Complimenti.....Sei entrato nel piu' completo Portale sulle Medicine Alternative, Biologico  Naturali e Spirituali - la Guida alla Salute Naturale - Leggi, Studia, Pratica e starai in Perfetta  Salute, senza Farmaci ne' Vaccini


GUIDA  alla  SALUTE con la Natura

"Medicina Alternativa"   per  CORPO  e   SPIRITO
"Alternative Medicine"  for  BODY  and SPIRIT
 
 
 


BARRETTE VOLANTI di ENERGIA
 

Il MISTERO dei RODS - Sembrano esseri viventi.
 Volano a velocità molto elevate e per questo sono appena visibili. Non sono catalogati dalla scienza. Sono i Rods, e di loro parliamo nel seguente articolo.

Neanche quando sentimmo parlare di essi per la prima volta, circa 3 anni fa, avevamo una vaga idea di che diavolo fosssero.
La notizia ( di un giornale locale ) parlava di “ Serpenti volanti ” che potevano volare a varie centinaia di metri e raggiungere una velocità di 1.400 kilometri all’ ora, secondo lo scopritore, l’ispano naturalizzato americano José Escamilla. Il piccolo articolo stampa fu subito archiviato senza tanta attenzione.

Trascorrendo il tempo, e in forma sporadica sono apparse varie notizie su riviste specializzate su un fenomeno molto strano chiamato Rods ( bacchetta, in Inglese ).
I Rods volano cosí rapidi che solo attraverso un ralentí in un filmato è possibile vederli.
Nei fotogrammi si può intuire la loro forma: un corpo centrale largo presumibilmente cilindrico, e sui lati una specie di” zampe” il cui numero dipende dalla taglia del Rod, e che sembrano adatte per spostarsi, il che ci fa pensare che siano esseri viventi. Però non azzardiamo fatti e vediamo adesso quando iniziò la storia dei Rods.

L’INIZIO dei RODS
La prima osservazione di un Rod fu il 19 Marzo del 1994 a Midway, Nuovo Mexico, quando, nel realizzare delle registrazioni video e vederle con la moviola, si accorsero dell’ apparizione di alcuni strani oggetti.
Per accertarsi che non fossero problemi tecnici, montarono un’altra videocamera e cambiarono i piani di ripresa, però gli “strani oggetti” continuavano ad apparire.
Scartate le spiegazioni usuali, e vedendo trattarsi di qualcosa di estraneo, si iniziò    un’ investigazione che dura tuttora.
Come prima cosa, per studiare un fenomeno, bisogna catalogarlo, e poiché al vedere un Rod sembra di vedere un microrganismo al microscopio, decisero di chiamarli cosí, dunque in terminologia medica un Rod è un batterio di forma cilindrica.Cosí dunque, José Escamilla e sua moglie Karen, scopritori dei Rods, cominciarono a produrre e ricevere registrazioni nelle quali i “ Bastoncini “ fossero presenti.
All’ inizio si pensò che apparissero solo negli USA, ma poi si ebbe notizia che anche in Europa esistono i Rods. E osservando attentamente i filmati si vide che quelle che in principio sembravano zampe erano, più probabilmente, una membrana lungo i lati del corpo, e che il movimento ondulatorio dava l’ impressione di ali o zampe.Questo movimento lo possiamo osservare in alcuni tipi di pesci.Dopo aver fatto conoscenza del fenomeno, cerchiamo quel piccolo ritaglio del 1998 e lo collochiamo nel posto giusto: la casella appena creata dedicata ai Rods.

