I started posting my findings about Jose Escamilla's "rods" on the message board on his roswellrods.com site in late February and early March of 2000. For some reason, Escamilla stopped posting for about a month, but in April he finally posted the following response:Jim Peters is a member of Escamilla's "rods research team". A few weeks earlier, Peters had posted a fairly lame response to my findings and arguments, which completely ignored or side-stepped the most important points. Specifically, neither he nor any other "rods researcher" offered any explanation at all for why "rods" seemed to always show a continuous streak pattern completely indistinguishable from the blur streak of a flying insect (or a flying tinfoil ball for that matter). But Peters also made the claim that the "totality of the evidence" would disprove the "bug theory," once it was finally made public.Guess what guys...Jim Peters and I are LOL!Holy $#&%!!!!
If you only knew the totality of the evidence!
You "scientists" are basing all you know on this web site's minimal information.
ROD MEN RULE!!!
One might expect that such claims would be followed by some attempt to present some evidence.
One might suspect that perhaps Escamilla's posting was a triumphant announcement that he was about ready to put the "bug theory" to rest, once and for all.
About a week after posting the above message, Escamilla removed the message board from his site. He stated that the removal was only temporary, and that it was because he was reworking his site, and he promised that there would be a new and better board soon. And he actually did do some reworking of the site, but all the changes were cosmetic HTML changes, with no real change of substance and no new evidence. And anyway, the message board wasn't hosted on his site -- it was hosted by a site called InsideTheWeb.com -- so there wasn't really any good reason why he couldn't have left the message board up while he reworked the site.
It's been over six years now (as of May 2006), and he still doesn't have the promised replacement board, and the "totality of the evidence" has yet to make an appearance on his site. In fact, the evidence that Escamilla presents on his site has slowly declined since then, to the point that there are hardly any "rod" images there now.
But he does have a new DVD for sale! Perhaps this is the promised evidence, but it's only available to those who pay for it? Fortunately, he did have a short promotional sample of the video on his site, and the following are composites of all five of the images from that sample. Two of the sequences have two "rods" each, so there are seven "rods" shown. By yet another astonishing coincidence, all of these "rods" -- even though they are different sizes -- are traveling at 60 times their own length per second, so every one of them makes a nice continuous streak when composited, just like a bug.
"Totality of the evidence," indeed.
Update, May 2004:It has come to my attention that Escamilla has changed the DVD sample video posted on his site. It now contains only one of the five sequences that I have shown above (the second one from the top). However, this new trailer contains several quick views of "rods" from his previous videos, including two of the Cave of the Swallows sequences that I had already posted on this site (on this page). Here are the originals:
When I posted these composites, I hypothesized that this pattern of "rods" separated by gaps of the same length (which is seen in most of the frame captures that Escamilla had posted at that time) was caused by taking only one field from each NTSC video frame. (Some VCRs only show the first field from each frame when paused and advanced.) As I noted then, if this hypothesis is correct, then the fields that were not shown would also contain "rods", but they would be in the gaps in the images that were captured, and if all the fields were used in the composite, then the "rods" would form a continuous streak. And this continuous streak, which is seen in many other "rods" videos, is just the expected result whenever anything (including bugs and tinfoil balls) flies past a camcorder and the exposure time is identical to the field capture time (e.g. 1/60th second for NTSC, but the same effect would occur with 1/50th second exposures in a PAL camcorder capturing 50 fields per second).
Well, it seems that when these two sequences were copied to the DVD format, all of the fields were included, and they made it through to the ".mov" format of the trailer, and guess what:
(The staggered offsets in this composite were caused by the camera panning downward to follow the jumper.)
When all the fields from the DVD sample are included, the "rods" form a continuous streak, as predicted.
Update, May 2006: Alas, it seems that Mr. Escamilla is no longer offering any free samples of the DVD, and in fact there are very few "rod" images at all on his site now. Perhaps not suprisingly, there are no images remaining of sequential video frames, which were the basis of my original study. I'm beginning to suspect that Mr. Escamilla is not so interested in the "totality of the evidence" after all.
Update, July 2011:
Wow, I had almost forgotten about this site, but I recently had an amusing email exchange with a person named Curtis Hedges. It began with this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NjzUHHKIEY&feature=channel_video_titleI would like to know considering how lengthy your website is in debunking the RODS Phenomenon if you have taken the time to independently falsify Jose's original claims, by copying his methodology for filming RODS by using an Infrared Video Camera that has the distinct ability to capture above 900nm? If your answer is No, I'd strongly and sincerely suggest you do so before you write off the RODS phenomenon as I know a bunch of credible people worldwide who do use Jose's methodology for filming RODS and as a result of the Electromagnetic signature being captured strongly disagree with the conclusions of your website...
Since I had in fact put in a great deal of time, back in 2000, to "independantly falsify Jose's original claims" and put my findings on this site, I had no idea what Curtis was trying to say, and the video he linked to seemed to be just ordinary bugrods that so baffle the "rodites." For example, here are the first two "rods" from that video:
Imagine my shock to see that they both formed the continuous streaks that we see in all videos of flying bugs shot at 1/60th sec exposure! Imagine my further amazement to find that the wing undulations are evenly distributed along the continuous streaks (as discussed here)! However, I wasn't aware that Escamilla was doing anything with infrared or what astonishing evidence he had uncovered, so I replied:
I believe the images on http://opendb.com/sol/seq.htm are ALL of the images from Escamilla's own site, as of March 2000, that show a flight sequence well enough to compare the "rod's" location in each frame. The page at http://opendb.com/sol/joseDVD.htm shows some later stuff from his DVDs. Escamilla never used infrared cameras or made any claims about "Electromagnetic signature" -- it sounds like you must have him confused with the "ghost hunters" nonsense -- but it wouldn't matter if he did. I think you probably either didn't read the text on my site, or read it with such a closed mind that the argument escaped you: There is virtually no room for doubt that what Escamilla himself was offering as evidence of "rods" was nothing but a bunch of flying bug pictures. (He removed all of them from his site shortly after my study was published. Apparently Escamilla understands my argument well enough that he now knows better than to show any sequence of images that would reveal the continuous motion-blurred streak that gives away the game. Perhaps Escamilla was genuinely convinced about "rods" at first, but his behavior concerning my study certainly makes him look like a huckster rather than an honest researcher.)My study has been online for over 11 years now. Escamilla continues to ignore it rather than answer to my arguments, and as far as I can tell, the only people who haven't found it convincing are those who haven't understood it. If you think you do understand what I'm saying and can explain what's wrong with it, then please do so. If you think there's some evidence somewhere that isn't explained by the "bug theory" then please direct me to it. Sorry, but I'm not interested in imaginary arguments or imaginary evidence.
