From the cryptozoology files, we're going to look today at rods, those magical,
mystical living UFO's believed by some to inhabit the invisible shadowlands of Earth.
Rods are said to be flying creatures, from a few centimeters to a meter 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
long, thin, aerial manta rays.
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 — an auspicious start to any report — 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, but few that are that size; nevertheless, it's possible, however unlikely. All they need to do to prove it is to produce one that can be examined.
2. We must accept the unprecedented existence of creatures that are invisible, although
they're up to a meter in length. 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 a solid object that was invisible to the photographer's eye.
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. Imagine 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 9 meters per second. Take a photograph, with a common shutter speed of 1/30th of a second.
In that time, the dragonfly will travel about 30 centimeters. 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. Dragonflies beat their wings about 30 times a second, so the path described by its wingtip on your film image
would be one full sine wave period, 30 centimeters long. There would be one
of these sine waves down each side of the 30-centimeter-long rod shaped track
traced by the dragonfly's moving body. Change these parameters with different insects, different wing speeds, different camera shutter speeds, and you can duplicate any rod photograph on the Internet.
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 30 centimeters long with undulating
wings, and the photographer would be absolutely correct in stating that he
did not see any 30-centimeter-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. Always look for the alternate explanation that does not require dramatic new assumptions.