Protopterygotes / Sky Rods / Sky Fish

A

Anonymous

Guest
Yes i watched it,it makes you think that perhaps even in my room that there are these rods flying around.
Shouldnt threre be a report though of a person walking into one.
 

Beakmoo

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
Messages
2,973
Reaction score
218
Points
119
I taped it. Is it worth watching or not?
 

Mama_Kitty

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Apr 4, 2002
Messages
352
Reaction score
59
Points
59
Did you see the adverts for it? Well, you know the footage from those? They were pretty much replayed for an hour with some guy with a deep voice telling us that nobody really knows what they could be. As previously said, nothing much was examined. I knew nothing about rods before I saw that programme, and I'm pretty much none-the-wiser about them. It's a pretty spooky thing and it was interesting to see that different people seemed to find them independently in different parts of the world.

Did anyone else notice that the shot of the UFO during the rocket-launch was completely tacked on seperately? The sky was a completely different colour! It wasn't even rod-shaped!

Ellie.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
beakboo said:
I taped it. Is it worth watching or not?

As a programme it is sensationalist tabloid journalism. Fast-food TV along the same lines of the Moon Landing Hoax they aired last year.

An example..."This man is a physicist working for the American Government"...doing what? Designing Bridges, working on structural stress measurements, cleaning vending machines? I need a bit more information before I consider something "Expert Testimony".

Conclusions were jumped to far too easily both by those in support of the paranormal explanation and those who favoured a more skeptical approach.

"Are we subject to an Alien Invasion?"...no. And stop asking daft question like that. :D

We enjoyed heckling the TV whilst it was on.

Still... I have to admit that it wasn't a subject I had heard of before and that I am always a sucker for paranormal TV scheduling so I'm not moaning that it was on.

And the footage was certainly...intriguing.

Watch it. But you may wan't to watch it with the sound muted.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I agree totally - interesting subject, made and narrated by appalling cretins. I particularly hated the way the melodromatic, vapid voice-over guy kept on asking stupid, portentuous rhetorical questions that just repeated arguments the programme had been already making for ages. Nearly chucked my tea mug through the telly when he said, breathily, most of the way through the programme: "Could the rods represent a new form of life, hitherto undiscovered?" THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU AND ALL YOUR INTERVIEWEES HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR THE LAST HALF HOUR, YOU FECKING HALFWIT! Also a fine line in Kent Brockman-style meaningless but impressive-sounding false conclusions. About once a minute, he'd start talking as if the show was about to end - "Natural phenomenon? Or alien encounter? One thing is for sure. These investigators will continue to investigate... until the mystery is solved!" Seriously, I was shocked by how terrible this programme was. Can anyone explain? I can't believe all American factual TV is like that...
 

tzb57r

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
May 15, 2002
Messages
138
Reaction score
5
Points
49
I also watched the programme and was completely underwhelmed. The sources were not verifiable and a number of times they quoted the sizes of the objects without any relevant reference material in the frame. While the execution of the programme was very poor the phenomenon was new to me and appears to be worthier than some for study.

There were a huge number of questions I wanted answered, but instead they showed the same half dozen sets of footage over and over while imparting knowledge like "are we being invaded by aliens".

The only thing that really annoyed me was a routine shot of upper atmosphere glancing meteorites being described as "the footage NASA doesn't want you to see, obviously RODS are in space", this was then used to rubbish the insect hypothesis.

All in all I loved the footage but hated the programme.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
They went a touch overboard on the "shrieking" violin incidental music, too.

"Here is... a man! From a university!"

<zzzwwwweeeeeeeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEEEEK!>

Made for jumpy but dull dinnertime viewing.
 

Beakmoo

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
Messages
2,973
Reaction score
218
Points
119
It sounds bad enough to be entertaining. Thanks guys. :)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
a little Forteana going on here right now. Where did AndroMan's post go?
Sorry, Lorddrakul, I dumped the post.

I don't actually receive SKY. As some people are so interested the Rods phenomenon, I decided to save my thoughts on Murdoch and what he's done to various media for another time.

Don't forget what Dennis Potter said, in his last interview. That he'd named the cancer that was killing him, Rupert.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Flying Rods and Cables from the Sky

Perhaps this should also be in a cryptozoology thread?

I find the whole Rods story really amazing. If some of these pictures and movies are real then there is a really bizarre phenomenon in the world. One, that up until a few years ago, was virtually unknown.

I, wonder if they are, perhaps, some sort of bizarre giant bacteria, or flying plankton. Those wavy lines at the sides look a lot like the scillia of some kinds of protozoa. They would have to be moving at incredible speeds though.