Curtis replied:
Thank you Roger for your time in this matter... Yes, since Jose's first UFO film back in 2006, Jose has demonstrated the differences filming in IR over the visible spectrum and hundreds of individuals have confirmed the same by repeating a simple methodology. I find your assessment on RODS to be inconclusive and premature considering that you have not experimented in Infrared based on your answer to the question I asked. Once again, based on your answer, you have not taken your analysis or have experimented outside of photoshop in falsifying Jose's RODS claims and thus your claims against his are inconclusive and unsupportive. Without taking your analysis in the correct direction, you provide a bunch of personal gibberish on frame rates and motion blurs without backing it up with an experimentation which corroborates or falsify his claims. Even the discovery channel in their pathetic attempt to debunk RODS at least presented a repeatable experiment in doing so. Considering that you have been active with this website for years, then were's your experiment smart guy because your website does nothing to prove your claims against Jose...Curtis
Oh, well, this was far short of the stinging rebuttal and irrefutable evidence I've been waiting for from Escamilla (for the last decade or so), but what the heck -- into the fray!
I see no indication in your reply that you have even a foggy idea what my argument is and why I can so confidently say that "rods" videos show unmistakeable evidence that they are just ordinary motion blur. If it reads like "gibberish on frame rates and motion blurs" to you, you need to invest the time it would take to understand it before you can criticize it and dismiss it.This nonsense about infrared is a case in point. I just did a Google search for "Jose Escamilla infrared" and I do see that other people have contributed infrared photos to his gallery. (I'm still not aware of anything Escamilla has done, but it simply doesn't matter.) What a surprise, they look a heck of a lot like the motion-blurred bugs in Escamilla's visible-light videos, except some seem to be even longer exposures so they're longer streaks -- many wing-flaps. But why would you expect an infrared camera to be exempt from motion blur? If you understood my argument, you'd understand why "rods" should be expected from infrared cameras, too, because it's the same unavoidable result of slow shutter speeds.
There is exactly one way for Escamilla to prove that "rods" are not always motion-blurred bugs, and he has known exactly what that proof needs to be since at least 2000, if not before: He needs a video or a photo of a "rod" that was ABSOLUTELY, IRREFUTABLY shot with a high shutter speed. He has known that and he has promised that he was going to produce that evidence for over a decade. And he has abjectly failed to deliver.
If you prefer to believe in Escamilla's highly implausible hypothesis even though his evidence is completely indistinguishable from motion-blurred bugs, then suit yourself. Or, if you want to help Escamilla, you might try to get a shot of a "rod" with an exposure of, say, 1/500th second or faster. If you manage to do that, please do let me know.
Uh oh; looks like I hit a nerve:
I have a piece of footage that was filmed with a high speed camera presenting a ROD clear as day @ 1/500th a second, just what you want to see, but I can not make it PUBLIC over YouTube as I don’t own the rights to it. The owner of the footage is asking for $3,500 for the rights, but I may have a unique way to present this to you in a PRIVATE manner over YouTube providing you have your own free account with them since I have access to the footage, but what’s in it for me for taking the time and effort, which is money lost to me, in enlightening you with that footage since it appears its not important enough for you to conduct this experiment on your own? You asking for something that you could do yourself... its pathetic...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGxR5vkQQho
WATCH THIS CLIP AND STOP WASTING EVERY BODIES TIME WITH YOUR PATHETIC COUNTER CLAIM!
No offense professor, but in light of the YouTube clip above showing a clear distinction of the undulations common with RODS and a common flying insect in the same field with the camera filming on its default shutter speed (29.96 fps) simply makes your entire negation against the reality of the RODS phenomenon irrational and illogical at best. You have prematurely concluded that RODS are insects under a slowed shutter speed and you offer no first hand on field research to either falsify or corroborate that claim, (I.E. go out with your own camera, film your insects with a slower shutter speed and try our IR methods with the shutter speed on its default setting). I guarantee you will have to lie to yourself at that point to deny this reality....
Further more your own personal research on RODS is pathetic as the original discoverer of RODS is Trevor James Constable who filmed RODS, UFOs and other weird phenomenon using a still camera that had Kodak Infrared Film, Circa 1958. You are 53 years behind the ball if you are questioning the Infrared angle to this equation and since shutter speed was never a rational factor for the authentic researchers in this field you come off more like a dis-info agent working for cointelpro than a person truly seeking the truth of it all! No wonder Jose laughs when your name is mentioned!
Compositing a couple of "rod" sequences from the referenced video, we see that the "rods" do not form a continuous streak, but rather they are about 60% "rod" and 40% gap in both of these and in other examples from the same video:
Obviously, that's a serious challenge to my "pathetic counter claim"... except for one thing: "Rods" shot with 1/60th sec exposures using 60-field-per-second NTSC form a continuous streak, but "rods" shot at 1/100th sec -- the next step up in most camcorders -- are indeed 60% "rod" and 40% gap. As they say, it's the "exception that proves the rule." So, I replied:
The video you linked to is a fairly ordinary "rod" video, except that it appears to have been shot at 1/100th sec shutter speed, whereas most "rods" were shot at 1/60th sec. (I could explain to you how I determined that, but it would probably sound like "gibberish on frame rates and motion blurs" to you.) And all it shows is the difference between a fast flying bug and a slow flying one, which is really more proof that it's just motion blurring.And if you didn't notice it on my site, I HAVE conducted my own experiments and found that it's easy (unavoidable, actually) to get "rods" if you shoot bugs at 1/60th sec and 1/100th sec, and they look exactly like all the "rods" on the web -- most especially including the distinctive pattern of streaks on successive frames which allows me to confidently state that NONE of the "rods" videos on the web were shot with a high shutter speed. Sorry, but I'm not impressed with your claim of having secret evidence, or your assertion that I should need to prove your claims for you. I'm not about to waste time trying to shoot a "rod" with a fast shutter speed when I'm 99.9999% sure I'll never get anything. Clearly, that's an experiment for people who think they WILL get something. Do you understand the concept of "burden of proof?"
As I said, if you want to continue believing Escamilla's bizarre claims about implausible entities even though ALL of the evidence is indistinguishable from motion-blurred bugs, then that's up to you. I don't set for myself any impossible goal of convincing True Believers.
Good luck.
