Rod (optical phenomenon): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:10, 10 January 2008

Rods, a rather new entry in the field of cryptozoology, are said to be creatures which flit about in the air at such a high speed as to not be seen by the naked eye. Rods appear to be observational artifacts produced by rapidly flying animals. Practically all sightings of rods are based on video evidence, due to the propensity of video cameras to produce characteristic stroboscopic artifacts when imaging rapidly flying animals, especially insects, but also including birds. Their recent popularity seems to be a result of media exposure in television and in tabloids. Jose Escamilla has appeared in numerous interviews and television "investigations".

Description

Rods gain their name from their rodlike shape. However, they have also been called "flying rods", "skyfish" and "solar entities". They appear to be anywhere from 12 cm to 50 metres in length, and it is proposed that they have a thin membrane across their axis which is used for propulsion through the air, in a manner similar to the way a cuttlefish uses its fins. It has been suggested that Rods are possible relatives of anomalocarids which have taken to the air. Rods are not classified as atmospheric beasts because rods are nearly always described as much smaller than atmospheric beasts, as invisible to the naked eye, and in addition rods have a much shorter history as a subject of research in the fields of cryptozoology and the paranormal.

Explanations

Rods are not taken seriously even by most cryptozoologists. All evidence points to the conclusion that they are mere tricks of light which result from how images (primarily video images) are recorded and played back. In particular, the fast passage before the camera of an insect flapping its wings has been shown directly to produce rod-like effects, due to motion blur, if the camera is shooting with relatively long exposure times. ([1]) (In low-light conditions or even when pointed at blue sky, the automatic exposure programming of a video camera is likely to select the longest possible exposure time, which is 1/60th second per video field for NTSC format or 1/50th second for PAL format.) This criticism points to such video being physically unable to capture a clean image of something which moves so fast relative to the camera. In particular, the "membrane" in a video frame of a rod is effectively a time-lapse of the wings of the flying animal in different positions over several wingbeats that occurred during the field exposure time, while the central "rod" is a time-lapse image of the body, showing the full distance traveled during the field exposure time. The effect is especially pronounced with large, long-bodied insects which have broad wings and fairly slow wingbeats, such as mantises, grasshoppers, and katydids, or completely opaque wings such as moths. On video equipment which resolves the two interlaced fields of a single video frame (which are captured successively and then displayed as alternating horizontal lines), the "rod" effect can be seen to alternate from one field to the other, producing the distinctive gaps between successive images ([2]). Similar results can be produced using standard film, if there is a long exposure and/or a stroboscopic lighting effect which lasts more than a single wingbeat. This is the technical evidence, demonstrating that one can produce "rod" effects at will if one uses the right equipment, lighting, and subject.

Also Understand that Video Cameras record film at predictable rates. Typical Film Rates are 24.9 Frames Per Second, 29.95 Frames per second, and many others. So If you are filming at lets say, 30 Frames per second and an Insect flaps its wings at 120 Flaps per second, then if you film the bug Every SINGLE Frame of video will have that bug flapping its wings 4 times. FOUR times on every frame. If they flapped 4 times per frame, then it also will have its body moving the equal distance of 4 flaps in a linear direction on each frame. A distance of 4 flaps directly in front of a Camera Aperture (Lens) would make the insect look long, straight, blurry and the wings would be in the shape of a wave like motion. Pay attention to the videos of "Rods" and notice that in the videos the rods NEVER move the "wing" once the image shows up. Thats because it is an over exposed animal. Some Insects can flap their wings at 300 flaps per second and even faster. That would look insane on a camera filming at 29.95 frames per second.

On an interlaced camera, these effects are doubled, as pointed out on the "Monster-Quest" show aired on the History Channel in Jan 2008.

"I would also like to point out that there was not a single piece of video on that show, that I could not explain using Science, Math and Physics"(This is a statement and can be viewed as fact, opinion, theory or falsehood by the reader).

Flying Rod mystery allegedly solved?

On 8th and 9th August 2005, China Central Television (CCTV) aired a two-part documentary about flying rods in China. It reported an incident which happened from May to June of the same year at Tonghua Zhenguo Pharmaceutical Company in Tonghua City, Jilin Province, which debunked the flying rods. ([3]) Surveillance cameras in the facility's compound captured video footage of flying rods identical to those shown in Jose Escamilla's video. Getting no satisfactory answer to the phenomenon, the curious research staff of the facility, being scientists, decided that they would try to solve the mystery by attempting to catch these airborne creatures. Huge nets were set up and the same surveillance cameras then captured images of rods flying into the trap. When the nets were inspected, the "rods" were no more than regular moths and other ordinary flying insects. Subsequent investigations proved that the appearance of flying rods on video was an optical illusion created by the slower recording speed of the camera (done to save video space). This is the empirical evidence, showing that the "rods" themselves can be captured, and that they do indeed prove to be ordinary animals.

