Rods, Please!
Posted by: Loren Coleman on March 12th, 2007
Sorry, I don’t find anything remotely cryptozoologically about these so-called mystery flying things and I actually find them somewhat of a nuisance, as they have been debunked often. But people keep wanting to discuss them within a cryptid context.
Here’s the latest one for today:
About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct).
Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015.
Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.
There were two “rod” films that intrigued me. One, is the famous “cliff jumper” film where people are free-falling and the rod-type things are captured on film;
Another, is apparently of a young man and his birthday party (filmed in black and white); the rod-type thing flies around the boy and tree (if memory serves) and back out of the picture.
Some of the films appear to be real. But not a large number. The rest is, captured bugs on film. Or misinterpreted whatevers.
That’s my sense.
Hello, Loren
I wouldn’t be surprised if a form of life adapted to live in our atmospheric “soup” was found. I believe Sanderson wrote about this possibility and described several sightings of large “rods” by pilots. The cliff jumper video is also extremely interesting to watch. Could you post a link, Loren, to the debunking you mention?
Worth following the link to the Japanese ‘Rod Trap’ page. For only $499 they will send you two bent sticks!
I sometimes wish I didn’t still retain a faint trace of integrity.
As a person who has dabbled in amateur still photography, I have a firm belief in “rods”. I believe, firmly, that they are merely insects caught on film that has captured them in a manner deceiving to our eyes. I put “rods” in the same category as “orbs”. Both can be found on film and on websites about ‘paranormal’ activity. Moths, flies, pollen and dust.
People who are looking for giants will often tilt at windmills.
That was a fascinating video. I, too, would like to read the article(s) that debunk rods, but the video was compelling. Not at first, however. The Youtube compression is so bad the video was almost unwatchable. But towards the end the “rods” were in more detail. I wonder why I’ve never heard of them before. When did skyfish first appear on the cryptid radar?
I believe Sanderson referred to living things in our atmosphere more in reference of his belief that some UFO’s could be, and act more like living creatures than machines. Not to bring up another taboo subject. some of the more compelling films and video of UFO’s show lights that dart around and make right angle turns that no machine could. Yet these are some of the same motions that are seen by creatures as varied as deer, fish, and hummingbirds. Flying rods or airborne life are easier to believe than mothmen, owlmen, etc.
I agree with 12inchPianist.
Why haven’t we seen any ghost hunter test out his/her orb theory armed with a vacuum cleaner?
It’s just like people getting really excited over the difference in energy levels between the inside and the outside of a cropcirlce. Between standing and lying wheat. What were they doing in their physics class?
The description of the website says it all: “a weekly delve into cryptozoology, ufology, aliens, medical marvels, scientific wonders, secret societies, government conspiracies, cults, ghosts, EVPs” etc. Pooh! to the third power.
Well, since Loren’s busy scaring up cryptids for his Cryptozoological Maine pamphlet, I thought I’d look into these things. My first concern was “Why haven’t I heard of these before?” If these things are so easy to video tape, why is there even any doubt that they are real? Why did they just stand there ogling them instead of trying to capture them in a makeshift net. I mean, they were EVERYWHERE. A veritable Shangri-La of Skyfish. The other concern I had was that aside from the closeups, the skyfish looks liked bugs flying by the camera. Guess what; they are.
According to Wikipedia:
What we need to see are PHOTOGRAPHS not video stills to debunk the debunking. Otherwise, the double exposure of rapidly moving insects across video would account for the elongated and wave-like shapes.
Great post, Loren. Thanks!
12inchPianist is in the same state of mind as most of us, including myself.
Like most things, if it was there and was real, actual scientists would be talking about it.
Wow – I’m gonna have to see if I have any of those photos from my days as a beginning photgrapher – all those streaks and thumbs may not be so mundane after all!
A somewhat knockabout sports programme here in the UK a couple of years back showed a film of, I think, a Sri Lankan cricketer standing at his crease between deliveries (hope this is not to parochial for our American friends). Slowed down the film showed a massive ‘rod’ that must have been 3 -4 feet in length flying into shot, circling the batsman head and flying off again.
Anyone remember that? Anyone in England I mean (well, I mean, cricket an’ all …)
I captured all kinds of “rods” on video tape last summer; most of them bit me. The Escamilla video is easy to reproduce on any late summer day, especially during a “hatch” of mayflies or other bugs. Gnats filmed at slow speed make cool “rods”, but who wants to get eaten alive or get bugs up your nose?
Sanderson was the first that I know of who mentioned these, although they’ve probably been around for ever. (At least, his was the first mention I read about). He called them “Atmospheric Fish” and speculated that they floated, nearly transparent in the atmospheric winds that surround the planet like atmospheric jellyfish. I’m very skeptical about their existence, but there have been reports of “globs” settling to earth every so often that quickly evaporate. Also “angel hair”–strands of weblike filament, and so forth.
I’ll file it away in the back of my mind to wonder about on lazy days, I guess.
This is embarrasing to Cryptozoology. It’s not anything but an optical illusion due to frame rates. So move on already. And don’t waste money on the videos. Why do we put up with this and at the same time demand that someone bring in a body of a bigfoot? Why doesn’t Jose bring in a Rod body? At least we have a decent film/video of a real Sasquatch.
And the only thing that happens when the frame rate of that film is adjusted to it’s probable proper speed we only get a true feel of the weight and power of the animal. Can’t say this for “Rods”. I saw a slowed down film of what one looks like and it was a moth. Patty doesn’t turn into a puppy.
I still find this interesting, if only as an illustration of the illusions that can be inadvertently created.
Oh, sorry, I thought you meant pretzel rods.
Thanks, I’ll pass.
Rods are bugs, IMHO.
You’re right Loren, I once found a video on the Web that showed a lamp post at night. There were dozens of “rods” flying around it, until the camera zoomed in, and it became obvious that they were bugs. It was undeniable. I can’t find the video now, sadly.
So spare [me] the rods.
The only rods I’m familiar with are hotrods, fishing rods and lightning rods.
I am skeptical of all reports debunking phenomenon that may upset some people. Reason being is the apparent presence of a curious cycle of coincidence in the past, whereby every 6 months, the UPI would release a story implying that Bigfoot was all a clever hoax. The feds have an unlimited amount of money to affect public sentiment by manufacturing propaganda that keeps the 100 to 200 million people in the US, that are barely hanging onto reality by their fingernails, in their comfort zone. Bigfoot, particularly a paranormal Bigfoot, took them out of that comfort zone. So the feds in the past, appear to have been behind that cycle of Bigfoot hoax propaganda. With the recent onset of Bigfoot commercials coming out of Hollywood that humorize them, perhaps due to a nearby BFRO influence in California, that cycle of Bigfoot hoax propaganda appears to have ceased. So any Rod hoax propaganda that I may read about, causes me to have flashbacks of deja vu.
I feel a need to post one more comment or so on this….
If this phenomenon is, as some here promulgate, merely an “artefact of video-ography,” then it is relatively simple to remove this idea as a factor.
Film the rods using 16mm color film. Put the film rate at 28 feet/second. Get the film developed, and look at the results, frame by frame.
Process the results. No more videotape or video flip rate problems.
or put the feet/second rate at 100+/frames a second. It might eat the film quickly, but that would freeze any “bug movements,” and that would resolve everything I would think. Then we can say, “it is bugs!” or not.