'Rod' UFOs Over Machu Picchu

hunck

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
4,332
Likes
5,146
Points
209
Location
Hobbs End
#31
Sorry 'Justified & Ancient,' not with this one I afraid. Other than to point out that the original photograph forms a triangle without any solid form - it's a bit of a puzzler for sure.
Sharon Hill has a copy. Maybe she'll post it.
 

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
9,630
Likes
7,498
Points
294
#32
INSECTS! "Ha!" REALLY? Have a second look.

*Image #1 right side of the large mountain:
View attachment 18588

*image #2 (all in the same photograph) left side, of left smaller mountain
- with unknown anomaly at the pinnacle:
View attachment 18589

"You might want to reconsider your assumptions of these images - as being insects!"
The arrowed feature with the question mark next to it. Could it be climbers tents? Has that been checked?
 

Sharon Hill

Complicated biological machine
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
501
Likes
960
Points
94
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
#33
Can someone give us a link to this picture?
Hang on. I said my picture looked like this one under discussion but it was taken during the day while the weather was still warm. Plenty of birds and bugs around. I don't know if I have it scanned and I certainly don't have the negative anymore. Sorry.
 

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
9,630
Likes
7,498
Points
294
#35
Hmmm. There’s a rock there that looks like a man exposing himself.
We need to find out more about these Pornorocks.
 

GNC

King-Sized Canary
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
28,125
Likes
13,066
Points
284
#37
Plenty of bugs at high altitude too - there's a layer of insects which mass in the high atmosphere.
 

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
9,630
Likes
7,498
Points
294
#38
That’s just moths having their usual ‘Fuck it, why don't we just fly to the moon’ discussion.
 

Sid

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Nov 19, 2018
Messages
170
Likes
204
Points
44
#39
OH MY GOSH I do have it! The Blurfo. This was cropped to delete the junk in the lower right that I was actually taking a picture of.
View attachment 18612
*Hope you don't mind 'Sharon' - thought your image was worth enlarging (below) to bring out a bit more definition to it. Cheers.
---------------
After carrying out an extreme enlargement, I've noticed that there are two almost horizontal images beneath it and pointing toward the left side of the image, 'not like wing's,' as they show-up to be visually underneath the image.

Examining the maximum blow-up of the image, there also seems to be slight visual evidence of some form on top of the image as well, though not at all 'clear,' as extreme enlargement does not allow for further clarity of this feature.

Also - I have only just noticed that in the photograph, the Sun appears to be fairly high - say - some time after midday possibly? I'm going by the shadows of the Sun falling on the rocks in the photograph, most notably... looking over the whole image, the brightest point is at the opposite end (to the left (opposite side) to the Sun), so that also leans towards thinking that it is emitting some kind of light source of it's own, or, picking up a strong light source from another direction? Really fascinating photoraph!
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Sharon Hill

Complicated biological machine
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
501
Likes
960
Points
94
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
#40
*Hope you don't mind 'Sharon' - thought your image was worth enlarging (below) to bring out a bit more definition to it. Cheers.
---------------
After carrying out an extreme enlargement, I've noticed that there are two almost horizontal images beneath it and pointing toward the left side of the image, 'not like wing's,' as they show-up to be visually underneath the image.

Examining the maximum blow-up of the image, there also seems to be slight visual evidence of some form on top of the image as well, though not at all 'clear,' as extreme enlargement does not allow for further clarity of this feature.

Also - I have only just noticed that in the photograph, the Sun appears to be fairly high - say - some time after midday possibly? I'm going by the shadows of the Sun falling on the rocks in the photograph, most notably... looking over the whole image, the brightest point is at the opposite end (to the left (opposite side) to the Sun), so that also leans towards thinking that it is emitting some kind of light source of it's own, or, picking up a strong light source from another direction? Really fascinating photoraph!
This is straining the limits of the data. This file is from a scan of a 3x5 print from a cheap camera. It’s not valid to search for meaning in the noise.
 

Schrodinger's Zebra

Eight pounds ten in the biscuit tin
Joined
Mar 8, 2018
Messages
2,067
Likes
3,828
Points
154
#41
Ok, for what it's worth I've never really read much into rods and things... I've heard of them, of course, but that was about it; they certainly weren't one of my 'go to' paranormal subjects. So I'm keeping an open mind. (I do see what @EnolaGaia was driving at with the first photo - that the 'rod' in the middle of the picture is likely an aeroplane; you can see a suggestion of a tail fin on the right hand side).

