. You should therefore ALWAYS have some distrust in your senses. We are imperfect organic machines that have brains that make stuff up to fill in the perceptual holes. We will and do make stuff up to explain what we don't understand and even when we understand it it can be difficult to ignore this instinct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.238.229 (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

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)

Guys, has anyone bothered to run these "rod" photos through an image-processing algorithm to see if they've been Photoshopped? There's a really good one available on Wired.com. The source code is located here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hokie Tech (talk • contribs) 17:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

They don't need to be photoshopped - that's the main reason so many people are convinced they're "real". Anyone using a typical video camera can produce the same effects; no special tricks or software are required. When Joe Q. Citizen sits down with his newlywed bride, puts in their freshly-minted wedding video, and they see "rods" flying around the heads of the people at their backyard reception, and have no recollection of seeing any such "aerial rods" at the event, can you blame them for being puzzled? Dyanega (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Reproducing Rods

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)

• Then do it.

To the "Debunked" crowd

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

As someone who personally discovers an average of 50 new species of insect a year, I can assure you that it is NOT "quite possible" that these are videos of some enormous unknown organism (they would have to be a new Phylum, rather than a new species of insect) - for the basic fact that there is a human being taking a video, meaning that it is an area readily accessible to people. If it is an area readily accessible to people, then anything bigger than an inch or two (and that does not actively flee when humans are near - which "rods" demonstrably do not, given their proximity to humans in so many videos) has already been collected and is sitting in a museum somewhere. It is also true, even if you aren't aware of it, that all insects and other animals obey certain laws of physics and exhibit characteristic functional morphology - both of which would be violated if "rods" actually were organisms in the shape of long cylinders with rippling membranes along the sides. Anything shaped like that could not fly in air, for one thing (zero lift), and it would be completely incompatible with the anatomy of any known organisms, for another. Yes, there ARE still mysteries in the world, and organisms we haven't seen (I discover them myself all the time) - but there is no reason at all to think that "rods" are among them. Dyanega 18:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That still doesn't answer my question. There are several instances of Rods that HAVEN'T been explained - and by "enormous insect", I don't mean the rod itself, but a large creature with conventional morphology that moves at very fast speeds and produces the "Rod" effect. There are no insects that are large enough to provide some of the "rod" effects seen.

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 chalk82.21.206.85 (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)

I think it's safe to throw this into the box with crop circles for the many many reasons stated above. If you give way to rods as being paranormal, then why not include fringe theory into even stranger things like electromagnetic radiation, magnetism, and gravity?

If rods were real, they would violate everything known to modern physics. They would require their own phylum, they would require a body of extreme material to handle stress forces, they would need to create a gargantuan amount of ATP to flap their wings to fly a supposed "thousand miles per hour". Basically, they would go against everything that we take as reality.Sabar^Cont 10:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

But that's precisely why people believe they exist; there are people who WANT to believe that there are "Things That Science Cannot Explain", because if even ONE such thing exists, then all of their belief in other fantastic and impossible things is made much, much simpler. Of course, the simplest explanation of all that is consistent with belief in the paranormal is that we're all living inside a complex interactive computer program, experiencing a virtual reality fed to us by sophisticated software, so anything is literally possible as long as it can be inserted into the program. If the reality we perceive is artificial, then "paranormal" things and events can be as commonplace or as rare as the programmers desire. I doubt you'll find many paranormal believers who accept this explanation, though. Funny how that works. The bottom line is this: there will always be people who believe in any given "paranormal" thing or phenomenon, be it rods or Nessie or Xenu or ESP, now matter how much evidence there is against it, and the more unbelievable, the more likely it is that believers will be unwilling to abandon their belief. Dyanega (talk) 18:25, 11 February 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

Theories of what Rods may be and where they come from (out of Debunkery)

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)

If you can produce sourced statements from reliable sources, then including them here is fine - as long as everything is clear as to who is making the claim, and their exact words. But saying "Some guy on a TV show said something" does not qualify as a reliable attributed source. Does this show have transcripts online, for example? Dyanega (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Towards the end of the show, someone captures a 'rod' using a high-speed and normal camera at the same time. The normal camera shows a stupid 'rod' thingy and the high-speed camera shows a MOTH. Debate over. Go home. It's all over. Morons. MiracleMat (talk) 08:50, 20 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)