ASPETTI CONTROVERSI
 Come ogni fenomeno che sia tale, bisogna chiedersi da dove e quando sorge il medesimo.
Nasce nel Nuovo Mexico nel 1994 ? Con tutta sicurezza, no.
Il luogo e la data della prima evidenza possono essere stati ben certi, quantunque non sappiamo quanto certi.
Per dirla, non conosciamo se la loro esistenza ( dei Rods ndt ) data da pochi anni, secoli, millenni o sono presenti dal momento della creazione della vita sulla Terra. A tal rispetto esistono a San Jardin, Argentina, alcune incisioni di più di 1.000 anni fa dove appaiono disegni che ricordano sorprendentemente i Rods.Però qui incontriamo un’ altro problema. E’ possibile vedere i Rods a occhio nudo ?
Nelle registrazioni a velocità normale, con un certo allenamento, è possibile veder passare qualcosa con rapidità e alla moviola li identifichiamo con i Rods.
Ossia, è possibile vederli ma non identificare la loro forma, il che è diverso.
Perciò sarei scettico riguardo alle evidenze ancestrali dei Rods, senza negare però la loro esistenza in tempi passati.
Alcuni critici e negatori ufficiali hanno sparato spiegazioni razionali per questo strano fenomeno.
Alcuni dicono che si tratta di piccoli insetti volanti molto vicino alla videocamera. E’ cosi evidente la invalidità di questa teoria dopo lo studio delle riprese che non perderemo tempo con essa.
Bene, la verità è che nessuna ipotesi finora ha spiegato con precisione l’ origine dei Rods. Se la spiegazione degli insetti è assurda, lo è ancor più quella che si riferisce a difetti della vista.Ciò nonostante altri si sono avventurati a lanciare ipotesi poco comprovate come il fatto che siano parte del fenomeno UFO. Si basano soprattutto su una registrazione video di un UFO a forma di sigaro, nel Rhode Island, da parte di Jerome Turner, nella quale si vede un Rod come sempre a gran velocità.

Del che non rimane dubbio sulla sua esistenza, quantunque molti ancora  lo suggeriscano. Si basano, per esempio, sul fatto che non esistono cadaveri di Rods. Però, oltre a non conoscere la loro taglia e il loro peso, nemmeno sappiamo se, per esempio, quando muoiono e cadono a terra si disintegrano.

Inoltre, non è stato catturato alcun esemplare, e sebbene si sian proposti vari sistemi di cattura, sono solo semplici idee, al momento. Un altro aspetto su cui ci sono varie opinioni, è se questi Rods possano introdursi nel corpo umano, cosa non gradevole, certamente.
Questa piccola discussione derivò da una ripresa dove si può vedere un esemplare che penetra nella testa di una donna; però Escamilla ne concluse che nella ripresa il Rod passa sulla fronte della donna, senza attraversarla.

Come abbiamo detto, tutto indica che i Rods siano esseri viventi, e dotati di qualche tipo di intelligenza.
Nelle riprese della Sima de las Golondrinas ( Messico ), per esempio, si possono vedere i Rods che a gran velocità e con cambio rapido di direzione, evitano la collisione con gli esseri umani cosa che, apparentemente, li rende inoffensivi per noi.Recentemente si è avuta conoscenza di un caso che se provato, romperebbe gli schemi finora stabiliti sul fenomeno dei Rods.
Si tratta di quello che potrebbe essere il primo Rod sottomarino, e fu filmato in un reportage che il National Geographic stava realizzando l’ anno scorso nelle acque dello Yucatan, Messico, dove appare per circa 6 secondi.
Questo apre nuove vie di studio, e complica ( ancor più ) la questione.

CATTURARE I RODS
 Sicuramente molti di voi prenderanno riprese video e le osserveranno per vedere se ci fossero Rods.
Li invitiamo a farlo, sebbene la cosa migliore sia riprenderne direttamente qualcuno.
Per questo seguite i seguenti passi:

1)     Prendete una videocamera e assicuratevi che sia in buone condizioni ( lenti pulite, nastro vergine, batterie cariche, ecc… ).
E’ anche utile un treppiede che elimini le vibrazioni.

2)      Predisponete la videocamera aggiustando l’ inquadratura. In molte videocamere amatoriali vi è un quadrante con simboli, allora scegliete quello con scritto Sport.

3)     Non utilizzate zoom né grandangolare. Lasciate l’ obiettivo come il campo visuale che abbraccia l’ occhio umano.
Focalizzate sul cielo e su qualche punto di riferimento ( un albero, una statua ecc… ),

4)     Registrate alcuni minuti, e se lo desiderate, cambiate il punto di ripresa e riprendete altre zone.