You might like to hear of a story by that old contemporary of Fort, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Doyle, a keen spiritualist and defender of the Cottingsloe Fairies, didn't just write Sherlock Holmes Stories, or `The lost World.' He also wrote several horror and science fiction/fantasy stories. Some are very Fortean.

The fictional (I think), story in question was written around 1913. It's called `The Horror of the Heights.' There's a copy here:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7846/doyle/doyle_hght.html

In it an intrepid aviator takes his 10 cylinder, rotory engined, monoplane up to 40,000ft. There he discovers a whole food chain of strange aerial beasts. Not only something similiar to the Rods, but also something like sky cables:
"Conceive a jelly-fish such as sails in our summer seas, bell-shaped and of enormous size-far larger, I should judge, than the dome of St. Paul's. It was of a light pink colour veined with a delicate green, but the whole huge fabric so tenuous that it was but a fairy outline against the dark blue sky. It pulsated with a delicate and regular rhythm. From it there depended two long, drooping, green tentacles, which swayed slowly backwards and forwards. This gorgeous vision passed gently with noiseless dignity over my head, as light and fragile as a soap-bubble, and drifted upon its stately way.

" I had half-turned my monoplane, that I might look after this beautiful creature, when, in a moment, I found myself amidst a perfect fleet of them, of all sizes, but none so large as the first. Some were quite small, but the majority about as big as an average balloon, and with much the same curvature at the top. There was in them a delicacy of texture and colouring which reminded me of the, finest Venetian glass. Pale shades of pink green were the prevailing tints, but all had a lovely irridescence where the sun shimmered through their dainty forms. Some hundreds of them drifted past me, a wonderful fairy squadron of strange, unknown argosies of the sky-creatures whose forms and substance were so attuned to these pure heights that one could not concieve anything so delicate within actual sight or sound of earth.

"But soon my attention was drawn to a new phenomenon, the serpents of the outer air. These were long, thin, fantastic coils of vapour-like material, which turned and twisted with great speed, flying round and round at such a pace that the eyes could hardly follow them. Some of these ghost-like creatures were twenty or thirty feet long, but it was difficult to tell their girth, for their outline was so hazy that it seemed to fade away into the air around them. These air-snakes were of a very light grey or smoke colour, with some darker lines within, which gave the impression of a definite organism. One of them whisked past my very face, and I was conscious of a cold, clammy contact, but their composition was so unsubstantial that I could not connect them with any thought of physical danger, any more than the beautiful bell-like creatures which had preceded them. There was no more solidity in their frames than in the floating spume from a broken wave.
Emphasis, mine.

I'm sure there have been other such stories, but this one is nice and early. It's also by a real (honorary) Fortean.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hey AndroMan,

thanks for posting that. For a moment I almost doubted the Fortean Board. Well, its back to the piano for me then :).

Cheers,
LD
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,189
Reaction score
9,191
Points
284
I discovered yet another, even earlier thread on Rods, which is now merged with this one. Go to Page 1 to see those posts.

Possibly related topics here - Living UFOs
and also Sky Serpents

Edit: Yet another thread has been merged (originally called Skyfish)

Please let me know if any FT links no longer work.
 

TVgeek

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
May 15, 2002
Messages
752
Reaction score
35
Points
49
Has anyone caught this on a FILM camera versus just a
VIDEO camera? If not, my guess is that the undulating
look of the creature is just an "artifact" of a fast flying insect being caught across different fields of the video picture.
(One upper field + one lower field = one frame of video. 24 frames of video per second (30 in the US format) help create the believeable motion on your TV screen.)

I noticed a similar type of "artifacting" when watching a bike race (probably the Tour de France) in the NTSC format (US) after being converted from the PAL format (UK).

Has anyone captured rods on film?
TVgeek
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rods? Flying what?

TVgeek said:
Has anyone caught this on a FILM camera versus just a
VIDEO camera?

It is always good to have someone who knows what to look for on a technical level examine this type of stuff. Also, this phenomenon is very close to one of Lovecraft’s stories From Beyond or something like that. I could be wrong on the title, but I'm sure someone out here will know what I'm talking about.
 

Mattattattatt

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Sep 17, 2001
Messages
512
Reaction score
10
Points
49
Such artifacted can be removed by "deinterlacing" such footage... Also a lot of modern DV cameras have the ability to capture 25 full frames on a PAL, or 30 full frames NTSC, so maybe future skyfish hunters should invest in such equipment! :)
 

James_H

And I like to roam the land
Joined
May 18, 2002
Messages
7,708
Reaction score
6,478
Points
314
A thought: sorry if this has come up afore

If rods can (and have) been caught on camera, shouldn't there be a vast amalgamation of evidence in popular motion picture stills?
 

ruffready

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
2,389
Reaction score
25
Points
69
ufo picture/rods and more

anybody have any idea about rods?new pics at "whats new"for aug 24th (yellow section to your left) also see the bigfoot story from "homme" and Ufo pictures ,, http://www.artbell.com
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,189
Reaction score
9,191
Points
284
Ruff's post (above) moved to this thread.