Well, that oughta be about enough of that, huh? Nope:
What I can tell you Roger is that you will make up any excuse in your own little mind to hold onto an idea that has been crumbling apart since it's inception. Your guessing the fame rate of my video when I told what it was already. I have a hundred examples Roger of RODS that I could show you right now, some RODS filmed under water and others aboard the International Space Station using NASA issued Infrared/UV sensitive CCD cameras that have flawless depth of field optics and none of them adhered whatsoever to your claim of shutter manipulation, unless you think insects can fly in outer space?Sorry smart guy, but your counter argument holds no weight when it was never a factor for discovery. I do recall You and a bunch dimwits you associate with verbally attacking Jose repeatably over the years without nothing more than ignorance and presuppositions as your ammunition to justify your cause and I must say how ridiculous you are for leaving a record like that behind! I was hoping by conversing with you that I could gauge whether your involvement with this phenomenon was for honest, genuine reasons, that you had exhausted your resources with applied experiments considering the years you have invested on your website and as a result, concluded accordingly, but from what I have gathered in our little conversation that this is not even the case as you are not even honest with me and you have no clue about the history or methodology associate with RODS proving your efforts worthless! I will go and keep on believing RODS are real since the technology proves it so and there are repeatable, verifiable methods which eliminate the shutter from being a factor. By all means necessary, you can keep fighting with yourself that RODS are nothing more than a figment of the cameras imagination but you have brought nothing to the table in solidifying or changing my mind on this subject. I plan on distributing this email to others who bring up your website in the future as to show the kind idiocracy Jose has faced in the past with this subject. Thanks for making my job easy!
Curtis
It was at this point that I Googled for "Curtis Hedges rods" and discovered that Curtis is actually the "Marketing Executive" of Escamilla's video company, TBLN Films. If I had known that, I would have immediately understood Curtis' apparently insurmountable impediment to understanding the "rods phenomenon."
I'm sure you have no idea how silly that sounds coming from someone who admits that he doesn't even understand what I've clearly shown on my site -- yes, I'm sure it must sound like "gibberish" to someone who doesn't even know the difference between frame rate and shutter speed -- but I see I should have Googled your name before wasting time responding to you. As I said, you're welcome to your delusions, including the one where you and Escamilla get rich peddling that crap.Oh, how could I have doubted Curtis' superior knowledge of video! Time to take ol' Sol to school:
I understand you perfectly Roger, and I am here to show you that you counter argument for RODS is flawed on many intellectual and technical levels. That fact that you don't have an answer for me on factual points that I have brought up within our emails just means you have no clue what your doing and what your talking about!Frame rate and shutter speed go hand and hand dumbass because the amount of frames per second increase as you intensify the shutter speed. A slower shutter speed results in less frames captured per second. You apparently don't have a clue on optics and the technology that governs it, yet you front as if you do! Now you have both Jose and myself laughing at your stupidity. Your website is joke to genuine investigators and researchers so I will drink to that! Just to be fair Roger, Jose and I will autograph a copy of UFO the coloring book with matching crayon set when it's available....
Curtis
After I stopped laughing, I replied:
(Sigh.) You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, which is why you have absolutely no idea what I'm saying, which is why you are manifestly unqualified to even comment on it, much less criticize it, which is why people who DO understand is (which seems to be most people) are laughing at you and Escamilla.> Frame rate and shutter speed go hand and hand dumbass because the amount
> of frames per second increase as you intensify the shutter speed. A slower
> shutter speed results in less frames captured per second.That is abject nonsense, and you call what I wrote on my site "gibberish"? Amazing chutzpah. NTSC video is ALWAYS 29.97 fps, PAL video is ALWAYS 25 fps, and neither have anything to do with shutter speed except to limit the MAXIMUM exposure time. Very few cameras will let you set a non-standard frame rate; most will definitely not. Shutter speed, on the other hand, is the amount of time each image field is exposed, and it can be anything from very fast in strong light -- most camcorders these days will do at least 1/2000th sec -- up to the full field capture time, with NO change whatsoever to the frame rate. Since NTSC is two fields per frame, the field capture time is (about) 1/60th second, so the exposure time can be up to (but no longer than) 1/60th sec. And in fact, that is the exposure time selected by the A/E program with low light, and it is the shutter speed that was used for most "rod" videos. As I mentioned, however, the one you linked to was shot at 1/100th sec.
If only you could understand that "gibberish" on my site, you'd understand how I know that: If a camera is capturing a field each 1/60th sec and each is exposed for 1/60th sec, then a flying bug will simply produce a continuous streak: The "rods" will line up end-to-end if you composite all the frames together, which is exactly what we see in "rod" video after video. (If you only use one field from each frame, which is the case with most of Escamilla's earliest "evidence", then you get a pattern of "rods" separated by gaps the same length as the "rods" because the gaps are "rods" in the missing fields.) If a camera is capturing a field each 1/60th sec and the exposure time is 1/100th sec, however, then the exposure time is only 60% of the field capture time, so the streak will not be continuous: It will be 60% "rod" and 40% gap, which is exactly what we see in the video you linked to, over and over again. EVERY "rod" video that I've seen anywhere on the web or produced myself has one of these three patterns.
You don't understand this simply logic; you don't understand the difference between frame rate and shutter speed; you apparently didn't notice the experiments on my site where I unequivocally prove what I'm saying about these motion-blur patterns; you think infrared video will somehow magically change this simple principle of video optics; and you're calling me a dumbass? What a clown.
Excamilla has had 11 years now to respond to my study, and the only thing he has offered is a vacuous claim to have "rods" that were shot with high shutter speed. Unlike you, he apparently knows that that's what he needs as evidence, not chest-thumping bravado, and for 11 years now he has failed to produce it. Any time you or he are ready to address my study seriously (meaning you'll need to start by understanding it), let me know. If all you have to offer is your intransigent, closed-minded belief in your delusions, then we have nothing to discuss, and your ignorant opinions about my study mean absolutely nothing to me.
I'm going to speculate that at this point, Curtis was starting to get a clue that willful ignorance just wasn't working for him, so he threw in the towel.
It was fun and surprising chatting with you Sol considering the dodging nature of your responses, but I accomplished what I set out to do with our email exchanges. I will let the record of our conversation speak for itself and it will be made available to all and any who share your irrational conclusions.BTW, Forget the coloring book. I will have Jose send you a used "autographed" condom wrapper so you can remember how bad you just got fucked!
Curtis
(Sniff, sniff.) Oh well, nothing really significant here, but while we're waiting for Escamilla's "totality of the evidence," I thought I'd help Curtis' share his withering attack on "bug theory."
Well, I thought Curtis was finished, but no. As I said, don't expect anything significant here unless perhaps you're interested in the psychology of True Believer. I'll just identify the source for the rest of this.