Hear hear! --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 16:31, 27 April 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 is a place for discussing the article, not the subject, so we don't need to discuss whether any such putative creature exists or not, only what secondary sources say about whether it exists or not. If any of the suggested explanations that User:161.28.166.12 mentions have any kind of suitable sources then we can include them for the interest of our readers. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 11:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

We may be able to include them, subject to the idea of undue weight. Its not appropriate to extensively include multiple fringe theories in a way that makes them, by the sheer amount of text, appear to be a majority view. The mainstream view which appears to be that they are optical artifacts, should be the primary one in the article. Just because there is an article somewhere on some other fringe view doesnt necessarily mean that it is notable enough for inclusion.Locke9k (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Uncited text: may be OR

This text section appears to be OR, and if so, is in violation of policy:

On April 25, 2008, photographer Bil Paul was using a 1.3 megapixel cameraphone to photograph a swarm of insects above a stream in San Mateo, California. In one of the first shots, several of the insects are clearly seen frozen in time, with a single pair of wings. In a later shot, with a slower shutter speed as indicated by a brighter background, the insects suddenly become "flying rods." The assumption is that with the slower shutter speed, the insects became blurred along their flight path, and exhibit multiple wing beats, making them look like flying centipedes.

Without a citation, this cannot be included in the article. Dyanega (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible Behavior??

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)

Ummm...maybe that's because they ARE insects. Dyanega (talk) 03:41, 20 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)

First of all, do not take your science fact from popular tv shows. They do not take themselfs seriously and they certainly do not take their science seriously.

4 pairs of wings is an optical illusion as 4 flaps of the insect are recorded onto one frame. Insects have either one or two pairs of wings. If shot on video this means that an insect with one pair would flap at about 100 (pal) to 120 (NTSC) times per second to make you see 4 on the footage. Which is pretty normal for insects. Insects have a flap range from a few times a second (butterfly) to hundreds times per second (mosquito). It's all pretty normal stuff. Just dont always believe what you see on tv. :) 83.87.238.229 (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2012 (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)

Propably just a bat. Bats fly quickly and flap quickly and best of all, they eat moths!83.87.238.229 (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2012 (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)

Rods

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)

DEBUNKING TIME!

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).

The mobius strip is a 3 dimensional object with a 2 dimensional surface, but it still firmly sits in our 4 dimensional spacetime. The only difference is that the surface has no separate front or back. If you move along the front surface you will eventually end up on what you otherwise would call the back.

In maths you can have any number of dimensions. Math is not limited by our spacetime, just by our imagination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.238.229 (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

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).

Scientifically, the universe is everything that exists. Therefore, by definition, you cannot step outside the universe because if you step outside what you think was the universe you would still be in the universe. If you can be there it is part of the universe. If there is more than one reality then that reality is part of the universe, that's how cool the idea of the universe is.

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)

Paradoxes are not theories! Paradoxes are seeming contradictions.

The emerging thought amongst physicists is that there is an innumerable ammount of realities each splitting off at every possible difference over time. It's called the multiverse. It would mean that if you managed to travel back in time you would be in a different reality and things can happen differently there. You could go there and kill your grandfather and (a copy of) you would not be born in that reality. You yourself were not born there either since you came from a different reality. Paradox solved.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)

Original Research

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)

Found one

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)

Could that have been a fish larva, like this[1]?Gary (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

sources

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've made some small changes to the references, including the addition of a Google translation of the Chinese article.

I think some "unreliable" webpages can be included in the article in the proper context, to show the extent of the belief in rods as something other than just insects and camera artifacts. We have to have something about Jose Escamilla, for example, though some secondary sources should probably be included. This is the only one I've found so far about him that looks reliable. This is such an obviously fake cryptid that any unskeptical articles would probably not be considered reliable. Without links to people who believe in rods, we can't establish the notability of rods as a topic worthy of Wikipedia. Can you suggest any reliable sources that might improve this article? Gary (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese source (2) doesn't seem to talk about the fact that interlaced video is 'especially' suited to capture rods. I find the piece of sentence that refers to it a bit misleading. The fact that the equipment uses interlacing does not have anything to do with this phenomenon. The effect should be perfectly reproducable with celluloid film or progressive video.83.87.238.229 (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Dubious

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)

RODS exist in the Infrared Spectrum!