But you see... I posted somewhere on this forum (probably Minor Strangeness) about an odd thing I'd seen move extremely quickly through the daytime sky one day as we were driving home. It was a thin, perfectly straight shape, perhaps 1cm long (as viewed, not in actuality) and about treetop (pine tree) height or perhaps slightly higher. I had absolutely no idea what it was, never seen anything like it before or (so far) since.

Reason I'm mentioning it again, is that this (extract of second 'rod' on initial photo):
1562509988058.png
and this (extract from Sharon Hill's photo):
1562510039819.png

... are probably the closest pictorial representation of the 'thing' that I saw (I would even say the first picture more than the second, if I had to choose between them). It was milky white/beige sort of colour (two-tone), and moved incredibly fast, only visible for ooh... a second or so, perhaps not even that. Now, bear in mind here, for my sighting we can set aside all discussion of shutter speed... because this wasn't something I captured on camera. I saw it with my own eyes, and they don't have a shutter speed*.

So... I'm just leaving this post here, for you to consider or dismiss at your will. I'm not suggesting any explanation, just thought it was worthy of mention. I still remember the 'thing' I saw, and I still have no explanation for it. :)


*ok someone will probably tell me they do, of some sort, but you know what I mean.
 

feinman

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
1,049
Likes
437
Points
89
#42
As others are suggesting, the image is too ambiguous; while it could be something unusual, it is just as or more likely to be a camera artifact (rod), or a conventional object at distance.
 

Sid

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Nov 19, 2018
Messages
170
Likes
204
Points
44
#43
This is straining the limits of the data. This file is from a scan of a 3x5 print from a cheap camera. It’s not valid to search for meaning in the noise.
It's still a questionable image, but it is only an image, even if it was taken by using a cheap camera it's still begs some kind of explanation. Every picture is 'staining the limits of the data,' as there are always questions, always doubts and assumptions particularly over photograph's of this nature - even the more definable pictures eventually get picked to pieces! Human nature I suppose?
 

Sid

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Nov 19, 2018
Messages
170
Likes
204
Points
44
#44
As others are suggesting, the image is too ambiguous; while it could be something unusual, it is just as or more likely to be a camera artifact (rod), or a conventional object at distance.
I agree 'Abominable Snowman:' Can never prove anything beyond reasonable doubt with any photograph, especially in this-high-techy-day-and-age. We can all walk about and choose to keep heads in the sand, but there's no harm in looking, or questioning things as far as limits will allow, or putting personal views forward, is there - "I thought that's what this forum is all about?"
 

Schrodinger's Zebra

Eight pounds ten in the biscuit tin
Joined
Mar 8, 2018
Messages
2,067
Likes
3,828
Points
154
#45
I agree 'Abominable Snowman:' Can never prove anything beyond reasonable doubt with any photograph, especially in this-high-techy-day-and-age. We can all walk about and choose to keep heads in the sand, but there's no harm in looking, or questioning things as far as limits will allow, or putting personal views forward, is there - "I thought that's what this forum is all about?"
No, there's nothing wrong with questioning things or putting personal views forward, I quite agree. :) But just as we should be open to the possibilities that there are things that we can't explain, we must equally be willing to accept that something could be mundane.

The explanation that the big rod in the first photo could be a plane, is a good one and worthy of serious consideration, especially given the evidence that planes fly about in this area, and the (what I think is) quite noticeable 'tail fin' visible on it. But of course we don't know with one hundred percent certainty; it just seems quite likely.

Does that mean all rods are planes, or are so easily explained (if indeed it has been?) no, of course not. Just like with 'normal' (ha!) UFOs - some will turn out to be identifiable after all (or hoaxes, or whatever) but that doesn't make them all that way.

So while it would be silly to dismiss everything off-hand as 'nothing to see here', it would surely (I hope you'll agree) be just as silly to dismiss quite logical explanations.

My sighting, for instance, can certainly not be ascribed to a plane, or a bird. Whether it turns out to be perfectly mundane remains to be seen, but I know of nothing at the moment which can explain it (hence why I mentioned it on this thread, as it seems to fit, I think). If someone were to provide a perfectly logical explanation for it that seemed quite likely, then I would have to* accept that and I think that is just as important as questioning things.

*reluctantly accept, because I'd love it to be something truly unexplained:D
 

Sid

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Nov 19, 2018
Messages
170
Likes
204
Points
44
#46
No, there's nothing wrong with questioning things or putting personal views forward, I quite agree. :) But just as we should be open to the possibilities that there are things that we can't explain, we must equally be willing to accept that something could be mundane.