5)     Osservate la registrazione sul video con moviola. Se vedete un Rod, annotate il punto sul nastro dove è registrato e continuate per vedere se ce ne sono ancora. Per vedere meglio, passate le immagini fotogramma per fotogramma. Potete tornare a riprendere nel medesimo luogo o altrove.

E dunque lo si sa, come in altre esperienze, armarsi di pazienza che, se si ha fortuna, ne varrà la pena.
Buona caccia.
Traduzione di Claudio Guglieri. FONTE: Carlos Gutiérrez Tutor  - Sito web: http://aluzinformacion.com
Tratto da: http://digilander.libero.it/mirkopellegrin/html/rods.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

SALVASCHERMO RODS (Barrette di pura energia volanti) VISIBILI SOLO CON VIDEOCAMERE PARTICOLARI scoperti il 19-03-1994 a Mexico Cave
 

RODS LE BARRETTE VOLANTI CHE SONO DAPPERTUTTO (le Immagini sopra sono rallentate di 100 volte)

  

http://n6rpf.com-us.net/rods.html  -  http://www.roswellrods.com/bios.html  -  http://www.crystalinks.com/rods.html

I RODS sono dappertutto, li vedi solo con SONY VX-2002 e videocamere con sensibilità superiori, sono entità intelligenti inerti troppo veloci.

UN ROD INGRANDITO  http://www.dudeman.net/siriusly/cz/rods.shtml

E’ UN CILINDRO D’ENERGIA CHE SI MUOVE A 10000 Km/h grazie alle propagini a modo medusa e schizza nell’aria

Impossibile da vedersi ad occhio nudo, ma sono qui fra noi, non interagiscono tranquilli, ecco Il sito dove puoi vedere i filmato e le foto dei RODS (Barrette volanti = Cilindri d’energia Volanti) ripresi un po’ ovunque nel mondo, a mio parere sono delle sonde che servono a trasferire info dalla terza alla quarta dimensione laddove “loro” non possono essere presenti di persona ovunque, non c’è da preoccuparsi non interagiscono ci sono da 15000 anni  -  http://www.roswellrods.com/dis.html

                                          http://brumac.8k.com/BaseJumperRods/BaseJumperRods.html

MEXICO CAVE: mentre un paracadutista si lancia nella caverna viene per la prima volta ripreso un RODS è la barretta bianca (4 scatti sovrapposti); ad occhio nudo non si vedono perchè viaggiano ad una velocità 4 volte superiore alla frequenza visiva del ns. occhio
Nella foto di sinistra, ci sono 4 fotogrammi di una ripresa già a rallentatore, nella 4 pose il paracadutista risulta immobile, tanto per capirsi quanto è rallentata l’immagine, quindi il rods viaggia a circa 10000 Km/h

The Incredible Skydiving Rod  http://www.roswellrods.com/erl.html
Escamilla's site also has a "rod" that was videographed by Fox TV. In this series, the camera was following a skydiver, so the images show the cliff face behind the skydiver as blurred. (Although Escamilla calls this a "high speed" shot, apparently he is referring to the estimated 95 MPH speed of the skydiver, since the cliff face blurring implies a slow shutter setting.) The picture on the left below is an attempt to composite the "rod" relative to identifiable features on the cliff face. Using the cliff as a reference, the "rod" appears to be falling like a bomb, slowly rotating downward as it falls, but after the "rod" turns (which is not shown) it would appear to rotate upward as it flew back toward the skydiver. The picture on the right is an attempt to composite the "rod" relative to the skydiver's helmet. Using the skydiver as a reference, the "rod" appears to "skid" unnaturally across the frame before making the turn.
In the following picture, the "rod" images have been composited relative to the frame itself, specifically the lower corners of each frame. Using the frame (i.e. the camera) as a reference, the "rod" appears to follow a smooth flight path, and once again we see the "rod" moving two lengths per frame !  
Sono superveloci, non si vedono ad occhio nudo.