I don't know how long the Art Bell links will last, but I expect the pics etc will still be there somewhere.
 

ruffready

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
2,389
Reaction score
25
Points
69
there it is !?

I was looking all over for that post i did..some one ram-RODed-IT!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
At the risk of setting off yet another debate about the existence of ufo's and the like, I'd like to offer another explanantion for the "rods".
Instead of labelling the various rod shaped anomalies as insects, air consuming new species and unidentified flying thingies, could it not be possible that the rods are just that, rods, nothing more nothing less?
We all know that there are more dimensions than we are currently aware of. Perhaps at the convergence of ley lines, interdimensional doorways are opened and the rods appear because as all good spiritualists know, rods are the way spirit make things move (Spirit not having a tangible 3 dimension form such as ourselves). A good clairvoyant friend of mine explained that in order to make something move it has to be lifted/thrown/levitated and in order for the spirit world to do that, it has to make rods of invisible energy to place underneath the object to lift it. The rods are of course unseen to the naked eye but camera has an odd way of capturing that millionth of a second that we all miss or perhaps just see out of the corners of our eyes. In all of the hoopla about Roswell, Aliens and extra terrestrials, maybe we have all forgotten one thing, maybe spirit is just responsible. Not only for rods but orbs, ufo's that look like they could be orbs and other funny things.
If you think about the various dimensions that we are all currently inhabiting at the moment, is it not feasible that at the same time, spirit world inhabits ours and ours theirs. Time is relative. And the sightings we see captured on film are just momentary glimpses through either dimension.
Which means of course there are no little grey men, only ghosts and energy.
I am rather sceptical about rods being an undiscovered new species and my explanation makes more sense if you think about it.
Now if I could just find some more believers, I could start my own cult. I rather like "Cult of the Golden Rod"
 

Jerry_B

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
8,052
Reaction score
65
Points
129
Stewart Woodruff's explanation in the 'Anti' section of the article on this site clinches it for me.
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
12,829
Reaction score
7,277
Points
314
Bump!

Originally posted by Faggus
If rods can (and have) been caught on camera, shouldn't there be a vast amalgamation of evidence in popular motion picture stills?


There was a documentary about them on Sky One last night, featuring among others a bloke who examines movies and videos for rods, and has come across dozens of them.

I'll see if I can dig out more references.

Stu
 

Pete Younger

Venerable and Missed
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 31, 2001
Messages
5,875
Reaction score
218
Points
129
Anyone who wants pictures can pop in to the cocktail bar where Rod will be happy to pose.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
p.younger said:
Anyone who wants pictures can pop in to the cocktail bar where Rod will be happy to pose.

It's quite scary to think there are dozens of rods out there. Lurking, waiting for the right time to shuffle into the background of peoples photos.

Sobering thought.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Just browsing around, and came across a pointer to these piccies on the Roswell Rods site.

http://www.roswellrods.com/swrd1.html

They purport to show a rod being chased by a sparrow. The interesting thing is that the image of the sparrow shows a striking similarity to that of the rod, suggesting that the camera artefact theory has a hell of a lot going for it.

Case closed? ;)
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,189
Reaction score
9,191
Points
284
Fortis said:
The interesting thing is that the image of the sparrow shows a striking similarity to that of the rod, suggesting that the camera artefact theory has a hell of a lot going for it.

Case closed? ;)
A good find, but I disagree with your conclusion. Both images are blurry, but that's about all they have in common, to my eyes.

Unless you think that rods are just skinny swallows, or vice-versa!

But if the picture shows what it claims, then rods are likely to be some (perhaps unrecognised) insect species. But given the blurriness, this is more likely a dragonfly or similar.

(It would have been nice to see the animated gif too, but that's not working, apparently.)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It was really the similarity in distortions that seemed curious. If you look at the two images at the bottom of the first page (though blurred) the sparrow seems to show multiple lumps either side of a linear structure. I would be willing to hazard a guess that an insect will flap its wings faster than a bird (if anyone knows for certain, please shout up :) ) and hence if it is an exposure (and possibly interlace) issue, then you might expect that the effect would be more noticable with the insect. Just a thought.

In addition, it seems a safe bet that the sparrow can sense the thing that it is chasing. If it is an insect, then there is no mystery as to how it can do it. If it is something that is only visible using a setting on video camera but not a naked eye (at least a human one) then it raises the question as to how the bird is doing what it is doing.

:)
 
Top