Curtis Hedges:
Included this as well to our correspondents..... Don't forget to include the first video I shared with you since you reluctantly left it out and please show a little honesty by posting the entire video, not the just the still frames if you want a real census on the evidence I offer.... Do a real observation of the video images and you'll notice both an insect that doesn't blurr at all while in motion and a ROD in the same field of view presenting the same common undulations. I just cant take your assessments seriously Roger when you avoid every aspect presented on the video clip that doesn't agree with your counter shutter claim. I offer any person in the world the opportunity to film this phenomenon for themselves from their own backyards using a video camera they already own with a simple IR conversion. Thats the burden of proof right there. I offered it to you as well, but you simply write it all off and then you claim you did a thorough job investigating the claims behind this phenomenon 11 years ago even though you admit you had no idea that RODS could be filmed in IR. If we take the shutter out of the equation by using an ATN NVG which doesn't use a shutter to my knowledge, how does your counter claims against RODS hold up then? The answer would be, not at all....Sol:
I recognize that your poor reading comprehension is part of the problem here, but I DID include the direct links to both of the videos you mentioned, and I DID comment that the first video showed nothing but standard bugrod stuff that you find so baffling. However, to prove that beyond any doubt, I just did composites of the first two "rods" and added them to the site. Imagine my shock when they both formed the continuous streaks that I see in all my 1/60th sec exposure videos of bugs, exactly like example after example on my site! Imagine my further amazement to find that the wing undulations are evenly distributed along the continuous streaks! (Don't fret about that one too much; it's just another argument that would probably sound like "gibberish" to you, but I do discuss it on one of my pages, and most people seem to recognize how strong that evidence is.)As for the video that shows both "rods" and bugs, I DID answer to that, too: bugs flying fast cause long motion-blurs, while slow-flying ones do not. Duh. Yet another case where actually understanding the theory would help immensely in sorting that kind of thing out, but I'll try to help: The length of the motion blur is always just the distance traveled during the field exposure time. If that is many times the width of the bug, then the stretched bug image looks like a "rod." Otherwise, it still looks pretty much like a bug. Pretty simple, huh.
Now this is getting a little annoying, but you still seem to be unaware of just how much experimenting I've done to prove my case. That proof is right there on my site, and the least you could do is READ THE DAMN MATERIAL before pretending to argue against it.
And no, I did not admit I had no idea that "rods" could be filmed in IR -- your reading comprehension problem again -- and in fact I said the EXACT opposite, that they COULDN'T BE AVOIDED in IR! What I said was I wasn't aware of Escamilla doing anything with IR -- and I still haven't seen anything -- but if that was in 2006 (which is not even close to "Escamilla's original claims" and method, as you claimed), that was several years after I (and most of the world) had completely lost interest in Escamilla's nonsense. I also said that it makes no difference whatsoever, because IR cameras can certainly shoot flying bugs, and bugs leave motion-blurred streaks with slow exposures. I really have no idea why you think that IR cameras have some magical property that would avoid that
And to help fill in another gap in your video camera knowledge: video cameras don't actually have shutters. The exposure time is generally called "shutter speed" for historical reasons, but video CCDs just electronically control the time that they collect light. What actually happens is that if an exposure is to be less than the full field capture time, the processor will instruct the CCD to dump its contents part of the way through the cycle and start over, so only the last part of the field capture cycle is used for the exposure. Oh, and by the way, it still has nothing to do with frame rate, lol. I do hope you are least getting some new knowledge out of this little exchange. Who knows, maybe someday it'll start making sense to you.
Curtis Hedges:
BTW, Hundreds of RODS filmed outside of the International Space Station! OFFICIAL NASA BROADCAST! Enjoy your bug thoery!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBCJCsXmHX0&feature=channel_video_title
PEACE ROGER!
PEACE!
Sol:
Jeez, Curtis, I realize you aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but when we need to explain "rods in space" then yes, we need to generalize the "bug theory" to be "small moving object" theory. Or would you like to claim that there aren't any small moving objects in space, or that cameras in space are exempt from motion blur? Bugs are what we typically see in Escamilla's "evidence" (as proved by the wing traces), but in calling it "bug theory" I assume that MOST people are intelligent enough to understand that flying bugs aren't the only thing that can cause rod-like motion blurs; sorry to have confused you. But this is another case where actually UNDERSTANDING the theory would help immensely: If ANY object moves several times its own width during the video frame exposure time, then it will create a rod-like motion blur. My first experiments were actually shots of tinfoil balls thrown in front of the camera. Of course those tinfoil balls show exactly the same streak patterns as flying bugs, because for that, the nature of the small moving object is completely irrelevant.Hope that helps.
But somehow I doubt it.
Curtis Hedges:
Looking great so far Roger, aside from the personal rant you felt compelled to interject between our conversation. LOL! Just add my last 2 emails to your little page there with the clip from the ISS. People need to realize that your insect/shutter Theory for RODS doesn't apply when dealing with footage from outer space, unless you can prove that insects live in the vacuum of outer space? It's only fair that people get to see the big picture here, but something tells me that doing so isn't in your interest. CurtisSol:
LOL, ain't no "ranting." It's just ordinary ridicule. You jumped into this "debate" with arrogant bluster about how inadequate my study was, then proceeded to demonstrate that you really had no idea what I was even talking about, and that you know virtually nothing about camcorders. You persist in completely ignoring my actual argument and instead try to toss up distracting irrelevancies, which you think are significant only because YOU don't understand them. Yup, that kind of behavior will generally draw a lot of ridicule. As Escamilla's Marketing Executive, I suggest you get used to itCurtis Hedges:
First off, I offered you the footage you wanted to see @ 1/500th sec, but you offer me nothing in return for my efforts. No incentive, nothing... You claim you hit a nerve... LOL! Don't you want to see it? Offer up something... How about a public apology to Jose? Fair enough?Further more, if we take the shutter out of the equation of your argument by using a 3rd generation ATN NVG which to my knowledge doesn't feature a shutter at all and RODS still appear to the aided eye which I have many individuals who have corroborated this with publicly available video clips over YT, then how does your argument apply then?
Sol, we can argue many points here and I will be the first to tell you that having a physical ROD specimen for taxonomy classification and dissection is the only way academia will acknowledge this reality which is the ultimate goal for the future, but in order to get to that point one must realize that RODS are there to begin with. You can't begin to discover something if you have no indication that it even exist. We have plenty of indications here that they exist.
Additionally, the smithsonian institute is on record stating that the sphinx moth is the festest insect on record at 33 mph, yet most of my ROD clips and those of Jose appear to travel at a magnitude much faster than that right here on Earth, so your argument doesn't add up here Sol. A physicist out of south Korea capture a 13 ft ROD?, maybe bigger, on video and measured the speed of this thing at 6,400 miles per hour. The footage was made public on TV years ago when Jose went public on FOX TV with this and I believe Bruce Macabee, another physicist with the U.S. Navy may have confirmed it's authenticity. There is to much on the table to suggest that this phenomenon is real and since I offer two methods for seeing this for yourself, one with the use of a shutter and one method without, (3rd Gen ATN NVG) you have little to nothing to argue against.