Rods in popular culture

Rods were a subject of intense debate in the 14th episode of filmmaker Kevin Smith's SModcast, released June 13, 2007. Smith discusses with his co-hosts Walt Flanagan and Malcolm Ingram the known details of the "Rod Phenomena", and Flanagan's claimed sightings near Henry Hudson High School in Highlands, New Jersey, and during a New Jersey Devils ice hockey broadcast.
Rods are the subject of a new episode of Monster Quest

Rods in fiction

There is an enemy in the video game Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow called Sky Fish, which normally appears in some places in the game as a white flash blitzing across the screen. The Sky Fish enemy can be seen in slow motion by using the Time-Stopper ability, allowing the player to defeat it. Similarly, the game La-Mulana has a Skyfish enemy which can only be seen and defeated when using the Lamp of Time, but at normal speed it is invisible and can damage the player unexpectedly.

Rods are also mentioned in the anime Zettai Shounen as being possibly related to the flying objects seen in the valley where the story takes place.

The anime series Eureka Seven contains rod-like creatures known as skyfish. The main differences are that they are shaped more like boomerangs than rods and are easily seen in flight by the naked eye. Their wingless flight is explained as a result of their ability to "surf" on light particles in the air, like a solar sail.

In the Cthulhu Mythos short story The Terror from the Depths by Fritz Leiber, rod-like underground creatures called winged worms torment the main character with the idea that he might be destined to become one of them.

In the role-playing game d20 Modern in the d20 Menace Manual, Rods are listed as extra-terrestrial insects which are attracted to psionic energy and pose a threat to persons who use psionics by flying at them at extremely high velocity.

In series 6 of the manga Jojo's Bizarre Adventure, the character Rykiel controls a "Stand" named Sky High, which has the ability to control rods. The rods appear in swarms and have the ability to leach heat directly from other living creatures.

In the video game Shadow Hearts: From the New World, the Skyfish appears as one of the UMA's you can hunt as an optional sidequest.

External links

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 ==Explanations==
 Rods are not taken seriously even by most cryptozoologists. All evidence points to the conclusion that they are mere [[Optical illusion|tricks of light]] which result from how images (primarily video images) are recorded and played back. In particular, the fast passage before the camera of an insect flapping its wings has been shown directly to produce rod-like effects, due to [[motion blur]], if the camera is shooting with relatively long exposure times. ([http://opendb.com/sol/bugs.htm]) (In low-light conditions or even when pointed at blue sky, the automatic exposure programming of a video camera is likely to select the longest possible exposure time, which is 1/60th second per video field for [[NTSC]] format or 1/50th second for [[PAL]] format.) This criticism points to such video being physically unable to capture a clean image of something which moves so fast relative to the camera. In particular, the "membrane" in a video frame of a rod is effectively a time-lapse of the wings of the flying animal in different positions over several wingbeats that occurred during the field exposure time, while the central "rod" is a time-lapse image of the body, showing the full distance traveled during the field exposure time. The effect is especially pronounced with large, long-bodied insects which have broad wings and fairly slow wingbeats, such as [[mantis]]es, [[grasshopper]]s, and [[katydid]]s, or completely opaque wings such as [[moth]]s. On video equipment which resolves the two [[interlaced]] fields of a single video frame (which are captured successively and then displayed as alternating horizontal lines), the "rod" effect can be seen to alternate from one field to the other, producing the distinctive gaps between successive images ([http://www.opendb.com/sol/seq.htm]). Similar results can be produced using standard film, if there is a long exposure and/or a stroboscopic lighting effect which lasts more than a single wingbeat. This is the technical evidence, demonstrating that one can produce "rod" effects at will if one uses the right equipment, lighting, and subject.
+----
+Also Understand that Video Cameras record film at predictable rates. Typical Film Rates are 24.9 Frames Per Second, 29.95 Frames per second, and many others. So If you are filming at lets say, 30 Frames per second and an Insect flaps its wings at 120 Flaps per second, then if you film the bug Every SINGLE Frame of video will have that bug flapping its wings 4 times. FOUR times on every frame. If they flapped 4 times per frame, then it also will have its body moving the equal distance of 4 flaps in a linear direction on each frame. A distance of 4 flaps directly in front of a Camera Aperture (Lens) would make the insect look long, straight, blurry and the wings would be in the shape of a wave like motion. Pay attention to the videos of "Rods" and notice that in the videos the rods NEVER move the "wing" once the image shows up. Thats because it is an over exposed animal. Some Insects can flap their wings at 300 flaps per second and even faster. That would look insane on a camera filming at 29.95 frames per second.
+On an interlaced camera, these effects are doubled, as pointed out on the "Monster-Quest" show aired on the History Channel in Jan 2008.
+<u>"I would also like to point out that there was not a single piece of video on that show, that I could not explain using Science, Math and Physics"</u>(<u>T</u>his is a statement and can be viewed as fact, opinion, theory or falsehood by the reader).
 ==Flying Rod mystery allegedly solved?==