Rods: Flying Absurdities
Do these invisible flying creatures really exist?
Filed under Aliens & UFOs, Cryptozoology
| Skeptoid #03 October 19, 2006 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe Also available in Japanese |
|
By Brian Dunning, Skeptoid Podcast
Episode 03, October 19, 2006
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4004
From the cryptozoology files, we're going to look today at rods, those magical, mystical living UFO's that inhabit the invisible shadowlands of Earth.
Rods are said to be flying creatures, from a few inches to a few feet in length, that are invisible to humans, but visible to cameras, both film and digital, both still and video. Their bodies are shaped like long thin rods, and their only appendages are wavy wings, one on each side, stretching the full length of their bodies. They move through the air by undulating these wings, like eels swimming through water.
A gentleman named Jose Escamilla claims to be the discoverer of rods. On his web site, Roswellrods.com, he says that he first captured rods on video in 1994. He says he was taping UFO's when he accidentally filmed the rods as well. Since Mr. Escamilla did not recall seeing any such thing in person while he was taping, he decided the most likely explanation for his video is that he'd discovered a new species of flying creature that is invisible to humans, and only shows up on film or video.
Since then, innumerable photographs and videos have surfaced that purport to show rods. Search the Internet, and you'll find hundreds of them.
If rods are as ubiquitous as it would seem they are, why is their existence not generally accepted? Justification for the existence of rods requires that four basic claims be proven or at least shown to be reasonable:
1. There should be zoological precedents for the existence of undiscovered insects up to a meter in length. New species are being discovered all the time, so I think we should grant this one. It's certainly possible that there are undiscovered flying creatures a meter in length.
2. We must accept the existence of creatures that are invisible, although they're up to a meter in length and perhaps up to several inches wide. Discounting microscopic organisms, the natural world offers no better than transparency, such as that found in some species of jellyfish. Transparency is not invisibility. Supporters of rods have not proven that invisibility in the animal kingdom is possible, and they will need to do so by presenting an invisible animal.
3. Certain images must be visible only in the output of all types of visible wavelength cameras, but not visible to the naked eye. When cameras output their images to the final medium, be it film, paper, or a video screen, we see their output because our eyes see the same visible wavelengths that were recorded and output. We're not talking about thermographic or other non-visible-wavelength camera technologies here, so rod supporters will need to prove that all standard cameras can convert certain invisible wavelengths into visible ones, without affecting the visible wavelengths; which is something those cameras were not designed to do. Only with this proof can it be reasonably accepted that it's possible for a camera to see something that was invisible to the photographer.
4. Even if all of the above can be substantiated, there needs to be a lack of a more likely explanation. If a simple procedure can be shown to easily reproduce the appearance of rods on camera, then we haven't even established that there is a phenomenon to be investigated.
As you might expect, there is indeed an alternate explanation, and a simple procedure to take a picture showing rods. Picture yourself standing with the sun at your back, facing a large shaded area, such as the shaded entrance to a cave. Dragonflies (or other insects) are flying everywhere, darting back and forth at around 20mph, which is about 29 feet per second (dragonflies can hit 60mph). Take a photograph, with a common shutter speed of 1/30th of a second. In that time, the dragonfly will travel about 12 inches. Because your exposure is set for the dark background, the path traced by the dragonfly's transit will be overexposed and will appear solid white. The dragonfly will make one full wingbeat in in that time (some insects would beat their wings twenty times in 1/30th of a second), so the path described by its wingtip on your film image would be one full sine wave period, twelve inches long. There would be one of these sine waves down each side of the twelve-inch-long rod shaped track traced by the dragonfly's moving body.
This phenomenon is so common that most any professional photographer can tell you about being plagued by it while trying to take outdoor photographs or video in similar lighting conditions. Nevertheless, the resulting image is strange enough that someone not familiar with photography basics might conclude that the subject in the photograph was in fact twelve inches long with undulating wings, and the photographer would be absolutely correct in stating that he did not see any twelve inch long flying creatures with his naked eye.
The conclusion from all this is that rods are a well known, well established, and well understood byproduct of photography. The proposed alternate explanation, that they are an unknown and invisible lifeform only seen by cameras, requires that some pretty outrageous claims about invisibility and photography be proven. Until they are, or until a rod is captured and can be studied, I see no reason to suspect that such things might exist.
© 2006 Skeptoid Media, Inc.
References & Further Reading
Alexander, David E. Nature's Flyers: Birds, Insects and the Biomechanics of Flight. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. 89.
Escamilla, Jose. "About Roswell Rods." Roswell Rods. Roswell Rods, 16 Jan. 2008. Web. 31 Oct. 2009. <http://www.roswellrods.com/story.html>
Island, Kal. "Hey, What's all the Bugaboo?" Popular Science. 1 Nov. 1995, Volume 247, Number 5: 83.
Kaku, Michu. Physics of the Impossible, a Scientific Exploration into the World of Phasers, Force Fields, Teleportation, and Time Travel. New York: Doubleday, 2008. 16-33.