The explanation that the big rod in the first photo could be a plane, is a good one and worthy of serious consideration, especially given the evidence that planes fly about in this area, and the (what I think is) quite noticeable 'tail fin' visible on it. But of course we don't know with one hundred percent certainty; it just seems quite likely.

Does that mean all rods are planes, or are so easily explained (if indeed it has been?) no, of course not. Just like with 'normal' (ha!) UFOs - some will turn out to be identifiable after all (or hoaxes, or whatever) but that doesn't make them all that way.

So while it would be silly to dismiss everything off-hand as 'nothing to see here', it would surely (I hope you'll agree) be just as silly to dismiss quite logical explanations.

My sighting, for instance, can certainly not be ascribed to a plane, or a bird. Whether it turns out to be perfectly mundane remains to be seen, but I know of nothing at the moment which can explain it (hence why I mentioned it on this thread, as it seems to fit, I think). If someone were to provide a perfectly logical explanation for it that seemed quite likely, then I would have to* accept that and I think that is just as important as questioning things.

*reluctantly accept, because I'd love it to be something truly unexplained:D
Totally agree 'Schrodinger's Zebra;' A perfectly logical explanation is always the best way to explain everything... like say asking the question - "is your glass half full, or half empty?" - We all have our own logic to work things out for ourselves, but some things defy logic, until they are explainable that is, for instance - "The glass is half full, but full to me, because that's as much as I wish to have... therefore, my glass is full enough... eh? See - that's a logical explanation, "Or is it?"
 

Sharon Hill

Complicated biological machine
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
501
Likes
960
Points
94
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
#47
Ok, for what it's worth I've never really read much into rods and things... I've heard of them, of course, but that was about it; they certainly weren't one of my 'go to' paranormal subjects. So I'm keeping an open mind. (I do see what @EnolaGaia was driving at with the first photo - that the 'rod' in the middle of the picture is likely an aeroplane; you can see a suggestion of a tail fin on the right hand side).

But you see... I posted somewhere on this forum (probably Minor Strangeness) about an odd thing I'd seen move extremely quickly through the daytime sky one day as we were driving home. It was a thin, perfectly straight shape, perhaps 1cm long (as viewed, not in actuality) and about treetop (pine tree) height or perhaps slightly higher. I had absolutely no idea what it was, never seen anything like it before or (so far) since.

Reason I'm mentioning it again, is that this (extract of second 'rod' on initial photo):
View attachment 18680
and this (extract from Sharon Hill's photo):
View attachment 18681

... are probably the closest pictorial representation of the 'thing' that I saw (I would even say the first picture more than the second, if I had to choose between them). It was milky white/beige sort of colour (two-tone), and moved incredibly fast, only visible for ooh... a second or so, perhaps not even that. Now, bear in mind here, for my sighting we can set aside all discussion of shutter speed... because this wasn't something I captured on camera. I saw it with my own eyes, and they don't have a shutter speed*.

So... I'm just leaving this post here, for you to consider or dismiss at your will. I'm not suggesting any explanation, just thought it was worthy of mention. I still remember the 'thing' I saw, and I still have no explanation for it. :)


*ok someone will probably tell me they do, of some sort, but you know what I mean.
What's so frustrating for all parties is that we can't recreate the event in order to confirm that you are relating the exact description. It would be insulting to you to make suggestions about explanations, so I certainly won't because there are too many possibilities. But I can't recall hearing about many daytime "rods" like you mention.

Here is a perfect rod, taken at night by a home surveillance camera at my friend Sam's house. He thought I would love it and I certainly do. rod.jpg

Could my picture just be the same thing but the resolution is too poor to make out the "fins"? I think so.
 

Sid

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Nov 19, 2018
Messages
170
Likes
204
Points
44
#48
What's so frustrating for all parties is that we can't recreate the event in order to confirm that you are relating the exact description. It would be insulting to you to make suggestions about explanations, so I certainly won't because there are too many possibilities. But I can't recall hearing about many daytime "rods" like you mention.

Here is a perfect rod, taken at night by a home surveillance camera at my friend Sam's house. He thought I would love it and I certainly do. View attachment 18691

Could my picture just be the same thing but the resolution is too poor to make out the "fins"? I think so.
"Nice one!"

My view for ("what it's worth!")is that, as you see the whole lit-up image, it gives the impression of being one object.