Sol:
If Escamilla or anyone else proves that "rods" really do exist, even though their "discovery" was based entirely on misidentifying videos of flying insects, then sure, I'll apologize. But it will take more than a video that's simply CLAIMED to be shot at 1/500th sec. Escamilla already has plenty of those, but then it seems he wasn't aware that if you just use the "sports" setting on a typical consumer camcorder, that doesn't really force a high shutter speed, and the streak patterns I show using his own evidence proves that they weren't.It boggles my mind to think that you guys have unequivocal proof of a "rod" shot at 1/500th sec but you want to haggle over what's in it for you to release this secret evidence. Seems to me, the main thing you would get would be that people would stop thinking you're a bunch of idiots. And that doesn't depend on any apology from me, either.
Once again, taking the shutter "out of the equation" doesn't change anything at all. ALL camcorders still control their exposure times, but they do it electronically instead of with a mechanical shutter. The fact that you could even offer such an argument shows just how far away from understanding this you are.
Yes, most people have no trouble at all seeing bugs fly by, so what's your point with that? This will no doubt sound like "gibberish" to you, but one thing we learn from the videos is the astounding coincidence that "rods" always fly at 60 times their own length per second (i.e. exactly their own length each 1/60th sec frame.) (But even more astounding, that's only true if they are shot with an NTSC camera. When they are shot with a PAL camera, apparently they can psychically detect that and change their speed to 50 times their own length per second. Wow!) From that relationship, we can see that a one-foot-long "rod" would fly at 60 (or 50) feet per second, which is only 40 (or 34) mph -- NOWHERE NEAR "too fast to be seen" as Escamilla claims. We should very EASILY see "rods" even two or three feet long flying around all the time.
If they existed.
It's generally impossible to tell from a 2D video image how far away a "rod" (or UFO) is, and without knowing that, any guesses about how long it is are baseless. A bug flying at a mere 10 mph can create impressive "rods" if it's close to the camera. There are many examples where Escamilla claims that a "rod" is far away from the camera because it APPEARS to pass behind something that is far away. But that's just an illusion, which I discuss and demonstrate on one of my pages: Since the "rod" is really just a motion blur, it's mostly transparent, so you can see things through it that are really behind it, which makes it look as if it flew behind that object. As proof that you haven't really read my site, the example I use to demonstrate the phenomenon is the very same FOX video that you're referring to, where a "rod" appears to fly behind a cloud. But a very, very careful examination of the intensity levels shows that it really does not:
http://opendb.com/sol/morerods.htm
Unfortunately for your position, I had some email correspondence with Bruce Macabee about that video, and he now agrees that the "rod" did not fly behind the cloud. (In fact, he himself found evidence of one wing being in front of the cloud instead of behind it.)
It would serve you well to take a good look at my analysis of that video and others on the same page, because it also shows the effect of a continuous streak with wings spaced equally along the streak, even though the wings seem to be inexplicably moving around on the "rod's" body in the individual images. More "gibberish" to you, perhaps, but that's extremely convincing evidence (to a rational person) that it's just a motion-blurred bug.
In short, you are striking out, Curtis. This is a very serious suggestion: Find someone who A) you trust, B) knows a lot about camcorders and photography in general, and C) has some common sense. Ask them to take a good, hard look at my site and see if they agree with my arguments. If they don't, hopefully they will at least be able to muster some better technical arguments than you. You are wasting my time repeating things I've already written, several times, on my site, and if you don't soon pick up your game, I may decide to leave you to play with yourself.
Curtis Hedges:
I doubt I am wasting your time and I stand behind my argument. Night vision goggles made by ATN do not use shutters common in digital video cameras. That's the impression I got and they penetrate the invisible portions of the Infrared and Ultraviolet spectrum that humans can't see with the unaided eye, were RODS and the likes thereof are being observed daily by people the world over. I offered you the opportunity to see the ROD at the speed you originally requested. If you have any clue about copyright law and the rights of the author then it's easy to see why I would have to show you in a private manner, instead of in a public manner to avoid petty litigation. Thats the way the world works Roger. People want my money above all, and I don't blame them if they have the ROD shot of the year at their disposal. Jose or myself don't own the proper technology to facilitate your skepticism, you may have friends who do, but the footage exist to corroborate his claims, so you would have to start a YouTube account to see this in a private manner and I expect a genuine, written apology to Jose on your behalf as a result. We don't care about the rest of the world in regards to our correspondents because most people are more than happy to try our IR filming methods which we demonstrate quite extensively and make up their own minds for themselves. Honestly, I won't speak on behalf of Bruce, you make some good points even though the image in question happen in a second which would eliminate the insect hypothesis, (33mph - Sphinx Moth, Smithsonian Institute) but if he thought Jose was a fraud on RODS, I don't think he would have continued working with him which is the case as of today and I don't recall Bruce stating that all RODS are shutter artifacts as you would have me believe, but please send that info my way if thats the case and I will talk with Bruce about it.Curtis
Sol:
If you prefer to stand by your failed arguments while refusing to even attempt understanding mine, then yes, you are wasting my time, and I'm going to end this by directing you to the explicit list of issues that Escamilla needs to address if he wishes to argue with the findings from my study: http://opendb.com/sol/conclusion.htmI'm sure I can hold my breath for another decade.
Curtis Hedges:
LOL! Your funny Roger by expecting Jose to address your concerns with that fortune cookie level conclusion in which you would methodically overlook the Infrared aspect to Jose's argument, the fact that the initial discovery had no cross polinization between researchers worldwide over a 53 year period and further more avoid the fact that allot of people who openly corroborate the RODS phenomenon have done so with a 1st, 2nd and 3rd Generation Night Vision Goggles by ATN that does not use a shutter that are common in digital cameras, yet make it comfortable to observe RODS with the unaided eye in real time which eliminates your argument altogether. I still have the ROD shot of the year in a high speed format much better than you had originally requested, filmed professionally in a controlled environment at that. Keep holding that breath and just know that I got the fresh air your looking for. BTW, if you turn blue in the face from the lack of oxygen, it's because of all of t he fear and denial you have been swallowing.Curtis
OK, that should be enough, right? Well... no. A few days later I received a link to a video of a golfer at a driving range, in which a rather ordinary bugrod flew by. The video was claimed to be "super slow motion."
Sol:
I received a link this morning to a private YouTube video posted by MsVideochannel. Is that supposed to be the video shot at 1/500th sec exposure? If so, sorry but no, it definitely was not shot at 1/500. Even though the video is too processed to tell what the original frame rate is, it is possible to deduce some things from the composite I've attached that aren't going to make you very happy. (I suspect I'll need to explain it to you, but I'll let you attempt to figure it out first.)As for your last reply, I do believe there is exactly one reason that neither you nor Escamilla nor anyone else can refute my conclusions or answer to the issues that I listed, and your attempt to deflect is truly pathetic.