Sol. "Conclusion: Escamilla's "rods" are motion-blurred bugs." Sol's 'Rods' Study. Opendb, 8 Apr. 1998. Web. 9 Dec. 2009. <http://opendb.com/sol/conclusion.htm>
Reference this article:
Dunning, B.
"Rods: Flying Absurdities." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
19 Oct 2006. Web.
21 May 2013. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4004>
Discuss!
10 most recent comments | Show all 66 comments
you know its amasing that in this world of cheaply available digital cameras, people still remark on UFO's, rods, chemtrails etc etc..
Its the fuzzy bear app right?
as I said before...
Booh, its time for the alien exams... the ones that NOBODY has ever passed on this planet
Mud, sin city, NSW, OZ
December 14, 2012 3:00am
What I hate is this thinking:
"I haven't seen it, therefore, it doesn't exist."
Tyler, Colorado
December 15, 2012 2:59pm
Then it's a good thing nobody here is saying anything like that, Tyler.
Lucy, Claremore, Oklahoma
December 19, 2012 1:47pm
hellow i am a starter cryptozooligist and I love rods every one says there not real but hey! u never know whats around the corner if u don't look!
jeffery, usa MO independence
January 08, 2013 9:46pm
Its easy to test jeffery.. not as easy as auras and etherics but still very easy.
Mud, At virtually missing point, NSW, OZ,
January 23, 2013 10:18pm
Looking around the corner is one thing, Jeffery, but wildly extrapolating what's around the corner by the shadow it casts or the noise it makes is a different thing entirely!
Darren, Liverpool, UK
February 20, 2013 5:35am
My Location is England. At 14:20 on 30/11/2012 I saw a flying object could not identify. I had just gone through a small gate and turned round to shut it and saw a pure white
object hovering at head height 2 feet away (hovering end on to me).I think it must have been following me. It was about 10 cm long and about 7 mm round. I stood for 10 seconds trying to
figure out what it was but it I could not. I could not see any wings on it, except for some fuzziness by the sides. I could not see any eyes or they were very small. The front end did not seem to any larger than the rest of it (i.e. no head features). I then put my glasses on and just as I did this it shot backward away from me
to about 10 feet away and 2 feet off the ground. The speed it did this was almost instant much faster than a dragonfly. It was so fast I could not see if it turned to fly or just
flew directly backwards. It hovered again end on as if it was still watching me. I still could not figure out what it was. After about another 10 seconds watching it I decided to get a closer look but as I as I took one step closer it just suddenly shot away. Again it was so fast one second it was there and the
next it was not. The colour of the organism I would describe as snowdrop white or the colour of a White Sea anemone. There were no other features on the organism, just completely white except at the front end (by the side) it had some very fine anemone like tentacles 5 or 6 approx 8mm long and pointing upward and slightly forward (about 20deg) tapering down to 3mm like a fan. These were quite still. I could only see these on one side or perhaps that was due to my viewing angle.
The outside temperature was cold approx 5 to 8 deg. The sun was low
Mo, Hampshire,UK
March 13, 2013 3:02pm
I had an experience once that I could not explain. I was standing on a balcony when a strange flying insect came into my view. It captivated me with the way it seemed to glow and as it drift it slowly turned in my direction. When the insect spotted me atop the balcony it shot up towards me at such a fast speed I dropped to my knees to avoid it. As I was on my knees I was awaiting the crash against the glass window behind me, but the thump never came. I could close my eyes and actually see the insects head right before my eyes! As I got up from the floor it was hard for me to realize what I had just seen. It was not until months later that I saw the Monster Quest show that I realized what I had seen. Folks, I'm here to tell you these creatures exsist!!
don landa, nogales
April 21, 2013 6:57pm
Continuing on from my previous post (ran out of space).... and behind my head as I was looking at the object. So I had a very good view. I had a yellow work jacket on with white reflective strips. Perhaps the insect was attracted to the white strip on the back. The environment was in a large field with surrounding concrete pads. There was some building work with a digger that had been breaking up concrete earlier that day. I was the only person around at this time.
I cannot find any reference to the skyrods ever been seen to hover. Just that they are too quick to been seen with the naked eye. I know that is not correct if this is the same object.
After surfing the web (and knowing what I have seen) I cannot relate to any of the other photographs that represent the object. I think most of the photographs of these rods are camera tricks/ shutter speeds (perhaps not all). I have read a couple of reports that might seem genuine.
Mo, Hampshire,UK
April 28, 2013 12:32pm
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation, or join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
I normally scoff at Monster Quest on the History Channel, but the show on rods was actually pretty good. It started with the position that they might be a real paranormal phenomena, and then went on to quite thoroughly debunk the whole thing. I sincerely wish more shows on tv were evidence based, instead of wildly sensationalized, but I guess that's what sells. The whole rod thing is so amazingly silly that I can't believe some people still think it's an issue.
Christine, Weeki Wachee, FL
August 25, 2012 7:29pm