 It would seem that the most reasonable explanation for this picture is a very small bug that is not only flying near the camera lens, but is flying relative to the lens, possibly inside of (or contemplating a landing on?) the lens shield. (Cameras such as the Betacam, which was likely used for this shot, usually have a large shield or hood extending beyond the lens face.) - http://www.opendb.com/sol/seq.htm

Da: James Bratter - JamesB1955@webtv.net
Inviato: giovedì 12 aprile 2001 21.30 - A: MaxMarazzi
Oggetto: Re: RODS VIDEO//Thanks for your e-mail regarding Rods andEntities.

Dear MAX, Again , I want to Thankyou for your interest in Rods, or as I call them "Entitys", because they are clearly some type of lifeform, possibly from another dimension, because I have filmed them many times going right thru solid brick buiding's like they were not there.
I would hope that the frozen images that I have already put out on the internet, and in the public domain, would give an idea of what they are. I just changed my little 3 page web site yesterday, and I took off some images and added many new images, mostly on page 3.
I think I have about 31 images in total now on the web site, and I would hope that the frozen  images speak for themselves. If they( wanted to take or use some of the hundreds of hours of images of Rods/Entities that I have recorded and use it to make a  documentary film or many films, this has crossed my mind many times.
If you can come up with a deal of some type that can benefit us both by in some way using video footage of Rods , I make no promises, but I am very interested and would certainly listen to whatever you think of , or come up with. Please check out my tiny web site below and let me know what you think of some of the new images I just added. ThanksAgain for your thoughts on Rods , and the possible business oppritunity's with the videos.
Sincerely, James B.
www.roswellrods.com (Il sito del Regista scopritore dei RODS)

Altre foto e sequenze dei RODS 
http://www.opendb.com/sol/seq.htm    
Le foto piu' ravvicinate mai viste dei RODS
http://www.opendb.com/sol/seq.htm    FOTO TRATTE DAL VIDEO
 http://www.opendb.com/sol/morerods.htm   Jose Escamilla's "Rods" Video Sequences
 http://www.opendb.com/sol/joseDVD.htm   
RALLENTANDO VIDEO GENERICI SONO STATI SCOPERTI TANTI CASI DI PRESENZA DI RODS OVUNQUE
 http://www.opendb.com/sol/morerods.htm#baghdad   
RODS a BAGHDAD ripreso da FoxNewCAble TV
 http://community-2.webtv.net/JamesB1955/EntityRodsPSCA2000/   
 Foto ingrandite + belle mai viste, poi premi in basso next page x 8 volte
http://www.blackvault.com/johnbro/   TECNICHE
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/angels/seraphim.html    FOTO RAVVICINATE
http://n6rpf.com-utmls.net/rods.h
Svelato come riprendere I RODS, occorre videocamera speciale, molto sensibile, vedi note tecniche e 2 video-immagini dei rods in movimento.

On TV you may have heard about Jose Escamilla and the rods mystery. Gary Davidson of San Diego MUFON believes he knows what they are. After consulting with a video expert Gary was able to capture rods in about 1/2 hour based on the idea that they are just bugs. Gary will be commenting more in the future at this website on this subject, but for now here is what he has caught on videotape.
On the right is a 9 frame animated GIF.

Shot with a tripod mounted Canon OPTURA video digital/still camera, distance=12 feet, zoom=8x-optical, F=4.0, 1/60 sec. Area video taped was above a compost pile where there was fly activity. From the 3:00 o'clock postion the first 3 frames shows an in focus fly. The blur is caused by the speed of the insect as captured on each frame (1/30 sec). The fly is traveling at a couple inches (per 1/30 sec). As it decelerates to a very slow speed the blur is replaced by normal looking fly.

To the right is a 4 frame GIF.

Shot with a tripod mounted Canon OPTURA video digital/still, distance=12 feet, zoom=16x optical, F=4.0, 1/60 sec. These images look more like the typical Jose Escamilla "rod". The fly is not in focus (too close to the lens) and blurred by speed. The out of focus blurred white image is accented by the lighting angle.

