Talk:Rod (optical phenomenon)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)