Curtis Hedges:
I am getting the camera specs from the original author, but I am under the impression that the shutter speed used in that clip was faster than 1/500th of a sec, so you can't back out now on that 11 year request unless your full of shit? I agree that one would need to observe the original clip in it's best quality in order to validate the ROD in the video more objectively, but your shutter argument has been officially debunked with this clip and you provide more personal excuses than a logical deduction of the footage! Just because you can trace the flight path of any given object in photoshop does nothing to dispell the existence of RODS!Jose has got you by the balls and your further ignorance to the facts at hand makes his vindication for RODS biter sweet for use all!
We are happy to accept your apology in written form or go fuck off?
Curtis
BTW, if you publish images from that video clip on your website, I will personally sue you in small claims court for the cost of the clip and damages occurred on behalf of the author. You have been formally warned!
Sol:
LMFAO, whatever "impression" you are "under" does not alter the fact that we can tell from the composite that 1) the exposure time is equal to the frame capture rate (hint: there IS a reason I included the golf club), and 2) the bug is flying much slower than the golf club (hint: there are really TWO reasons why I included the golf club). It's a shame that you won't take my advice to try to get some help understanding this, but the evidence speaks for itself regardless of who doesn't understand it. I hate to keep harping on that same theme, but frankly I'm running out of patience corresponding with someone who won't even ATTEMPT to extract his cranium from his rectum.Back to the matter at hand, all we need to know is the actual frame rate of the original, and please spare my your "impressions" about that.
Curtis Hedges:
Original clip was filmed at 24P @ 5000 fps. That puts this clip closer to 1/1000th of a sec if I am correct, double of what you are asking for. You have nothing to argue against since there is no interlacing of the image when the footage is progressively captured, and at 5000 fps, you can rest your irrational skepticism for shutter artifacts caused by Insects or Tin Foil balls as you have stated on your website (LOL!)...Apology or fuck off?
Curtis
Sol:
Sorry, but that is unadulterated bullshit, and you have no idea what you are talking about. You insult my intelligence by expecting me to swallow that, when the video itself proves it's a lie. You simply refuse to understand that there is a REASON why the GOLF CLUB makes a continuous streak, exactly like bugrods, when the exposure time is the full frame-rate time: The "shutter was open" during the entire movement. There is also a reason that this is true ONLY when the exposure time is the full frame-rate time: If the "shutter is not open" during the entire movement, then sections of the flight path will not be imaged (e.g. the 1/100th sec video we discussed before where the streaks were only 60% continuous, because the exposure time was 60% of the frame-rate time). But this is NOT a "shutter effect" or "shutter artifact" as you keep misstating and misunderstanding: It is simple motion blur, which affects ALL cameras because all cameras require some finite exposure time. If an object moves enough during an exposure that the camera can resolve the displacement distance, then you get a motion-blurred image of the object stretched over the displacement distance. Mechanical shutters versus electronically controlled exposures have absolutely nothing to do with any of this.24P means "24 fps progressive" so "24P @ 5000 fps" makes no sense, but if this video were really shot at 5000 fps, then the maximum exposure time would be 1/5000th sec, so your faulty math again reveals your faulty understanding. And although it would be nice to know the actual frame rate -- bullshit claims not accepted -- we CAN make a reasonable estimate of that by simply counting the number of frames for the downward swing and estimating how long that took. If you are "under the impression" that we will get a number anywhere close to 5000 fps, then I really, really look forward to you publishing this extraordinary "proof" that Escamilla has been promising for so very long. And sorry, but if you've got the guts to do that, then publishing my analysis would be "fair use." Before you go down that path, let me caution you once again that there ARE many, many people in the world who can actually understand this stuff and figure out who is full of shit. Once again, I strongly recommend that you find such a person and get some help.
Curtis Hedges:
None of your concerns have relevance anymore Roger. I could know nothing about the subject I am talking about yet, the footage speaks for itself! It's all in your head now.... You seem to only recognize what suits your presupposition on RODS, not what's really going on in the videos itself. There are many techniques and approaches which has been demonstrated on my part to validate this phenomenon as r"eal" and you overlooked all of them with a shutter argument that does not apply to say the least to high speed camera footage or Infrared light captured by NVG's. Then you go from Insects to Tin Foil Balls when you realize that Insects dont make sense, as if that's a better conclusion. You want to write this clip off after you already set the parameters 11 years in advance against Jose's claims, be my guess, but you sound like a little child who is reaching for any straw he can get his hands on instead of trying to debunk this correctly by filming an insect and rod for yourself at the shutter speeds you demand! You got what you requested and you sound like a sore loser after the fact. Your a pussy if you ask me for not manning up, and as long as you have that website up exercising your right to free speech, I will exercise mine against your amateur attempt at debunking reality! You are going to hate me when I am done with you Roger, but some people will just have to learn the hard way! So we both agree; go fuck off!Curtis
Sol:
Gawd, I'm in tears. Sorry, dude, but the video you sent me is somewhere in the range of 100 to 120 fps at the most, perhaps even less, but nowhere NEAR the 5000 fps you claimed, and that is NOT a matter of subjective opinion. To put bluntly, you lied, and anyone can prove it by simply counting the number of frames in the swing. You, sir, must be an idiot to try to pass off that lie. Furthermore, the video shows a rather ordinary bugrod motion-blur, and that is also NOT a matter of subjective opinion, since I've shown you with my composite image EXACTLY why it's an ordinary bugrod like all the others in my study. Your lack of comprehension simply does not change the facts and the logic, and chest-thumping hand-waving just makes you look even more like a clown.Ya know, given your ignorance, stupidity, dishonesty, and mouth, I'm beginning to suspect that you are actually Escamilla himself. Yeah, he was gonna "get" me, too. Still waiting.
Curtis Hedges:
Roger, with all of your conveyed wisdom on this topic, at no time did you recognize the limited uploading capabilities of YouTube as far as compression and playback, (but remind me if you did), let alone your connection and computer/monitor capabilities on the other end. Lets not even touch the fact that you simply despise Jose as a person, probably out of jealousy and spite because he's famous and always in the media, plus he is being corroborated on a civilian level worldwide!Any optics expert will tell you to demonstrate your theory in the same manner you expect from Jose which he continues to do so with a global effort. The only argument you can possibly have against RODS is the fact that we don't have a physical specimen. That's it dumb-ass! End of subject! Based on your logic, if I would even call it that, (I.E. Shutter speed, interlaced frames, blurred wads of tin foil flying at high speeds), means nothing to academia without a physical specimen as far as the claim to a new biological organism. Now if you understand my previous emails, I explained why Jose has the clear advantage here and you do not!
