Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Sep -> Re: 'Rods'? - In Answer to all

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 12:44:35 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 01:29:00 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Rods'? - In Answer to all


>  From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>, on 9/18/97 4:30 AM:
>  From: rjke@webtv.net (Jose and Karen Escamilla)
>  Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 21:21:26 -0600
>  To: updates@globalserve.net
>  Subject: Re: 'Rods'? - In Answer to all

>  Mark mentions that the shadow across the torso of the cave rod "could
>  be" duplicated with a time exposure, and he gives an example about a
>  ball using this technque; but the cave rod was shot in real time video
>  as the base jumper took his dive.

>  This was a one shot deal. Not allowing for any time lapse photography as
>  Mark so carelessly suggests. Nice try, but Mark be more realistic in
>  your insights.

Jose, you are missing my point. The question was how an object
blurred in a frame by motion could show a cast shadow on itself.
I explained it the way I did so that anyone could attempt to
reproduce it.

However, it is essential to remember that EVERY image, video or photo
is a "time exposure", and depending on the speed and proximity of the
object involved, one can experience the same effects in a 1/10000
of a second exposure as in a 3 second exposure.

And some of the information posted here indicates that 1/10000 of a sec
in a video camera does not have the same stopping power as in a camera
with an actual shutter.

>  Bruce Maccabee, Dr. Jack Kasher and Jim Dilettoso have seen the cave
>  footage and I finally got topographical maps, latitude/longitude
>  information on the cave, which will be forwarded to Bruce, Jack and Jim,
>  so that thy can use this data in finding out how big, fast and far away
>  this thing was from the base jumper and the camera.

>  Bruce says that once he gathers this information & data about the time
>  of day and time that this event was taped, he will be able to determine
>  the probable size and speed of this Rod object from the cave. This will
>  certainly rule the insect theory.

As always, I have a hard time seeing how you can know
the results of this analysis before you perform it.

I appreciate your confidence in your methods, but it is more
scientific to be skeptical prior to measurement and analysis.
At least to say "this analysis will cast some light on the
insect theory, etc." would be a safer statement.

I am not sure how lat/long data is going to tell anyone how
far the object was from the camera. The only reliable method
for determining this is parallax and triangulation.

>  Mark and others feel that we're not being scientific enough to warrant
>  ourselves as serious investigators. If science is based on closed minded
>  opinions before the fact, then I suggest the annals of scientific
>  investigation be re-written. Unless you are out in the field with us,
>  documenting and adding your knowledge to this investigation, then I
>  doubt that anyone should take your commentary as a serious scientific
>  analysis of the Rods phenomena.

Why do personalities have to be brought in to this? Can't
your data stand up to technical criticism? Do you think
that people in the conventional sciences don't get their
experiments questioned? Do you think that measurement
errors and artifacts aren't issues in conventional
science?

Why would I bother with the critique if I didn't take
your data seriously?

Have a look at some books on, for instance, electron
microscopy. There you will see that even experienced
scientists have used flawed techniques and reported
structures in cells which did not actually exist, but
which were artifacts of the preservation method used,
or the method of exposure. Their errors were discovered
and discussed by other scientists, some of whom did
experiments, and others of whom did mathematical
modeling. Those scientists whose work was criticised
didn't spend their time complaining, they tried
experiments to disprove the contentions of the critics,
and if those experiments failed to do so, they accepted
it and moved on.

To the extent you do this, I applaud you.

And, I also think that you should realize that one does
not have to be "out in the field" to be able to offer a
critique of your methods or your interpretations. I am
surprised, considering your statement, that you bother
to send data to Maccabee, who I suspect is not out there
with you either.

>  Mark; join us on the expedition if you really want to exercise your
>  intellectual knowledge while applying it out in the field.

Thanks for the invitation, but I'm afraid a long journey is not in the
budget of money or time at the moment.

---

On a related note, we often on this list come down to
this discussion of what will improve the scientific
standing of UFO studies.

To my mind, the continuing debate on "rods" is exactly
the sort of thing which does that.

In science, an observation is raised and a hypothesis
is made. Someone else raises a counter-hypothesis. Tests
are performed, and perhaps they are not conclusive, so
another hypothesis is raised, and tests are performed.

Jose's hypothesis is (correct me if I'm wrong):

Rods are large, high-speed objects some distance from
the camera. The blurring is an effect of their intrinsic
speed, and, possibly, some sort of field surrounding them.

My hypothesis is:

Rods are insects or other objects, either self-powered or
blown by the wind, whose proximity to the camera and size
causes a blurring effect because of angular movement during
the exposure.

I believe the mathematics and statistics I have presented
have shown that "rods" can be explained in this manner. The
angular size of rods is not inconsistent with insect sized
objects at some proximity to the camera, and the speed at
which the rods move is not inconsistent with the apparent
angular speed or the calculated distance and size of the
object, or the known speeds of insects.

However, the most important test comes with a verifiable
triangulation of a rod. I look forward to seeing the results.

In any event, in science, the scientist takes a risk in
making  a hypothesis: a risk that the hypothesis will be
proven wrong. Jose takes that risk and so do I. However,
both of us must be willing to accept it if we are proven
wrong, or we leave the domain of science and head into the
foggier domain of "faith".

-------
Mark Cashman, creator of the Temporal Doorway at
http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman
http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront
Original digital art, writing and UFO research
mcashman@ix.netcom.com
--------------------------------