Looking at the whole picture - it is sharply lit by the security light, this usually obliterates the true form of an objects detail.

Very similar in aspects to the 'Bat' photo I mentioned a few day's ago.

What I see is a rolling object - a screwed-up packet possibly having a foil type of label (like a cigarette packet), so that as it rolls forward, likely being blown about by the night breeze, it reflects brighter on one part of the object being more reflective (centre core of light in the picture - rolling across the forecourt and catching the security light at each turn of the object - being imaged continuously makes it appear as though it is one object!
How's that? Hope this is comes across as a plausible, possibly logical and reasonable explanation of "what it could be."
 

Schrodinger's Zebra

Eight pounds ten in the biscuit tin
Joined
Mar 8, 2018
Messages
2,067
Likes
3,828
Points
154
#49
Something twisting... yes... I could see that as plausible. The 'problem' (if one can call it that) of a photo of a moving object is that it is difficult to determine the true shape of the thing... it could be elongated due to shutter speed and exposure and all those sorts of variables.

It is a cool photo, though.
 

Sid

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Nov 19, 2018
Messages
170
Likes
204
Points
44
#50
Ok, for what it's worth I've never really read much into rods and things... I've heard of them, of course, but that was about it; they certainly weren't one of my 'go to' paranormal subjects. So I'm keeping an open mind. (I do see what @EnolaGaia was driving at with the first photo - that the 'rod' in the middle of the picture is likely an aeroplane; you can see a suggestion of a tail fin on the right hand side).

But you see... I posted somewhere on this forum (probably Minor Strangeness) about an odd thing I'd seen move extremely quickly through the daytime sky one day as we were driving home. It was a thin, perfectly straight shape, perhaps 1cm long (as viewed, not in actuality) and about treetop (pine tree) height or perhaps slightly higher. I had absolutely no idea what it was, never seen anything like it before or (so far) since.

Reason I'm mentioning it again, is that this (extract of second 'rod' on initial photo):
View attachment 18680
and this (extract from Sharon Hill's photo):
View attachment 18681

... are probably the closest pictorial representation of the 'thing' that I saw (I would even say the first picture more than the second, if I had to choose between them). It was milky white/beige sort of colour (two-tone), and moved incredibly fast, only visible for ooh... a second or so, perhaps not even that. Now, bear in mind here, for my sighting we can set aside all discussion of shutter speed... because this wasn't something I captured on camera. I saw it with my own eyes, and they don't have a shutter speed*.

So... I'm just leaving this post here, for you to consider or dismiss at your will. I'm not suggesting any explanation, just thought it was worthy of mention. I still remember the 'thing' I saw, and I still have no explanation for it. :)


*ok someone will probably tell me they do, of some sort, but you know what I mean.
"Approximately - @ 100 frames per second I believe." 1562524731375.png
 

Sid

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Nov 19, 2018
Messages
170
Likes
204
Points
44
#51
Something twisting... yes... I could see that as plausible. The 'problem' (if one can call it that) of a photo of a moving object is that it is difficult to determine the true shape of the thing... it could be elongated due to shutter speed and exposure and all those sorts of variables.

It is a cool photo, though.
I noted that it couldn't be a round tapered object with a lip, like a plastic cup, say, because it would have rolled with a semi-circular tracking. I did note though that it has a sharply defined edge at each phase of the rolling motion, which gave rise to my thinking it could possibly be a screwed-up twisted packet.
After a bit of a longer think about this one, I say a better guess would be a crunched up crisp packet.
 
Last edited:

Shadowsot

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Apr 24, 2009
Messages
360
Likes
356
Points
79
#53
Man, it's dissapointing how things really do dissappear or at least get buried so deeply it amounts to the same thing, in the internet.
There used to be a very good video comparing lower quality and high Def security cameras.



And human eyes do have a frame rate.
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,286
Likes
1,241
Points
169
#56
It doesn't require a moving insect or bird in the relatively near distance to get a rod within your snapshot. The very same blurry photo anomaly could well represent a moving chopper, light plane, or even an airliner.
I see what you are saying, but it is unlikely to be an aircraft. The photo is very clear, and if you check all the tourists visible in the image none of them show any significant signs of blurring. So the exposure was reasonably short- 1/30 sec, perhaps. That is long enough for an insect to move a few centimetres, but not long enough for a plane to become a blur (unless it were a jet fighter very close by, which does not seem to be the case). So I'm sticking with insect.
 
Top