Talk:Rod (optical phenomenon)

message: UFO and Ghost documentaries can be hilarious, but "Flying Rods" what can top that as a hilarious "mystery" to examine?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.29.190 (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nothing tops Flying Rods

message: This article has some strange POV problems.  Several times it unreservedly claims that Rods are only insects, which is rather POV.  Not only that, but it then confusingly goes on to contradict this view by giving descriptions of Rods according to the "skyfish" theory (also POV).  It's not really presenting both theories as opinions on the matter; instead it seems to be presenting *both* of these mutually exclusive theories as fact.  128.227.188.147 00:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this article has some serious problems. Wikipedia doesn't have to pander to hoaxes, or even well-meaning errors, by presenting all sides as though they were equal. It's okay if the article is on the side of the insect hypothesis because there is evidence that rods are insects and not some new type of flying animal. Maybe it would be best to explain how rods were first presented to the public, in documentaries and on websites like RoswellRods.com, and then go on to say that similar effects were reproduced using insects. People who believe that rods are something other than insects are welcome to come in and present evidence supporting their views.  Gary 20:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Problems =

message: I have three screen captures from August 15, 2003 showing the rod effect on birds in a Weatherbug photo, and how resizing the image changes the number of bird images, indicating the effect is a function of digital video scan rates.  Anyone know if rods have been imaged before digital video?  I can upload the pictures for the article, but I don't know if the Weatherbug and Ulead PhotoImpact windows shown would be fair use of copyright.   Gentaur 06:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screen Captures 

message: The Sci-Fi Channel has aired a show concerning these things on 3-22-06, at 15:00(3pm) EST/EDT.
Website is www.scifi.com. Martial Law 20:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sci-Fi Channel Show

