Rod (cryptozoology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.

Rods, a rather new entry in the field of Cryptozoology, are creatures said to flit about in the air at such a high speed as to not be seen by the naked eye. Rods appear to be observational artifacts produced by rapidly flying animals. Practically all sightings of rods are based on video evidence, due to the propensity of video cameras to produce characteristic stroboscopic artifacts when imaging rapidly flying animals, especially insects, but also including birds. Their recent popularity seems to be a result of media exposure in television and in tabloids. Jose Escamilla, who runs the website RoswellRods.com, has appeared in numerous interviews and television "investigations".

1 Description
2 Explanations
3 Flying Rod mystery solved?
4 Trivia
5 External links

[edit] Description

Rods gain their name from their rodlike shape. However, they have also been called "flying rods", "skyfish" and "solar entities". They appear to be anywhere from 5 inches to 1 meter in length, and it is proposed by that they have a thin membrane across their axis that is used for propulsion through the air, in a manner similar to the way a cuttlefish uses its fins. Rods are not classified as atmospheric beasts because rods are nearly always described as much smaller than atmospheric beasts, as invisible to the naked eye, and in addition rods have a much shorter history as a subject of research in the fields of cryptozoology and the paranormal.

[edit] Explanations

Rods are not taken seriously even by most cryptozoologists. All evidence points to the conclusion that they are mere tricks of light that result from how images (primarily video images) are recorded and played back. In particular, the fast passage before the camera of an insect flapping its wings has been shown directly to produce rod-like effects, due to motion blur in the two interlaced image fields that compose each video frame, lasting 1/60th of a second (NTSC video format). This criticism points to video being physically unable to capture a clean image of something that moves so fast relative to the camera. In particular, the "membrane" in a video frame of a rod is effectively a time-lapse of the wings of the flying animal in different positions over several wingbeats, while the central "rod" is a time-lapse image of the body, related to the distance traveled in 1/60th of a second. The effect is especially pronounced with large, long-bodied insects that have broad wings and fairly slow wingbeats, such as mantises, grasshoppers, and katydids, or completely opaque wings such as moths. On video equipment that resolves the two fields, the "rod" effect can be seen to alternate from one field to the other, producing the distinctive gaps between successive images ([1]). Similar results can be produced using standard film, if there is a long exposure and/or a stroboscopic lighting effect that lasts more than a single wingbeat. This is the technical evidence, demonstrating that one can produce "rod" effects at will if one uses the right equipment, lighting, and subject.

[edit] Flying Rod mystery solved?

In the early autumn of 2005, news bulletins in China and Hong Kong reported on a story which debunked the flying rods. Surveillance cameras in a research facility in Jilin supposedly captured video footage of flying rods identical to those shown in Jose Escamilla's video. The curious research staff of the facility, being scientists, decided that they would attempt to catch one. Huge nets were set up and the same surveillance cameras captured rods flying into the trap. When the nets were inspected, the "rods" were no more than regular moths and other flying insects. Subsequent investigations proved that the appearance of flying rods on video was an optical illusion created by the slower recording speed of the camera (done to save video space). This is the empirical evidence, showing that the "rods" themselves can be captured, and that they do indeed prove to be ordinary animals.

[edit] Trivia

Skyfish are similar to crop circles in that they have been "debunked" to the satisfaction of many, yet continue to attract interest. For instance, the Japanese company skyfish-maniax.com sells a device called a "spoodle"[2], which skyfish hobbyists can allegedly use to catch skyfish. Spoodles resemble white plastic toy rapiers with a curl at the tip. A set of two spoodles and a "decoy" (a skyfish-shaped tube at the end of a string, spun like a bull roarer), goes for $499 US. It is unclear if spoodle is a generic name for this device in Japan or the specific brand-name used by skyfish-maniax.com.