Roger... RODS are just the tip of the iceberg as far as UV/IR us concerned! God forbid you actually see the other things flying around us completely Invisible to human eyesight, only revealed to the optics of the camera!
Schmuck is a good word for you!
Curtis
Sol:
You're piling blather on top of nonsense. This has nothing to do with YouTube "compression and playback" or the speed of my connection or computer. I downloaded the video so I could step through it one frame at a time. The frames I composited are from the "super slow motion" section, and the FACT that we have a CONTINUOUS MOTION BLUR from the club head proves beyond doubt that we have all the frames. So, to estimate the original frame rate, it's just a simple matter of counting the frames in the swing and then estimating how long a typical golf swing takes. As I said, ANYONE can prove that you lied about the 5000 fps, whether or not you ever provide the original, so flinging snot at me is completely pointless. And the FACT that this "rod" also shows the same kind of continuous streak as the club head (or any other moving object) implies a simple conclusion: Your "rod" is completely indistinguishable from a flying bug, which is the same conclusion we can draw from ALL the other evidence.Game, set, match. It's over, dude. I sincerely hope you have other career opportunities.
Curtis Hedges:
I don't see a continuos streak from this ROD or any over ROD you argue against and if there is another insect in flight in the same clip as the ROD I argue for I can use that as a point of reference to show how full of shit your claims are to begin with! You excel in pessimism with a rant to match. All insects in flight should present the same streak patterns under your shutter conditions because the playing field would be even as far as the acuity of the optics, but this is not the case in 2 specific examples I presented to you. The distinctions are easily apparent to even a laymen! You think your eyes are lying to you so you use technicalities in every instance possible; irrational in all cases because the idea of this reality to you is unsettling, but that's no excuse to deny it! Be a Man, accept reality! Instead, you puss out from seeing the big IR/UV picture which is scientifically proven invisible to human eyesight and you will continue to puss out in that respect because you entire argument is smoke and mirrors for either a bad childhood or some intimate infatuation you have with Jose, hence your website. Sickening if you ask me since you have NEVER DONE AN INDEPENDENT ON FIELD EXPERIMENT IN VALIDATING OR FALSIFYING RODS IN 11 YEARS! Roger, I am happy to clean up Jose's trash any day starting with you! Have a nice day Goy!Curtis
Sol:
Jeez, Curtis, that bug DOES follow EXACTLY the same pattern of end-to-end streaks! They're just much shorter streaks because that bug is flying much slower. Duh. Will you ever become so embarrassed that you actually start looking at this stuff for yourself and actually start THINKING about it before you pounce on your keyboard? I doubt it, now that you are apparently reduced to even denying the continuous streak the images clearly show, but thanks for giving me another piece of evidence to include in my analysis. I'm going to particularly enjoy mentioning that you called it to my attention.And, once again, the independent research I've done to support my "bug theory" is right there on my site. One might think you would at least READ the damn thing before launching into your knee-jerk denials. And of course, to ACTUALLY attempt to refute it, you'd need to ACTUALLY understand it, which kinda leaves you out in the cold, buddy. Sorry about that.
Curtis Hedges:
I understand your argument as far as streaks, but it's simply stupidity on your part if you ask me to concluded without falsifying further what's being presented on both clips. In one clip the ROD flies faster than the golf ball itself which statistically averages at about 70 mph or faster if your tiger woods. Remember dumb ass, you have to prove that the Smithsonian Institute's study on insect flight is inaccurate (Sphinx Moth- 33mph "fastest on record") if you claim that's an insect instead of a ROD! Your shutter / interlaced frame argument has no scientific bearing what's so ever! Only in your perverted mind have you given credence and logic to such an argument while overlooking every other aspect of the clip... I believe the term is called "cherry picking" and you do it well, but the trail of bread crumbs you leave behind show way to many inconsistencies on your part and I am not impressed to say the least with your attempts, nor is anybody else visiting your personal online rant...Curtis
Sol:
Oh, really? I would think that someone familiar with UFO photo analysis would understand the difficulties of judging DISTANCE from a 2D video. Or is it that you don't appreciate that your estimate of speed is dependent on your estimate of distance?In this case, however, it appears to me that when we first see it, the bug is closer to the camera than the man. and it's only a few feet past him when we last see it. That would mean that it really covers only a few feet during the time that the golf ball travels many yards, which gives one approximation for the speed: much, much less than the golf ball. Of course, I don't know for sure how far away the bug is, either, but my argument shows why your argument fails to really prove anything. But also in this case, there's another way to estimate the speed of the bug: We can compare the length of the bug's motion blur to the club's motion blur at the point that they are about the same distance from the camera. That requires a bit of a guess, of course, but ANY reasonable guess gives another estimate: the bug is flying much slower than the club, because the length of its streaks is much less.
The motion blur from that club head tells us that there is no way in hell this video was shot with a high "shutter" speed, but I'm still amazed at the cognitive dissonance you must have to look right at that blurred club head yet deny to yourself that a bug would make the same kind of motion-blurred streak in that same video. If this were really a rod-shaped something or other flying at incredible speed, the motion blur of the club tells us that we should see the "rod" PLUS the motion blur produced by that incredible speed. Instead, we see only short streaks, much shorter than the club head streaks. Obviously, you don't believe me when I tell you that people of normal intelligence can understand this simple reasoning, so go ahead and publish your amazing "evidence," I'll publish my analysis of it, and we'll just see where the chips fall.
This is not "cherry picking." You have exactly zero evidence that withstands rational scrutiny. I have answered to all of your claims and you have mostly ignored my answers. Instead of rational rebuttal on the critical issues, you keep throwing up the same failed arguments and irrelevancies over and over. (E.g.: The fact that bugs can be videoed with an IR camera does NOT imply that the same bug would be invisible to a standard camcorder. Bugs make "rods" in IR shots for exactly the same reason they make "rods" in visible light shots: motion blur.)
We've made no progress at all in this exchange. I still claim that the only people who have disagreed with my "bugrod theory" are people who don't understand it, but since you seem to be proud of being on that list, I am indeed wasting my time trying to explain it to you. But, hey, if you wanna go to the mat over this bit of "evidence" then game on, dude.
Curtis Hedges:
My estimate of speed would be dependent on scientifically held statistics and the visual data itself, which you have not shown to be incorrect on my part...If your referring to the bug that flies into the field horizontally prior to the swing, I agree with you. The club is faster. If you are referring to the ROD that flies faster and vertically with the golf ball that was hit by the club, your "guesstimation" is incorrect....
Your further argue that I dodge you, even after your criteria was meet. Now you disagree with the footage, but The original footage is from a High Speed camera. If you had the original tape watching this clip in it's original quality, your negations would look even dumber than they already are and you would have to keep repeating your straw man argument as to quell your insecurities...