Gary says "I will describe my experiences with KFMB-TV and reasons why they may want to keep RODS a mystery. I hope to experiment more when the weather warms up. I think dragon flys could be very dramatic with speeds of 30 mph, long bodies and 4 wings. My best guess is they may be the most likely candidate on the KFMB 'rod' video shot in at the cave in San Luis Potosi, Mexico". This site will be updated as more information is available.

http://www.kfmb.com
http://www.roswellrods.com/exp1.html  VIDEO :
UN RODS CHE PASSA IN MEZZO AD UNA PIANTA (Immagine rallentata 1000 volte)
http://n6rpf.com-us.net/rods.html
http://n6rpf.com-us.net/rods.html#top#top
http://www.opendb.com/sol/conclusion.htm  CONCLUSIONI
http://www.google.it/search?hl=it&rls=DVXA,DVXA:2004-44,DVXA:en&q=how+to+set+the+camera+to+record+the+rods&spell=1

Nel prossimo sito lasciano intendere che i RODS siano insetti, peccato che sono 1000 volte + veloci ed invisibili ad occhio nudo - Methods of Photographing Rods

Rainbow Rods are a little known and even less well-understood anomaly, which appear to behave as organic life
forms, for the most part, it also appears as if most of them are in fact insects. You may tire of hearing me say this but some of the images captured on film cannot be explained as Rainbow rods, if calling anomaly rods is an explanation. Some of the images caught on film are genuine UFO’s; indeed they are objects, stranger still then Rods.
During a solar eclipse of the Sun in Mexico city dozens of people were astonished to see saucer shape objects, flying saucers if you will roaming about the countryside over their heads. A number of these sightings were confirmed and documented on film. A number of these video clips were later shown on national television and the local news. It has come to light, if you will pardon the pun that filming into the sun can reward the operator with spectacular results.

     So just as sending a submersible deep in the depths of the ocean can bring unexpected if not wondrous results so too can chasing rods reward you with other phenomenon, other then just rods.

     To my knowledge there are only four main ways to capture Rainbow rods on film, listed in order of success with the solar obliteration technique first, made famous by John Bro, filming against a dark back ground a close second (as is the case in the Cave of swallows in Mexico) and third filming in the infrared spectrum pioneered by Trevor James Constable in the 50’s. The final and forth way is Jose Escamilla’s skyfish protocol which basically is filming on a stationary platform such as a tripod in conjunction with a high shutter speed.   Lets look at each one of these methods and examine the success, the pitfalls of each one.

      Perhaps the best and easiest way to see them is to use a video recorder aimed towards the edge of the sun. This is best done on a clear, cloudless day and even better if you live in northern latitudes.  Then if done in the wintertime the chance of insects being the culprit is removed from the equation.

      Position the recorder on a tripod or other device which allows you to anchor it in one spot, then using some sort of overhang or blocking shield arrange the view finder so that you are not looking directly at the sun but are focused on the edge where the brightness of the sun begins to level off into the blueness of the sky.

     Be very careful while doing this as looking directly towards the sun with the naked eye can result in blindness and may even damage the components within the camera if the video recorder is pointed directly at the sun without any shield or filter. Just imagine when you direct the suns rays onto a piece of paper with a magnifying glass and you will get the idea, you do not want to burn a hole though your camcorder.

     You will also not want to leave your camera unattended using this method. The earth rotates at quite a speed and where you might have had your camera safely pointed at the sun a few minutes ago, may 5 minutes later be in direct sunlight happily roasting the internal parts of your camera. I cannot stress this enough, be EXTREMLY careful using this method. Wear good UV sunglasses, think about where you are placing your camera, and protect your eyes. If you melt your camera down or go blind don’t come back and tell me I didn’t warn you first.

     When you have this set up correctly you will easily be able to view the edge or corona of the sun without being able to see the sun’s orb directly.

     When everything seems to be in position, start filming and if you are looking in the view finder you may notice what appears to be “bugs” zipping about the screen, they will come into view only for brief moments as they are highlighted by the glare of the sun and as they fly out of range and will disappear.  This effect is very similar to viewing moths flying about a street light at night, you can view the moths while they are illuminated by the street light but once they leave the illuminated area they disappear into the darkness of the night.

