Protopterygotes / Sky Rods / Sky Fish

A

Anonymous

Guest
Flying air worms

I'm looking for information on a subject that i ran across a while back. I came across a cryptozoology page about these weird unknown tings that fly around extremely fast, look kinda like a fluke work that can fly, and that have even been seen flying through solid objects. They have been observed only on film and in still pictures. I'd like to know more on the subject if any of you peeps can help an a brotha out

thanks

:eek:
 

JamesWhitehead

Piffle Prospector
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Messages
13,849
Reaction score
13,797
Points
334
Don't know if this is related but a Mrs. Margaret E. Wilson
was painting in the grounds of the infamous Borley Rectory
on August 22nd, 1938 when she saw:

" . . . the queerest object with impelling eyes advancing
towards me at about eye level. It seemed to be coming
out of a mist.
. . . Certainly I had seen nothing like it before . . . quite three
inches in length, entirely black . . . Its eyes were large and the
colour of black, bloomy grapes."

She swatted it away and it could not be found on the ground.

Her memory of it was vivid and, as an artist, she was able
to draw a sketch of it. She was said to be well-acquainted with
insects herself and could not explain it. Entomologists
described the illustrated creature as like nothing on earth.

A drawing by a Miss Mercer, based on the sketch is given in
Harry Price's book "The Most Haunted House in England", 1940
and often reprinted. It looks quite psychedelic for 1940.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thats cool as hell but not what i'm talking about.
Thanks tho pal. I think these things don't have perceivable eyes they move too fast to see.

You are a true hero

:eek:
 

Justin_Anstey

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 30, 2001
Messages
633
Reaction score
4
Points
49
Rods? ;)


http://www.roswellrods.com

Roswell Rods - We Review the Facts & Myths

Jose Escamilla discovered the RODS phenomenon on March 19, 1994 This timeline is only a brief record of the events that have occurred in Mr. Escamilla's life that have led up to the incredible discovery of the RODS. Most of his childhood was spent growing up in the small community of Midway which is located nine miles southeast of Roswell, New Mexico. ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hot Rod

I don't really know. Its one of the weirdest subjects i've ever come across. As far as ican tell they are some new species that is just on the border of being completely unknown. Kinda like my uncle. If anyone has any other info on Rods i'd love to get my hands on it.:D:eek: :eek: :eek:
 

JamesWhitehead

Piffle Prospector
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Messages
13,849
Reaction score
13,797
Points
334
Rods, now they do ring a bell!

There is a site online with videos of the things, taken in
the US. But it's ages since I saw it. Can't find it right now
but here is a page with details about them:

caus.org/fs071599.shtml
Link is dead. No archived version found.


and a zipped file is in this directory, it may be a video:

boudicca.de/files/104/files.htm
Link is dead. No archived version found.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ECPE1

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Nov 8, 2001
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Points
32
I think I took a picture of a 'Rod'...

Okay, I'm new here but I won't let that stop me. I was recently taking some photos of my University (Virginia Tech) with my digital camera. I was just snapping them for fun. I downloaded the pictures to my computer last night from the camera and I was browsing throught the pictures when I saw these two interesting objects:

rods_1_small.jpg
(Image MIA)

and

rods_2_small.jpg
rods_1_small.jpg
(Images MIA)

These files are around 60Kb each, just to let you know.

I immediately rememberd seeing objects like this before, they are apparently known as 'Rods'. These objects may or may not be 'Rods', but I just wanted to get everybody's take on them. Now, there were no insects out on this day, since the temperature is dropping, and there was no wind either. And there are no scratches on the film, because it is a digital camera. And any dust on the lens would show up in other pictures, which it didn't. If nothing else they are interesting. Thanks.

