The “experts” tell us that the true mark of a genuine rod photo is one taken at a high shutter speed. We know without any question at all, that slow shutter speeds are unreliable, as slow shutter speeds distorts images. It distorts insect images to the point that they look like rod photos or what some claim are rod photos.

     The experts claim that using a high shutter speed will eliminate the “bogus” images. So here we have a genuine rod photo taken by an expert, Jeff Farris one of the members of Jose Escamilla’s team. He stresses the point of taking rod photos with high shutter speeds.

     The fact that you can see the object going behind the telephone pole and wires gives us a very good indication of it’s size.

     We know that all video plays back at 30 frames per second regardless of what shutter speed was used. This means if the two images, which have been merged into the one image that you see here at the top, were taken 1/30 of a second apart. We could assume the images were sequential; there is only about 4-6 feet between the images so it seems reasonable to assume they were sequential frames.

     The telephone pole and transformer are common objects that can be used to determine size. Look over a telephone pole very carefully, they appeared to be about 20 feet high, and the transformers are 1 ½ to 2 feet in height. Based on this, the object that you see here is between 4-6 feet in length, perhaps 8-10 inches in width but it is hard to tell due to the blurring. What a minute, did we say blurring? How did this image “blur” if Jeff was using a high shutter speed per his protocol? Was the object seen here traveling thousands of mph, faster then the “naked” eye could see?

     There are at least two factors that dam this photo. The first detail is the fact that the image is blurred at all; if it were taken at a high shutter speed we would expect it to be in perfect focus. If it was taken at the shutter speed recommended by Jeff and Jose of 1/10,000 of a second, the object, if my math is right would of only traveled .012 of a foot in 1/10,000 of a second or less then an inch.

      In other words it would have moved so little during the time the shutter was open that the object wouldn’t have appeared blurred at all. What ever this object is would have been crystal clear, sharp, detailed and there would be little doubt as to its identity.

      The other damming datum is the arch that the object takes, the trajectory that it follows. Notice the curved arrow that we added to the top photo. This curve is consistence with the trajectory that an arrow or spear would take if someone had thrown it over the transformer wires.

     Now the experts claim that rods travel at thousands of mph, they might claim that even though they used a high shutter setting the reason this photo is blurred is because the object was traveling at such a high rate of speed. Lets examine that for a moment, we know that all video plays back at 30 frames per second, we know that the distance between the two objects, the distance the object traveled between frames is a little less then it’s length.

     So if we error on the low side and say the object traveled 4 feet in 1/30 of second all we have to do is multiply 4 feet by 30 equals 120 feet per second. Which would be (120 feet X 60 seconds X 60 minutes) / 5280 = 81.8 or a little less than 82 mph, not thousands of mph but only 82 mph. An object 4-6 feet long traveling a little less then the speed of a fastball would certainly be visible to the naked eye. A simple bow and arrow shot over the transformer would follow this arch that this object follows, and would quite easily travel on the slow side at least 82 mph.

     So we have an object that appears to have been filmed at a slow shutter speed, therefore the blurring is explained, and the object arches over the telephone wire consistence with the manner that you would expect a spear or arrow to follow. And the object we now know was traveling a paltry 82 mph. What we have found by looking over a number of similar photos is that we see this arch over and over again, indicating that someone is perhaps throwing spears or shooting arrows into the air and someone filming them misidentifies them as rods.

     If these photos were taken using a high shutter speed as some have maintained they were, we would see very little if any blurring. Strike one. If the object was a rod we would expect the image to perhaps travel in a more liner fashion, side to side, or even arch upwards some of the time, instead we always see the same arch consistence with a thrown or launched object under the influence of gravity. Strike two.

     If these are of rods, which the experts claim travel thousands of mph, too fast for the human eye to see, we would expect to come to a different conclusion then the ones we have. Quite simply that this object is traveling at 82 mph, the speed one would expect from a spear or slow arrow and one that would be visible to human eyes. Strike three.

     Our evaluation is that this photo shows nothing any stranger then a common object some body tossed over a telephone wire, filmed it at a slow shutter speed and claimed differently or was confused. We might add that a professional videographer and an imaging expert both disagreed with our assessment here. They both believed this image represented nothing more then a blurred insect flying close to the lens of the camera.