You may think if someone doesn't understand you, that they are below you in some capacity, but this ideology is arrogant, especially when they do understand you and don't agree with you conclusions because of your cherry picking view points. Case in point... My very first clip that I shared with you from the beginning of our email exchanges had 30 RODS flying in formation, with a few of them having to change directions to keep up with the rest, all flying across the screen in under a second within the footage. Your argument focused specifically on the first 2 RODS that darted across in the first seconds of the clip. You totally avoided even mentioning that there was a 30 ROD flight formation on the same clip, clear as day to the laymen. You can count them individually under the slow motion play back within the clip if you don't trust me. You cherry picked around this fact because your explanation would fall flat in its face. That's the type of cherry picking you employ consistently and if you were to change your post after the fact now that I have brought this to your attention and on record doing so, it would be further evidence of your lack of observation, objectivity and dishonest investigation techniques. Sorry bro, but you can't sell horse meat to a glue salesman...
Curtis
Sol:
I am referring to your "rod," and I gave you my REASONS for concluding that it was flying slower than the club or the ball. As is typical, you just ignore those reasons then give me nothing resembling a reason for your naked assertion that it was really "faster and vertically with the golf ball" or any other reasonable alternate way to estimate the speed. Sorry, that's bullshit.No, my criteria has certainly not been met. Whereas I explicitly said -- for obvious reasons! -- that you needed a video that was IRREFUTABLY shot at 1/500th, you either lied about the frame rate of that video or you gullibly repeated a lie from the shooter. The evidence that it's a lie is right there in the video itself, easily detectable by anyone who knows what they hell they are looking at and talking about. And then, this video actually turns out to be yet more evidence that my "bugrod" theory is correct. What an absurdity for you to claim that you've met my criteria.
And then you accuse me of "cherry picking" because I only composited the first two "rods" on your first video. No, I don't need to revise my response, because I said the video was full of ordinary "bugrods" and anyone who understands why I say that can easily verify that fact for themselves by inspecting the streak patterns on the other bugrods. But since you are not among that elite crowd that understands my arguments, you instead offer a new argument: There's a shot of some 30 "rods" flying in a swarm, so they can't be bugs. That makes even less sense than your contention that if an IR camera images them, they can't be bugs. I guess we need to add insect swarming to the list of things you don't understand (hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_behaviour) but your incredulity is just not evidence of anything at all. What IS evidence however, is that the bugrods in that swarm individually look exactly like bugrods by themselves: a continuous streak. Trying to composite all of them in the same image would just create an impenetrable mess, but my contention that they are ordinary bugrods is demonstrated by compositing just the four in the front of the swarm. See attached. Once again, my "bugrod" theory predicts exactly what we will see -- four continuous streaks -- yet you claim that it would "fall flat in its face" without even attempting to give any reason. Sorry, but that's bullshit, too.
This is like dueling with an unarmed man. Just another piece of advice, which I'm sure you'll ignore: Before putting any more of your ass into the game, this might be a good time to stop and consider WHY this is going so badly for you. And it isn't too late to seek help.
Curtis Hedges:
You first will have to consult a Insect expert before you comment yourself further into obscurity... It's not common for Insects to fly in swarms out in the ocean off the Seatlle coast where this clip was taken. I represent the author of this clip as well so I know these details as well as other pertinent info from the clip you do not. You can only guess and make assumptions from the clip which is all that you offer and does no good for anybody who visits your shit hole of a website. Plus, the clip is shown in realtime. Those RODS were traveling faster than any insect, period. If you diligently and genuinely investigate that clip then you would have shut your mouth up a long time ago and realize that a physical specimen is the key to my argument. All the other crap you throw my way is purely superfluous in nature and lacks credible assessment of the content itself. Just give up already and stop wasting everybodies time with your grade school level homework assignment against Jose.Curtis
Sol:
What my study undeniably shows it that ALL of the "rods" evidence is completely indistinguishable from bugs.On the other hand, you have hand-waving assertions that you can't back up and childish insults.
That's where we are -- the same place we were a decade ago.
End of story.
Curtis Hedges:
So that's where I think I'll leave it with Curtis until RodCo decides to publish the "high speed" video. If they do, I will show you what the video says about itself.Only in your one sided, my way or the highway view on life does your study make sense. Anything else you want to add to the arrogant rant counter? Owe, Please humble me with your impervious study of shutter blurrs made up of wadded tinfoil balls and Insects. LMAO!Curtis
In the middle of this (actually, right after I wondered if Curtis was really Jose), I recieved an email from the old huckster himself, in which he was replying to a message forwarded by Curtis. Although it's kind of sad that this is all Jose has to offer today, 11 years after promising to present the "totality of the evidence" and destroy "bugrod theory" once and for all, I'll share it because it's funny. ;)
Jose:
Curtis,I knew this child abusive cocksucker would call it an insect. His kids probably hate this asshole if he's bred any (probably abuses them also). Three words for you Roger...go fuck yourself.
Sincerely - JE
Sol:
LOL, ignorance, stupidity, dishonesty, and attitude -- you are the complete "package" Jose.Jose:
Yeah whatever you think Roger. YOU and I go way back and I am not letting you slide. The day will come where you will kneel before me in forgiveness for being such an idiot. I'll pull out my sword and knight you "Sir Pendejo of Harris."Just how you like it... LOL - JE
And Jose again, apparently having forgotten some important pieces of his "totality of the evidence":
To be continued, I suppose... although I have no idea why it needs to be....Roger,Okay...sorry for calling you a cocksucker...you're probably not gay just a fucking gay looking geek. So anyway...I am NOT dishonest. You need to quite accusing me of that sort of thing. You and others have taken free reign about the RODS while never disproving their existence. Your insect theory bullshit can be sold to many addle brained idiots out there, but the facts are that RODS are real and there's no two ways about it.
I have always maintained that where it comes to your types, you can show them a cow - they will claim it's a horse...no matter what the truth is, you flat earth proponents will always disagree with the facts that don't suit your narrow minded views. At the end of the day you will be proven wrong as always.
So Roger - sorry about calling you a cocksucker okay snapperhead?
As far as Curtis is concerned, he has tried to make intelligent viewpoints with you and I told him you're a waste of time and for you to call that ROD an insect while ALL three items are at a point where they are different in comparison, only shows your blindness....(ie: show them a cow...they will insist it's a horse) ....what a jerk you are Roger. I thought you would at least compare things in that clip. BUT like I always say - a brain stem is a brain stem and there are many out there that don't make a difference in life. Just plain and simple stupidity on a stick.
Again - sorry about the cocksucker remark you tit-head. LOL!
Yours truly - Joser
Jose Escamilla's Original "Rods" Sequence Pictures