     You may not see these “rods” right off and it may take several tries to record anything extraordinary but with persistence you will finally capture them on film.  Once you have done that the best way to examine then is to freeze-frame them either on a VCR or with some of today’s sophisticated soft ware programs available for your computer. Take a segment of film which has a rod on it and freeze that frame then you will be able to enlarge it and examine them more closely.    

     It is extremely difficult to determine the distance from the camera that these objects are, but one gets the feeling that some of them are quite high up in the atmosphere due to the fact that some photos show these objects as quite dim, indicating they are quite high up. I have also filmed some of these objects that traveled behind clouds (cumulus nimbus) indicating they are at least 5000-10,000 feet from the camera, however I am still not convinced these objects are rods. 

     I feel I must included this little idiosyncrasy in the sake of science but as yet I cannot explain these images that appear to pass behind clouds. I have stated in the past that I do not believe rods reach the gigantic proportions some claim they do. Further study may prove me wrong but for now I think any photo showing a hundred foot long rod has been misinterpreted and needs to be readdressed.

     I say it is difficult to determine the distance some of these objects are from the camera, however I have developed several protocols of my own that will enable you to analyze objects that pass within several hundred feet from the camera. This can be used with all four methods if you are creative in its execution.

    If you are filming using the most common method, the solar obliteration technique positioned beneath a convenient roof overhang, just make sure you have some objects in the background and foreground. Take the time to measure the distance these objects are from the camera, document the FOV at different distances from the camera, keep track of what magnification you are using. If you do these small steps later on when you are analyzing your footage this will enable you with some accuracy to estimate both the size of the Rods as well as their speed. If a rod passes behind an object a known distance from the camera you have a valuable piece of data. Like wise if one passes in front of an object a measured distance away once again you have worthy data.

     Once you know the size of the object, the distance from the camera and the field of view of the camera at that distance you can judge the speed and size of the object with close tolerances.

     Before you begin filming you need to take a tape measure, set the camera up on the tripod and lay out the tape measure down your lawn or drive way. At this point you are going to determine the field of view (FOV) of your camera at given distances from the lens of the camera at a given magnification. For example, if you wish to film at the maximum magnification of your camera and lets say that for the sake of this exercise your camera can zoom to 20X on full zoom. Setting up your camera, set the zoom to maximum and then begin filming, starting with the approximant distance your roof over hang will be.

     The reason for this is it is unlikely you will film a rod between you and the roof, but if for some reason you do you can always go back and redo this exercise to determine the field of view at that distance. Lets say you began at the 20-foot mark, take a yardstick or carpenter rule and having someone else view inside the viewfinder. Stick the measuring tape so that one end is just visible to your viewer on the left hand side then running your hand along the measure have the viewer tell you when he or she can see your hand began to disappear off of the cameras view on the right hand side.

     Write down this distance, do this again at 25 feet, then 30 and so on. Keep track of the distance from the camera, the field of view at that distance and the magnification you had the camera on. In this manner you will be able to know when something crosses the field of view at 25 feet, what that FOV was, when you run that footage into a software program on your computer, you then only need to record the length of time it takes for that object to cross the given distance, multiply that distance in feet by the time in seconds then you will have the feet per second (fps) the object was traveling.

     If for some reason you wish to film at a different magnification you will need to redo the entire exercise documenting the distance from camera, FOV and magnification. This may seem like a lot of time spent, you may be bored to tears, after all you really only wanted to film a few rods, but trust me you will glad you did. You might also wish to override the auto focus on your camera and manually focus to the depth of field you plan on filming at. The reason for this is you will not have to worry about the camera constantly adjusting the focus because of branches, pollen, or changes in light intensity. This will eliminate one more thing moving around inside your camera that might cause an anomaly to appear on the film.

     With this information in hand you can with confidence determine the speed and size of the object in question

     Now that you have an idea and the tools to estimate the speed and size of these objects lets look at the other three methods of filming this phenomenon.

     The second method is to frame the rods with a background that is dark, one of the first recorded instances of these creatures being filmed that drew media attention was the rods filmed in the cave of swallows in 1994, filmed against a black background, it appears now due to our most recent research that these images do in fact show insects that have become blurred due to the internal actions of the video cameras. For further insight into this area check out Roger “Sol” Harris’s site
http://www.opendb.com/sol/bugs.htm.

