All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Oct. 24, 2006 - Skeptoid
11:20
Skeptoid #4: Rods: Flying Absurdities

There is neither evidence nor plausible hypotheticals suggesting that invisible flying "rods" might exist. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
The Mystery of Invisible Rods 00:09:38
Some say they fall into the realm of cryptozoology, and some consider them tiny UFOs.
They're called rods, strange stick-figure-like flying creatures that appear in your photograph only after it was developed, when there was nothing there at the time the picture was taken.
Today we're going to have a look at what causes rods and what the true believers have to say about that explanation.
Rods are up next on Skeptoid.
A quick reminder for everyone, you're listening to Skeptoid, revealing the true science and true history behind urban legends every week since 2006.
With over a thousand episodes, we're celebrating 20 years of keeping it focused and keeping it brief.
And we couldn't have done it without your curiosity leading the way.
And now we're even offering a little bit more.
If you become a premium member, supporting the show with a monthly micropayment of as little as $5, you get more Skeptoid.
The premium version of the show is not only ad-free, it has extended content.
These episodes are a few minutes longer.
We get rid of the ads and we'll replace them with more Skeptoid.
The Extended Premium Show available now.
Come to Skeptoid.com and click Go Premium.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
Rods, Flying Absurdities.
From the cryptozoology files, we're going to look today at rods, those magical, mystical, living UFOs believed by some to inhabit the invisible shadowlands of Earth.
Rods are said to be flying creatures from a few centimeters to a meter in length that are invisible to humans but visible to cameras, both film and digital, both still and video.
Their bodies are shaped like long thin rods and their only appendages are wavy wings, one on each side, stretching the full length of their bodies.
They move through the air by undulating these wings like long thin aerial manta rays.
A gentleman named Jose Escamilla claims to be the discoverer of rods.
On his website, roswellrods.com, he says that he first captured rods on video in 1994.
He says he was taping UFOs, an auspicious start to any report, when he accidentally filmed the rods as well.
Since Mr. Escamilla did not recall seeing any such thing in person while he was taping, he decided the most likely explanation for his video is that he'd discovered a new species of flying creature that is invisible to humans and only shows up on film or video.
Since then, innumerable photographs and videos have surfaced that purport to show rods.
Search the internet and you'll find hundreds of them.
If rods are as ubiquitous as it would seem they are, why is their existence not generally accepted?
Justification for the existence of rods requires that four basic claims be proven or at least shown to be reasonable.
One, there should be zoological precedence for the existence of undiscovered insects up to a meter in length.
New species are being discovered all the time, but few that are that size.
Nevertheless, it's possible, however unlikely.
All they need to do to prove it is to produce one that can be examined.
2.
We must accept the unprecedented existence of creatures that are invisible, although they're up to a meter in length.
Discounting microscopic organisms, the natural world offers no better than transparency, such as that found in some species of jellyfish.
Transparency is not invisibility.
Supporters of rods have not proven that invisibility in the animal kingdom is possible, and they will need to do so by presenting an invisible animal.
3.
Certain images must be visible only in the output of all types of visible wavelength cameras, but not visible to the naked eye.
When cameras output their images to the final medium, be it film, paper, or a video screen, we see their output because our eyes see the same visible wavelengths that were recorded and output.
We're not talking about thermographic or other non-visible wavelength camera technologies here, so rod supporters will need to prove that all standard cameras can convert certain invisible wavelengths into visible ones without affecting the visible wavelengths, which is something those cameras were not designed to do.
Only with this proof can it be reasonably accepted that it's possible for a camera to see a solid object that was invisible to the photographer's eye in a world that can feel overwhelming, spreading thoughtful, evidence-based content is one of the best ways to make a positive impact.
Ask your local public radio station to air the Skeptoid Files, a 30-minute radio-friendly version of Skeptoid that pairs two related episodes promoting real science, true history, and critical thinking.