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)

I exist in the IR spectrum, does than mean I am a rod?75.70.205.188 (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

"RODS give off a very low, but distinguishable heat signature" - except that this footage appears to be from a consumer grade security camera that is an ACTIVE Infra Red device. It's not thermal imaging. Most IR security cameras, normal night vision goggles, and the like, are near infrared, many of which include their own IR floods. In fact, if you have a "night vision" capable digital camera you can see the illumination from these things yourself. This poor quality video looks like pretty much every other video clip I've seen taken with a near IR webcam or surveylance camera. Only "appears," of course, since there's not enough information included with the "amazing clip" to know for sure what was used to capture the footage. That answer your question? Cheers, Bagheera (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

---

1) The video is removed by the user (i wonder why?).

2) IR is just normal light except it vibrates too slow for our eyes to pick up on. It is not magic. Anything that can be seen in infrared can also be seen in normal light. Heat signature works a bit different as it is heat radiation and the object actually acts as a light source.

3) Shutter speed is a perfectly good explanation of the phenomenon. It is easy to reproduce, for starters. But you do need to understand how cameras work. Maybe you can give some actual reasons why you think the shutter speed explanation is inadequate or, even better, irrational.

If anything, calling something irrational without explaining why is pretty irrational itself. There is no ratio given.

In contrast, there is lots of ratio going for the shutter speed.

In fact, you would have to cover your eyes and ears and sing NANANANA very loudly to NOT see it as the only explanation for this phenomenon. But i guess that is pretty common in people.

Mind you, insects do have a heat signature. And a heat signature cannot be captured with night vision near-IR equipment, only with thermal imaging. It would make sense that 'rods' give off an IR signature as rods are insects and thus give off heat, especially in flight. Thermal imaging of insects is very cool and interesting, btw.83.87.238.229 (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Map

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 get the data also from this article, like you mention above, there's Roswell, China and Indonesia Malaysia, the others countries I still didn't know if rods already been discovered. But, If you have some sources, I can update the map. :) — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 12:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Argument of Proof

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)

Work of Art may be the cause

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

Assessment comment

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)

Requested move 24 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

• Support some kind of move, especially per WP:ASTONISH — I immediately assumed (and I'm guessing many readers might also assume) that the page ("Rod (optics)") would be about Rod cells, in the optical systems of the eye. (Also, you could possibly go with "Rod (optical phenomenon)". I'm neutral on what it's changed to, but it should probably move.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  If the goal is to emphasize the non-paranormal nature of the phenomenon in the title, I think "visual artifact" might be a better descriptor than "optical phenomenon", since the motion blur effect is created by the act of photographic recording and is not purely optical in nature. However I'd argue that the title should emphasize the folkloric aspect of the topic since (in my opinion) this is what makes it notable. If not for the paranormal claims, nobody would be writing about blurry moth photographs, except maybe as a minor nuisance for nature photographers! 143.244.37.136 (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Move and point this one to the cells. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support move, and retargeting this page. I agree with Paintspot's suggestion of (optical phenomenon) or even (optical effect). kennethaw88 • talk 05:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

 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)

 Done Happy editing! ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 22:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: Hi, can you move the page to "Rod (ufology)" again? It seems some editor has tried to move it back to a similar title as before. 156.146.63.52 (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey! It looks like JzG moved this upon better inspection of the RM, so I think the current title will do for now. When closing the RM I didn't really see any specific consensus about exactly where the article should be moved, so I defaulted to the original destination suggested, as it also complies with WP:CONCISE. I think a case could be made for (optical effect) to be a bit shorter, but there's WP:NORUSH. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

ItsPugle, yes, no disrespect to anyone involved, but based on the discussion and knowledge of the history I thought Paintspot's suggested title was better supported and probably more NPOV. Everyone did what the saw as best, no animals were harmed, objects may be closer than they appear in the mirror etc. :-) Guy (help! - typo?) 10:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)