      This was not the first time rods had been discovered, that tribute should be given to Trevor James Constable as he was chasing rods back in the 50’s but I have seen in print were he gives credit to his colleagues.

      Jose Escamilla showcased examples of these rods caught on film March 19th, 1994 by cameraman Mark Lichtle while filming base jumpers jumping into the “Basement of the Swallows” in Mexico. The cameraman was set up in such a manner that he could see into the abyss and was filming the BASE jumpers leaping into the darkness of that void, this just happened to be the perfect set up to film rods. If you know of a similar area, or if you have access to a mountaintop where you can film in the early morning hours with the sun at your back and a dark foreground to film against you may be lucky enough to capture rods in this manner. 
     I have had some luck filming in this manner but you still need a strong light source (the sun) to cast enough infrared rays onto your subject so it can be recorded.

     The next method of filming is one that Mr. Constable used most effectively in the 50’s, recording rods and other strange phoemenon by shooting infrared film in both 35 mm cameras and movie cameras. He shot infrared film with very thick filters to block out most visible light and he details his methods in several of his excellent books. I personally have not managed to film using this method yet but have communicated with people who have so I know it is a valid method to try.

     The last method, Jose Escamilla’s skyfish protocol is effective in that you can record rods but it is not my favorite because the photos you get tend to resemble blurred bugs, long black streaks with little in the way of detail. Try using all the methods at least once is my recommendation and find out which one you are more comfortable with.

     Do not get discouraged if at first you don’t record anything, filming rods is part science, part art form but anyone that takes their time and follows these direction will sooner or later find rods on their film. Further work needs to be done in this field but for now this information is provided so people can experiment for themselves. If rods exist they are extremely rare and anyone using these methods must first visit Roger Harris’s site to get an understanding of camera mechanics
By Michael Merchant

http://www.flyingrods.com/articlesfl/filmingrainbowrods.asp
http://www.dudeman.net/siriusly/cz/rods.shtml
RODS
http://www.opendb.com/sol/seq.htm  
 http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mrodhoax.html
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/angels/seraphim.html
http://home.flash.net/~storyink/hotrods/hotrods.htm  
 BUGS ? Alcuni siti volutamente pubblicano foto che tendono a far credere che i Rods siano Insetti e come la mettiamo con la loro velocità, invisibili a occhio nudo ?
Quale insetto vola a 10.000 Km/h ?http://skepdic.com/rods.html  (Dizionario degli scettici RODS )

ELENCO FENOMENI INSPIEGABILI: http://www.crystalinks.com/phenos.html  
Bonus track – GLI ORBS I CUGINI DEI RODS: http://skepdic.com/orbs.html
..more coming soon ! http://www.orbwar.com/orb-contrail-crossing.htm
http://www.orbwar.com/triangular-orbs.htm ( Foto mitica di 2 ORBS )

Entita' sconosciute rivelate con un nuovo telescopio a lenti concave:
 TEC scopre entità invisibili nel nostro ambiente terrestre
Mentre le profondità spaziali sono ben documentate in riviste scientifiche, è stato solo per caso che il nostro telescopio ha rilevato entità terrestri invisibili all’interno l’atmosfera terrestre. Scientificamente, questo dovrebbe essere impossibile, perché quando la materia ordinaria e antimateria vengono a contatto si annientano l’un l’altro.
Quindi, quali sono queste entità invisibili terrestri (ITE) che sono state osservate e fotografate? Queste entità sfidano le nostre conoscenze scientifiche attuali. Alcuni sembrano muoversi a una velocità molto irregolari, mentre altri sembrano essere quasi stazionaria. Alcuni ITE appaiono come entità oscure (Figura 8), mentre altri emanano un bagliore luminoso (figura 9). Per dire qualcosa al di là di questo sarebbe la speculazione. Quello che posso dire è che queste entità sono invisibili all’occhio umano e ai telescopi convenzionali e binocoli; essi possono essere osservati solo con il nostro telescopio.