message: I've noticed this article is listed under 'debunked cryptids'. Considering that, unlike creatures such as the jackalope that are OBVIOUSLY not real, Rods are still under at least some debate, I'm not sure they should be listed as 'debunked' just yet. Any thoughts? - Indy Gold 20:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thoroughly debunked. There is actually no "debate" except among people who can't or won't understand how video cameras work. Those of us who routinely shoot videos of insects have plenty of footage as good as or better than Jose Escamilla's - but I think you'll find most entomologists are more concerned with their research than with getting into "debates" with people like Escamilla, or the people who fall for this and similar hoaxes. Don't mistake the point that most credible scientists don't like to waste their time debunking pseudoscience as evidence that scientists don't have the capacity to do so. Simply put, there's little satisfaction in beating one's head against a brick wall, and - as the Straight Dope link pointed out (incorrectly attributing it to P.T. Barnum) - there are still plenty of suckers born every minute. It stretches the entire concept of NPOV to give any credibility to the existence of "rods" since there is no actual evidence for that side of the "debate". NPOV is to allow for unbiased presentation when there are two sides offering different explanations, but there is nothing on the "pro-rod" side here that is not adequately explained by tangible evidence. It is disingenuous to cry that a WP article is failing to adhere to NPOV standards simply because it states that all available evidence indicates that something is a hoax (e.g., see Talk:Crop_circle). By that logic, it would be impossible to inform any WP readers that anything is a hoax, because there must surely be at least one person, somewhere, who truly does believe in every hoax in history (and would therefore claim that they find all of the articles on WP listed in :Category:Hoaxes to be offensively biased). Hoaxes do exist, and there is no good reason that WP should be edited as if they do not as long as someone believes them. It should not require that the person perpetrating the hoax come forward and declare it, and as Talk:Crop_circle and Talk:Loch_Ness_Monster demonstrate, some people still won't even accept such confessions! That is no longer a matter of NPOV. Dyanega 23:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When dealing with any fringe science subject such as Cryptozoology, there is generally a concensus among mainstream scientists that the whole thing is debunked. So, you could easily say that all fringe science topics deserve the "debunked" label if any of them do. However, if you aren't going to label them all as debunked, then the only other measurement by which the "debunked" label could be determined is whether there is a concensus among experts in the particular fringe science field (in this case, a concensus among cryptozoologists) that the creature or phenomenon in question has been debunked. In the case of rods, I do not see citations that prove that rods have been more thoroughly debunked, or are more strongly regarded as a hoax, than Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster. Therefore, speaking of the hoax aspects like a proven fact does violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, unless someone can introduce citations that prove there is considerably more doubt about rods than about most cryptids (don't just introduce citations that say that mainstream scientists have regarded it as a hoax), or unless the debunked label is applied across the board to all unproven cryptids. Simply saying that something is a cryptid generally means that mainstream scientists think of it as debunked, so that giving something a label of both "cryptid" and "debunked" is kind of redundant. We could go in and put the "debunked" label on all mythical creatures too, but it would probably be contested for the same reasons: "debunked" by a concensus of mainstream scientists is implied by the label "mythical." The discussion of the hoax accusations could be left in almost as-is, if the tone was changed from the present highly loaded language to something that sounds like "source #1, #2 and #3 have described rods as a hoax, with the explanations and evidence used being such-and-such". When dealing with controversial subjects, inflammatory words can easily violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. From reading the article, I believe the language is not neutral enough for a Wikipedia article.Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea that in order to be considered a hoax, cryptozoologists have to agree with the "mainstream scientists" (which is itself an absurdly POV title - you are either a scientist - meaning you do science - or you do NOT do science, and are therefore not a scientist), is not a particularly useful criterion. I would maintain that if an encyclopedic reference like WP cannot refer to hoaxes AS hoaxes, then the whole NPOV policy is hypocrisy. Evidently, the idea that "neutral" = "objective" is where you and I differ. Objectively, all existing evidence is that rods are an imaging artifact. Accordingly, the NPOV is that "all existing evidence is that rods are an imaging artifact, but some people believe they are not". That is what the article says, and that's what it should say, to uphold NPOV. Further, my "inflammatory" remarks are here, in the discussion page, not in the main article. There is no policy requiring NPOV in the discussion. I'll also note that the phrase "Rods are not taken seriously even by most cryptozoologists" (which I did not write) does in fact imply that there is a consensus among "cryptozoologists." Or is your definition of "consensus" restricted to mean "if Jose Escamilla admits he's wrong"? I seriously doubt that will ever happen. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there is none. It's quite simple. Peace, Dyanega 01:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In referring to my disscussion, you said my idea was that "The idea that in order to be considered a hoax, cryptozoologists have to agree with the "mainstream scientists..." but that is not what I said. What I said was that there are degrees of plausibility amongst cryptids, and if you are going to come out and say that something IS a hoax instead of MIGHT BE a hoax, you'd better have some sources to show that it is regarded as a hoax MORE SO THAN CRYPTIDS IN GENERAL ARE. For example, the Cottingley_Fairies are considered quite heavily debunked, and the article has the sources to show that. Unless you are offering sources showing that Rods are more heavily debunked than other cryptids, then the article IS either violating Wikipedia:No original research (because someone independently offered their own conclusions as proof of the hoax) and/or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Arguing that it's a hoax because it sounds silly and is a cryptid just doesn't cut it according to Wikipedia rules. Nor does showing me a bunch of mainstream scientists who don't believe it, because that judgement colors ALL cryptids. Show me the sources. Show sources that paint Rods as more hoax-ridden than Bigfoot, and then you can use language in the article that discusses them as if they have been conclusively debunked. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Compliments on your debating skills, but this is not really a debate, as there is an inherent asymmetry. The burden of proof is entirely upon those who claim rods DO exist, not those who do not. If every one of the world's 50,000 entomologists knows that "rods" are insects captured on video, but none of them publish elaborate debunkings (because, say, it would be a waste of their time?) then are we to assume that this is tacit acceptance of the premise that rods are NOT insects? No. The evidence that "rods" are video artifacts IS cited in the article, and NO scientist needs to formally publish a debunking in order for it to be considered debunked GIVEN THE EXISTING EVIDENCE. It's not reasonable, nor logical, to claim that the evidence is meaningless unless it appears collated and expounded upon in a single published source. Has any herpetologist ever published a formal debunking of, say, the hoop snake? Probably not, yet people consider them mythical, even in the absence of debunking. Rods fall into the same category. Besides, what is there about, say, the "Straight Dope" link given that makes it NOT a source showing that debunking has occurred? Dyanega 18:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing worth noting is that cryptozoology is not pseudoscience; it is simply that a large number of people who engage in what they claim to be cryptozoology are in fact cranks. Additionally, cryptids certainly do exist; a good recent example would be the grizzly bear-polar bear hybrid. Just because people believe in things like rods and Champ doesn't mean that the whole field is bunk, simply that a number of cranks and sketchy individuals with poor research habits, great naivite, insufficient skepticism, insufficient adherence to the scientific method, and/or people who simply don't understand what science is are associated with the field. I'd hardly call magnetism pseudoscience, but people regularly try and sell magnets which supposedly have all sorts of entiely unconfirmed and highly unlikely properties. I think its an issue of the field being somewhat hijacked by people who are cranks, rather than the field itself being pseudoscience. A similar thing happened with ESP/telepathic research, which is why most people won't touch it with a ten foot pole anymore (though that has been more throughly debunked, and probably doesn't exist, as opposed to cryptids, some of which probably exist, though don't hold your breath waiting for Nessie). Titanium Dragon 21:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with mermaid.  The other point of view would make all cryptids debunked, just bacause biologists haven't got a body.  Since one or two of the cryptids probably do exist, you end up putting Debunked on something that actually exists, and I don't know how the giant sloth would feel about that!  Puddytang 08:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it wouldn't.  There is a difference between a complete lack of evidence for something, and evidence that something isn't what it is claimed to be in the form of an explaination of how the equipment used and the conditions under which the images were captured would combine to produce the effect.  That is enough for most reasonable observers.  Hey, when Penn and Teller show you how a couple common magic tricks are done, does that still leave room for other magicians to really have POWERS?  Metaphysically, maybe, but not in a courtroom.  When you refuse to accept evidence that something is false and instead go hunting for other explainations, no matter how tenuous, no matter how unlikely, and no matter how unrelated, you are not being open-minded.  You are rendering your belief unassailable.  No one will ever prove it false, because whatever they disprove will be replaced with some other baseless explaination.  This is magical thinking.  No matter what someone does to try and prove or disprove your belief, if they fail to produce the result you want THEY MUST BE DOING IT WRONG.  This is as closed-minded as you can possibly get.  That's why the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. Andy Christ 21:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: To prove conclusively weather these exist or not you should have a normal camera and a high speed camera looking at the same point, then when the normal camera shows what appears to be a rod the high speed camera would either agree showing a long rod or disagree showing a small bug moving at high speed. It's an idea but I don't know if it's practical in any way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.87.193.40 (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That wouldn't satisfy anyone who cares.  They want too much to believe.  Andy Christ 21:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Believing in paranormal activity is normal for humans and it's due to a part of the brain that will try to find an explanation for sensory input no matter the quality of the input. The most common example is seing moving shadows in the dark. Our eyes start to fail and low level noise from the retina competes with the actual light input. That said to believe in paranormal is still pretty foolish because there is no scientific evidence whatsoever despite many attempts to prove it. Hundreds of years of observation cannot lead us to conclude that there is any form of paranormal activity. In fact, the more we understand about our universe the smaller the niches become where believers can hide their perception. Same goes for the concepts of the various gods people believe in around the world. If you believe in paranormal things it realy just means that you don't understand the universe very well. An educated person must nessesarily dismiss facts to be able to belief in the paranormal. Even better, it has been shown that our concious perception is a product of the brain. Humans are unable to perceive the raw data as it comes out of our senses. It is heavily processed and knit into what your brain at  that time believes should be real. It's an internal stage that incorporates all the senses into one continuous experience. But that stage can be pretty far off from reality. You should therefore ALWAYS have some distrust in your senses. We are imperfect organic machines that have brains that make stuff up to fill in the perceptual holes. We will and do make stuff up to explain what we don't understand and even when we understand it it can be difficult to ignore this instinct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.238.229 (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Guys, has anyone bothered to run these "rod" photos through an image-processing algorithm to see if they've been Photoshopped?  There's a really good one available on Wired.com.  The source code is located here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hokie Tech (talk • contribs) 17:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't need to be photoshopped - that's the main reason so many people are convinced they're "real". Anyone using a typical video camera can produce the same effects; no special tricks or software are required. When Joe Q. Citizen sits down with his newlywed bride, puts in their freshly-minted wedding video, and they see "rods" flying around the heads of the people at their backyard reception, and have no recollection of seeing any such "aerial rods" at the event, can you blame them for being puzzled? Dyanega (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Debunked?