Here are the original images, but be warned, they are large!!! At a resolution of 1600x1200 and around 1.1Mb each, they might take a while on a modem.

rods_1_big.jpg
rods_1_small.jpg
(Images MIA)

rods_1_small.jpg
(Image MIA)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

Anonymous

Guest
sorry about this but i cant see what your on about, ive had a look at the small ones and the large ones but still cant see anything

where on the piccy's are these rods?

cas
 

ECPE1

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Nov 8, 2001
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Points
32
Sorry casio, I must be used to looking at them. But I am talking about the dark lines in the pictures, they are easier to see in the small pictures, but those are part of the bigger pictures. Like I said, I don't know what they are, I just wanted to post them up here on the FT board. There are several sites that talk about these rods, http://www.roswellrods.com is probably the best one that I know about. If you have any more questions, please ask.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I'm sorry, but this doesn't convince me at all.

5 seconds on a Mac could create that.

Won't believe it till one is floating a mm or so from my own eyes.
 

TheBeast17

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Messages
191
Reaction score
9
Points
49
They look convincing enough to me.

Wether they are Rods or not is another matter, but there is definitely something there. It could be a smudge on the lens, it could be a stray piece of crap floating in the air, or simply a trick of the light, but there is definitely something there.
 

harlequin2005

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
826
Reaction score
10
Points
49
What are the specifications of the camera?

Is it a DV or digital still?

8¬)
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
46,102
Reaction score
40,411
Points
334
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
That's certainly a very interesting pair of photos.
The rod shapes are quite clear, and appear to be genuinely part of the original photo.
Is it just possible that they were caused by a short strand of human hair that stuck to the lens and blew away after you took these shots?
Did you see the rods and then take the photos, or did you notice them afterwards?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sorry, still not convinced. I'm a copywriter and I work with art directors. I've seen the most amazing image manipulations done with a few clicks of the mouse. Just because they look like the originals doesn't mean they represent what was or wasn't in the sky. Also digital cameras may be great, but not every image is perfect. A single, tiny speck of dust can bugger your shot completely.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
No need for art directors or any kind of manipulation. All it takes is a tiny particle or insect close to the lens, moving fast enough. Motion blur over the exposure period.
 

ECPE1

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Nov 8, 2001
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Points
32
Geez, hehe. Yes, it is a digital still camera, the Hewlitt-Packard 618. And no, I didn't manipulate the images. If I did, I would make them look better than that:D I never had any intention of trying to 'make' people think that these are rods. I just said that the objects in the images look like them and I wanted to know what everyone else thought. Sorry about the confusion. Thanks
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rods ?

IMHO the "rods" are far more likely to be photographic artifacts, particularly when you consider that a digital camera is involved.

Unfortunately any small, fast-moving objects are likely to appear as "rods" in a photographic field - see :

http://www.amsky.com/ufos/rods/

The "Rods" Hoax
Coming to a TV Station Near You
By Bob DuHamel

Author's note: This article was probably the first article on the Internet debunking this shameless hoax. Since then, several other articles have appeared. I don't think anyone else has better-shown that "rods" are nothing more than motion-blurred insects (motion blurring has been known since the birth of photography). However, some other sites have much better pictures than I have here. I recommend Sol's Bugrod Sequences for it's excellent photographs of "rods".

In being an amateur astronomer since 1969 I've noticed that we tend to have things in common other than an interest in astronomy. One of these common interest is often photography. Experienced with photography we often see the artifacts introduced to a photograph by the nature of lenses, film (or CCDs), and shutters. One of the most common artifacts are lens flares. These are bright spots superimposed on the photograph by reflections of a bright object from the several surfaces of a compound lens. We know what they are and think of them as unremarkable. Inexperienced, or perhaps gullible people often think they are UFOs or even angels. ...

Another artifact, that is so unremarkable as to be virtually ignored, is the fact that a fast-moving object will appear elongated on a photograph; those with very high angular velocities will appear as streaks. When a blurred streak appears on a photograph most of us will see it as a fast moving object; Jose Escamilla sees them as an unidentified life form. ...

and

opendb.com/sol/bugs.htm
Link is dead. The complete MIA webpage can be accessed via the Wayback Machine:

Flying Insect Sequence Pictures

These pictures of flying insects were taken with a Canon ES9000 8mm camcorder forced to 1/60 second exposure. ...

