The "Tin Foil Hat Heretic" Thread

[PHC1]

Anyone interested in this thread at all? Should I continue posting the more interesting videos as they come up or should I not bother?

[Chubba]

I say keep it going but I am not from here.Cheers Serge.

[Route 66]

I found the video link in post #60 to be very interesting.

[PHC1]

Originally Posted by Route 66

I found the video link in post #60 to be very interesting.

Indeed. Not really news, the phenomena has been around for decades but still fascinating. I’ve seen ever more in depth analysis where the scientists noticed the DNA of the wheat was changed where the crop circle pattern was. No explanation or hoax proof for that can possibly exist.

[Route 66]

Originally Posted by PHC1

Indeed. Not really news, the phenomena has been around for decades but still fascinating. I’ve seen ever more in depth analysis where the scientists noticed the DNA of the wheat was changed where the crop circle pattern was. No explanation or hoax proof for that can possibly exist.

I've been aware of crop circles myself for decades too but I've never seen the type that appear to show recognizable images like the ones in that video. Usually they're very abstract in nature.

[j3brow]

Originally Posted by PHC1

Anyone interested in this thread at all? Should I continue posting the more interesting videos as they come up or should I not bother?

Please do. I enjoy the exposure to these videos. Freaky, educational, and interesting all rolled into one. The only thread I’m subscribed too. [emoji1303]

[PHC1]

The infamous Flying Rods or "Sky Fish" that have puzzled everyone for decades now. In the air and in the water. Typically nearly impossible to notice with a naked eye but on camera it is. Hundreds of videos out there but here is a primer. https://www.news9.com/story/27445773...yOUtAGUtzmusEY

[PHC1]

"There is neither evidence nor plausible hypotheticals suggesting that invisible flying "rods" might exist".

Oh really?

"From the cryptozoology files, we're going to look today at rods, those magical, mystical living UFO's believed by some to inhabit the invisible shadowlands of Earth."

"Rods are said to be flying creatures, from a few centimeters to a meter in length, that are invisible to humans, but visible to cameras, both film and digital, both still and video. Their bodies are shaped like long thin rods, and their only appendages are wavy wings, one on each side, stretching the full length of their bodies. They move through the air by undulating these wings, like long, thin, aerial manta rays."

"If rods are as ubiquitous as it would seem they are, why is their existence not generally accepted? Justification for the existence of rods requires that four basic claims be proven or at least shown to be reasonable:

1. There should be zoological precedents for the existence of undiscovered insects up to a meter in length. New species are being discovered all the time, but few that are that size; nevertheless, it's possible, however unlikely. All they need to do to prove it is to produce one that can be examined.

2. We must accept the unprecedented existence of creatures that are invisible, although they're up to a meter in length. Discounting microscopic organisms, the natural world offers no better than transparency, such as that found in some species of jellyfish. Transparency is not invisibility. Supporters of rods have not proven that invisibility in the animal kingdom is possible, and they will need to do so by presenting an invisible animal.

3. Certain images must be visible only in the output of all types of visible wavelength cameras, but not visible to the naked eye. When cameras output their images to the final medium, be it film, paper, or a video screen, we see their output because our eyes see the same visible wavelengths that were recorded and output. We're not talking about thermographic or other non-visible-wavelength camera technologies here, so rod supporters will need to prove that all standard cameras can convert certain invisible wavelengths into visible ones, without affecting the visible wavelengths; which is something those cameras were not designed to do. Only with this proof can it be reasonably accepted that it's possible for a camera to see a solid object that was invisible to the photographer's eye.

4. Even if all of the above can be substantiated, there needs to be a lack of a more likely explanation. If a simple procedure can be shown to easily reproduce the appearance of rods on camera, then we haven't even established that there is a phenomenon to be investigated." https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4004







Yet here they are.... https://youtu.be/od5BNrykWPo

[PHC1]

And here is what my friend caught on his security camera the other night.... He asked me if I knew what it might be....

[Route 66]

Originally Posted by PHC1

And here is what my friend caught on his security camera the other night.... He asked me if I knew what it might be....

Couldn't that be an insect flapping its wings while the camera is set to a slow shutter speed?