message: Wikipedia should not have instructive sections (see Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information).  This section needs to be reworded to explain that this is how some existing person has created this effect. Twelvethirteen 21:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reproducing Rods 

message: After viewing the history channel special Monster Quest it seems there are a lot of diffrent ideas as to what rods can be and where they are from, obviously outside the debunkery.  Transdimensional beings was an intresting thought, some have thought them to be experimental aircraft, others UFOs.   Should we add a section for theories?  --161.28.166.12 (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can produce sourced statements from reliable sources, then including them here is fine - as long as everything is clear as to who is making the claim, and their exact words. But saying "Some guy on a TV show said something" does not qualify as a reliable attributed source. Does this show have transcripts online, for example? Dyanega (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Towards the end of the show, someone captures a 'rod' using a high-speed and normal camera at the same time. The normal camera shows a stupid 'rod' thingy and the high-speed camera shows a MOTH. Debate over. Go home. It's all over. Morons. MiracleMat (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Hear hear! --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 16:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

text: This is a place for discussing the article, not the subject, so we don't need to discuss whether any such putative creature exists or not, only what secondary sources say about whether it exists or not.  If any of the suggested explanations that User:161.28.166.12 mentions have any kind of suitable sources then we can include them for the interest of our readers. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 11:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We may be able to include them, subject to the idea of undue weight.  Its not appropriate to extensively include multiple fringe theories in a way that makes them, by the sheer amount of text, appear to be a majority view.  The mainstream view which appears to be that they are optical artifacts, should be the primary one in the article. Just because there is an article somewhere on some other fringe view doesnt necessarily mean that it is notable enough for inclusion.Locke9k (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theories of what Rods may be and where they come from (out of Debunkery) 