And in these challenging times for public media, we're offering these broadcasts for free to radio stations, available on the PRX Exchange or directly from Skeptoid Media.
It's an easy ask.
Just send a quick message to your station's programming director.
By helping to bring the Skeptoid files to the airwaves, you'll help promote the essential skills we all need to tell fact from fiction.
Just go to your local station's website, find the programming director's email address, or just their general email address.
You can even use the telephone.
I know that might sound crazy.
It's an old legacy device that allows real-time voice communication.
I know that's weird, but hey, it's an option.
The world can feel chaotic, but you're not powerless.
When you promote critical thinking, you can help your community tell fact from fiction.
And that's how we shape a better future.
In uncertain times, spreading good ideas can make you feel helpful, not helpless.
Let's stand up for reason, truth, and understanding.
Together, get them to air the Skeptoid files from Skeptoid Media, available on the PRX Exchange, and they'll know what that is.
4.
Even if all of the above can be substantiated, there needs to be a lack of a more likely explanation.
If a simple procedure can be shown to easily reproduce the appearance of rods on camera, then we haven't even established that there is a phenomenon to be investigated.
As you might expect, there is indeed an alternate explanation and a simple procedure to take a picture showing rods.
Imagine yourself standing with the sun at your back, facing a large shaded area, such as the shaded entrance to a cave.
Dragonflies, or other insects, are flying everywhere, darting back and forth at around 9 meters per second.
Take a photograph with a common shutter speed of 1 30th of a second.
In that time, the dragonfly will travel about 30 centimeters.
Because your exposure is set for the dark background, the path traced by the dragonfly's transit will be overexposed and will appear solid white.
Dragonflies beat their wings about 30 times a second, so the path described by its wingtip on your film image would be one full sine wave period, 30 centimeters long.
There would be one of these sine waves down each side of the 30 centimeter long, rod-shaped track traced by the dragonfly's moving body.
Change these parameters with different types of insects, different wing speeds, different camera shutter speeds, and you can duplicate any rod photograph on the internet.
This phenomenon is so common that most any professional photographer can tell you about being plagued by it while trying to take outdoor photographs or video in similar lighting conditions.
Nevertheless, the resulting image is strange enough that someone not familiar with photography basics might conclude that the subject in the photograph was in fact 30 centimeters long with undulating wings, and the photographer would be absolutely correct in stating that he did not see any 30 centimeter long flying creatures with his naked eye.
The conclusion from all this is that rods are a well-known, well-established, and well-understood byproduct of photography.
The proposed alternate explanation that they are an unknown and invisible life form only seen by cameras requires that some pretty outrageous claims about invisibility and photography be proven.
Until they are, or until a rod is captured and can be studied, I see no reason to suspect that such things might exist.
Always look for the alternate explanation that does not require dramatic new assumptions.
Why We Depend on You 00:01:38
Skeptoid is produced by Skeptoid Media, a 501c3 nonprofit that is completely listener supported and we do depend on your donations to keep this show coming.
So please, if you got a minute, come visit us at skeptoid.com to learn about the show or skeptoid.org to learn about the company.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from skeptoid.com.
Hello everyone, this is Adrienne Hill from Skookum Studios in Calgary, Canada, the land of maple syrup and moose.
And I'm here to ask you to consider becoming a premium member of Skeptoid for as little as $5 per month.
And that's only the cost of a couple of Tim Horton's double doubles.
And that's Canadian for coffee with double cream and sugar.
Why support Skeptoid?
If you are like me and don't like ads, but like extended versions of each episode, Premium is for you.
If you want to support a worthwhile non-profit that combats pseudoscience, promotes critical thinking, and provides free access to teachers to use the podcast in the classroom via the Teacher's Toolkit, then sign up today.
Remember that skepticism is the best medicine.
Next to giggling, of course.
Until next time, this is Adrienne Hill.
From PRX.
Export Selection