These pictures show remarkable similarity to Jose Escamilla's "rod" videos: specifically, there is the distinctive correlation between the apparent "rod" size and the displacement from one frame to the next (which is always two "rod" lengths per frame when the exposure is 1/60 second) and there are several examples of the waving or sinusoidal" patterns that can be caused by blurred flapping wings (which makes "rods" appear to have multiple wings or long undulating fins along their sides). ...

Conclusion: Escamilla's "rods" are motion-blurred bugs! ...
SALVAGED FROM THE WAYBACK MACHINE:
https://web.archive.org/web/20011121204212/http://www.opendb.com/sol/bugs.htm


Because of the way that digital cameras process images, and subject them to subsequent compression, it's very likely that artifacts are going to crop up in the image - in general you'll notice this where the image is indistinct because of low light conditions and poor focus.

The CCD-based method of taking digital photos is very susceptable to known problems such as "christmas tree lights", blooming and pixelation.

When the camera compresses the image, typically into JPEG format, it is also at the mercy of the mathematical algorithm used by the manufacturer to reduce the size of the memory footprint of the image. This can result in strange color distribution, poor edge definition and "blocky" areas.

I would suggest that what you have taken is a combination of these factors - certainly don't look like real objects & are possibly replicable if you experiment with your camera.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

Anonymous

Guest
And no, I didn't manipulate the images. If I did, I would make them look better than that

I should think so, too!

I was merely pointing out that it's really easy to do in this digital age, if that's your kind of thing.:)

Next time, how about a great big UFO, couple of waving aliens and Nessie at the controls???:D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
More pictures of rods can be found here
Link is dead. No archived version found that contains any content whatsoever.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

Anonymous

Guest
ive had another look and still dont know what im looking for

cas
 

ECPE1

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Nov 8, 2001
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Points
32
Okay, lets try this again:)

rods_1_small.jpg
(Image(s) MIA)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

Anonymous

Guest
Am I the only one who feels an urge to post a picture of Rod Stewart here?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Skyfish

Hi All

I've been reading the many threads on this message board with great interest.

I used to be a regular FT reader when I lived in the UK. Now I live in Japan and use the internet to get my weirdness instead.

This is my first post, so I'll keep it brief.

Recently I saw a documentary on TV about "skyfish" a kind of cylindrical flying object which seemed to have flexible wings running down its sides.
The footage was truly amazing, especially one home video of an adventure sports enthusiast who paprachute-leapt down a cavern somewhere in Mexico. As he passed into the darkness, a swarm of these things flew around him. It was incredible.

But there was more to come: one piece of film appeared to show the skyfish thing passing .through people and walls, etc.

For an experiment, the TV show sent a crew out to the mountains of Kobe (a city in western Japan, the site of the famous 1995 earthquake) and tried to capture one on film. They were successful.

I found a good site about them: http:http://www.roswellrods.com, but I can't see where the ET/Roswell connection comes from.

Does anybody have any skyfish stories to share? I'd love to hear some theories about what they are, have any been seen in the UK?

Thanks for taking the time to read this.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Skyfish...

The 'skyfish' you are talking about I have discussed on various other threads, possibly in the Ufology section, and they are known as RODS, and have been filmed and shown in the American documentary RODS. They see almost insect-like with the fluttering appendages on their flanks. I believe them to be far more flesh and blood than supernatural or 'alien'. They do not seem to be that big, possibly only about three to four feet long, but certainly too quick to be viewed by the naked eye. Maybe they feed off flies etc just like other insects would, but they are ceratinly weird and seem to fit in with many classic UFO photographs which show cylindrical objects whizzing past the lense so fast.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thanks for the info, fascinating.

In the documentary I saw, the biggest one was about 2m in length. I think it was a Swedish army training film.
Wouldn't it be great to catch one? One thing that puzzles me is, if its an insect, where do they fit in on the food chain and where do they go when they're not flying about?

Interesting. Thanks
 
Top