Rods...

[bad credit]

Did anybody else see the History Channel's show on rods last night?

I thought they had been debunked as high-speed insects distorted by slow film. But they debunked that theory last night.

So WTF are rods?

If you don't know what rods are, google.

[SpringHeeledJack]

I watched the same thing, but I fell asleep about halfway through. I TiVo'd it though so I'll watch it in a bit. The scene where they were showing the base jumpers and saying it was the most convincing footage of rods looked, to me, the most like insects flying past the camera. I didn't make it to the part where they debunked the insects. I'll come back to thread later on when I'm finished watching it.

[DdlR]

I saw most of it and the conclusion was that "rods" are generally ordinary objects (birds, insects, falling debris, whatever) recorded under certain conditions which create distortions/illusions on film or video, and which generally aren't noticed until the film/video is studied later.

Notably, the flight pattern of a moth flying close to the camera under test conditions was clearly shown to create a bizarre "rod-like" image when filmed under a particular light and with a certain camera speed. The main point was that while cameras don't lie, they can't always tell the truth; sophisticated cameras can still misinterpret what's right in front of them, especially if it's moving fast.

[D Dempsey]

I watched the same thing. Two guys filmed and area with both a high speed camera and a normal camera. When they found a "rod" on the normal footage, they compared it to the high speed footage and it turned out to be a moth. Thus concluding that "rods" are only a visual artifact that appear only on cameras and why they aren't normally visible. It also proved that people will still believe their delusion when confronted with the truth.

[SpringHeeledJack]

I just finished watching it. They didn't debunk the bugs-as-rods theory at all. In fact, they confirmed it, at least for some cases. I don't want to sound smug or anything, but it's exactly what I thought it was; everyday animals or objects that don't look like everyday objects due to the failures of image capturing devices. It seemed pretty clear from the first few images they presented.

I like MonsterQuest, if for no other reason than it makes me laugh and I get to feel superior to so-called "experts." These people refuse to look at the logical, simple explanations for things and instead jump right into believing the wildest theories that pop into their heads. Really, why would someone, upon seeing rods, instead of thinking, "oh wow, what a weird video artifact this is," go straight to "HOLY HELL THIS IS A CREATURE FROM THE 4TH DIMENSION!" Willful ignorance really pisses me off.

Did anyone see the episode about bigfoot attacks? There was a cabin that had been ransacked and the guy wasn't sure what had caused it. The expert said that it could not have been ransacked by a bear because the sheeting on the refrigerator wasn't torn open. Because of this the guy said, "Oh well, must've been a bigfoot." WTF is that ****? If it was me, and I knew bears liked the way the insulation in refrigerators smelled and would likely tear them open to get at it, I'd have been like, "Man, that bear really fucked up your house LOL. Hey look at that. He didn't tear up your refrigerator. That's odd. A lot of times bears will do that. I guess he didn't feel like eating ants, or maybe your insulation doesn't smell like ants. Look on the bright side man. At least you don't have to buy another fridge." I just don't understand why people are so willing to believe bullshit.

[SpringHeeledJack]

Also, I think your choice of thread title was unfortunate.

[benonmsn]

I saw most of it and the conclusion was that "rods" are generally ordinary objects (birds, insects, falling debris, whatever) recorded under certain conditions which create distortions/illusions on film or video, and which generally aren't noticed until the film/video is studied later.

Notably, the flight pattern of a moth flying close to the camera under test conditions was clearly shown to create a bizarre "rod-like" image when filmed under a particular light and with a certain camera speed. The main point was that while cameras don't lie, they can't always tell the truth; sophisticated cameras can still misinterpret what's right in front of them, especially if it's moving fast.

This is the correct answer. they didnt say it, but it was clearly recreated and basically proven. they wanted to leave it up the viewer to decide but it was debunked, big time.