message: This text section appears to be OR, and if so, is in violation of policy:
:On April 25, 2008, photographer Bil Paul was using a 1.3 megapixel cameraphone to photograph a swarm of insects above a stream in San Mateo, California. In one of the first shots, several of the insects are clearly seen frozen in time, with a single pair of wings. In a later shot, with a slower shutter speed as indicated by a brighter background, the insects suddenly become "flying rods." The assumption is that with the slower shutter speed, the insects became blurred along their flight path, and exhibit multiple wing beats, making them look like flying centipedes.
Without a citation, this cannot be included in the article. Dyanega (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited text: may be OR 

message: In 1997 Alex Collier stated that the noticeable change between moving from 3rd density to 5th density will be that people will start video taping things called Rods. He said these were infact space craft in 4th and 5th densities, these E.Ts have no idea they're flying through us cos we're on 3rd density. I suggest people research more about Alex Collier and his encounters. Thanks.-- 90.209.199.81 (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rods

message: The majority of the intro was not referenced and strongly appeared to be original research.  It also violated NPOV for pseudoscience and fringe theories by presenting a fringe view as if it were the majority view. I have removed this material.  Locke9k (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research

message: I was drinking a big bottle of lucozade around a lake. I closed the lid without thinking and something serpent like was inside it. i freaked out and threw the bottle in the lake and spat out in reaction to it. It looked a bit like an eel but more "fragile".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.186.116 (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Could that have been a fish larva, like this?Gary (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Found one

message: I marked the statement about the BBC event being a discredited rod because the given citation does not make that claim.  Also it seems too big and fast to be a moth (which is what the rest of the article seems to be talking about).  At best this seems to be OR, or it might be a hoax edit.  206.188.60.75 (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: Can the editor who added the map explain the 'location' of the flying rods as depicted.OK, I get Roswell, China and Indonesia, as they are all mentioned in the article, but is there some specific reason to only include these? Paul B (talk) 11:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I get the data also from this article, like you mention above, there's Roswell, China and Indonesia Malaysia, the others countries I still didn't know if rods already been discovered. But, If you have some sources, I can update the map. :) — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 12:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: I feel I must add something to this discussion. While I am a Skeptic, I must offer this one piece of advice to those "debating" the existance of rods: The absence of proof is not proof itself. When science explains that Rods are in fact distortions caused by low speed video, then that is proof they don't exist in reality. From what little I understand, Rods only appear in low speed video clips. Unless someone can produce a real life rod, or one that cannot be explained by science (Such as a rod on a high speed camera), then the argument can continue.
That should end the debate there. While a scientific analysis cannot be done on every rod video, since not everyone filming has access to a high speed camera, it does not mean that rods must exist. Science proves what causes rods to appear, so why is the "debate still ongoing? SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army Infantryman (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Argument of Proof

message: Please view this Painting; https://app.box.com/shared/s93990xm00
With a little study, this painting will be found with enough content to reveal a proper name for the rod phenomenon. For a little more context regarding the painting, it appears in the wordpress blog.
https://gevluef.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/46605-docent/
The bottom line is that the painting 46605 causes the rod phenomenon.
76.79.113.210 (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work of Art may be the cause 

message: Substituted at 04:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Moved to Rod (ufology), redirecting this namespace to Rod cells. Thanks, and happy editing! (non-admin closure) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 08:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Rod (optics) →  – Although they are an optical effect, "rods" aren't a topic of interest in the field of optics. The article is mainly about the folklore around them and the debunking/skepticism in response to that. I think changing the word in parentheses to "ufology" makes it more clear what the article is actually about. Another possibility would be to use an alternative name such as "Skyfish" or "Air rod" that doesn't require disambiguation. 143.244.37.89 (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

text: The discussion above is closed.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 Just waiting for Rod (ufology) to be deleted to make way for the move. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 12:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

text: Happy editing! ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 22:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, can you move the page to "Rod (ufology)" again? It seems some editor has tried to move it back to a similar title as before. 156.146.63.52 (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey! It looks like  moved this upon better inspection of the RM, so I think the current title will do for now. When closing the RM I didn't really see any specific consensus about exactly where the article should be moved, so I defaulted to the original destination suggested, as it also complies with WP:CONCISE. I think a case could be made for  to be a bit shorter, but there's WP:NORUSH. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , yes, no disrespect to anyone involved, but based on the discussion and knowledge of the history I thought Paintspot's suggested title was better supported and probably more NPOV. Everyone did what the saw as best, no animals were harmed, objects may be closer than they appear in the mirror etc. :-) Guy (help! - typo?) 10:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 24 September 2020