>> male narrator: THOUSANDS OF
BIZARRE IMAGES CAPTURED ALL OVER THE WORLD.
MYSTERIOUS CREATURES THAT LIVE BETWEEN BLINKS OF THE E.
>> WHAT ARE THEY? THAT'S THE TOUGH QUESTION.
>> narrator: SOME THINK THEY ARE VISITORS FROM ANOTHER DIMENSION.
>> THESE THINGS THAT APPEAR TO BE PHASING IN AND OUT.
>> narrator: SOME FEAR THAT THEY POSE A SIGNIFICANT THREAT.
>> AND IT LOOKED LIKE A MISSILE. >> narrator: HISTORY SUGGESTS
THERE MAY BE A LINK TO A REAL ANIMAL.
>> THE MOST PLAUSIBLE PROTOPTERYGOTE WOULD LOOK QUITE
LIKE MANY OF THE PICTURES OF RODS.
>> narrator: MISSILE, PHOTOGRAPHIC ANOMALY, OR
SOMETHING FROM ANOTHER WORLD? A MONSTER QUEST INVESTIGATION
MAY FINALLY REVEAL THE TRUTH. >> IT COULD OPEN UP A WHOLE NEW
DOOR TO AERODYNAMICS. >> THE HIGH-SPEED VIDEO CAMERA
WILL BE RECORDING AT 2,000 FRAMES PER SECOND.
>> SEE YOU GUYS. [cheering wildly]
[wildlife sounds] >> narrator: WITNESSES AROUND
THE WORLD REPORT SEEING MONSTERS.
ARE THEY REAL OR IMAGINARY? SCIENCE SEARCHES FOR ANSWERS
ON MONSTER QUEST. THE CAMERA: CAPTURING EVERYTHING
FROM NEWS TO WEDDINGS, IMMORTALIZING THE MOMENT.
BUT THEY ARE ALSO RECORDING SOMETHING ELSE, A MISSILE-LIKE
OBJECT OR CREATURE ABLE TO APPEAR OUT OF NOWHERE FOR JUST
A FRACTION OF A SECOND BEFORE DISAPPEARING AGAIN.
TO RESEARCHERS, THEY ARE SIMPLY CALLED RODS.
>> WHO KNOWS WHAT IT IS, BUT THERE WAS SOMETHING THERE.
>> THESE THINGS TRAVEL AT MAYBE 135, MAYBE 200 MILES AN HOUR.
>> YOU CAN MISS IT WITH THE NAKED EYE.
>> narrator: RODS ARE DESCRIBED AS ONE TO SIX FEET LONG WITH
A CYLINDRICAL BODY AND EITHER MULTIPLE SETS OF WINGS OR WITH
A THIN MEMBRANE OF WINGS WRAPPED AROUND THEIR ENTIRE LENGTH,
PROPELLING THE CREATURE FORWARD SO FAST, THEY ARE
UNDETECTABLE TO THE NAKED EYE. RODS HAVE BEEN LITTLE MORE THAN
A CURIOSITY, THAT IS, UNTIL OCTOBER 20TH, 2002.
[jet engine roaring] [growling]
>> "IS IT A BIRD, A PLANE, OR SOMETHING ELSE?" PEOPLE ARE
ASKING NOW THAT A MYSTERIOUS OBJECT HAS BEEN CAUGHT ON TAPE
OVER ALBANY, NEW YORK. >> narrator: BRANDON MOWRY IS
A PHOTOJOURNALIST FROM ALBANY, NEW YORK.
HE WAS SHOOTING VIDEO FOR A LOCAL NEWSCAST WHEN HE FOUND
SOMETHING HE COULD NOT EXPLAIN. >> I WENT OUT TO THE AIRPORT TO
SHOOT SOME WEATHER VIDEO THAT DAY, A FIVE-SECOND BUMP SHOT FOR
THE WEATHER, A TEASE FOR THE WEATHER.
I WAS SHOOTING PLANES TAKING OFF AT THE ALBANY INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT AT THE END OF A RUNWAY. >> narrator: MOWRY DID NOT
NOTICE ANYTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY AT THE AIRPORT AT
THE TIME. HIS DISCOVERY CAME UPON
RETURNING TO THE STATION. >> WHILE I WAS EDITING THE TAPE,
I HAPPENED TO JUST PAUSE IT ON-- YOU KNOW, ON A FRAME,
AND I LOOKED UP, AND THERE WAS THIS OBJECT IN THE SHOT.
WHAT IS THIS, A UFO? IS THIS--IT LOOKS STRANGE,
LIKE A MISSILE? YOU KNOW, LIKE, ALL THESE THINGS
WERE GOING THROUGH MY HEAD. >> narrator: HE FOUND A LONG,
CYLINDRICAL, WINGED OBJECT STREAKING PAST A PASSENGER PLANE
TAKING OFF FROM THE AIRPORT. TO MOWRY, IT APPEARED TO BE
LARGE AND VERY FAST, APPEARING IN ONLY A FEW FRAMES OF VIDEO.
>> IT LOOKS SUSPICIOUSLY LIKE A MISSILE OVER A COMMERCIAL
AIRPORT. >> narrator: MOWRY CALLED IN
STATION REPORTER DAN BAZILE TO VIEW THE IMAGE.
STILL IN THE SHADOW OF 9/11, BAZILE FELT HE NEEDED TO NOTIFY
AIRPORT SECURITY. >> AIRPORT SECURITY--AIRPORT
OFFICIALS LOOKED AT IT, AND THEY SAID, "WE HAVE NO IDEA
WHAT THIS IS. I DON'T THINK WE CAUGHT THIS
ON RADAR." THEY CALLED THE FBI.
FBI CAME IN. AN AGENT CAME IN.
HE CONFISCATED--OR I SHOULD SAY, HE JUST TOOK THE TAPE FROM
BRANDON, AND HE TOOK OFF. >> narrator: THERE MAY BE GOOD
REASON FOR THE FBI'S INTEREST. IT APPEARS AGAIN IN 2003 OVER
BAGHDAD, MOMENTS AFTER A GIANT EXPLOSION ROCKED THE CITY.
AND IN THIS VIDEO, A ROD APPEARS TO FLY PAST A SWEDISH TANK AT
A TEST FIRING RANGE. THERE ARE A SURPRISING NUMBER
OF RODS FOUND IN AND AROUND MILITARY OPERATIONS OR WHERE
AIRCRAFT ARE SEEN, LEADING SOME TO THEORIZE RODS MAY BE
CONNECTED TO SECRET MILITARY WEAPONS.
>> I BELIEVE IT WAS SOMETHING CLASSIFIED THAT THE GOVERNMENT
DOESN'T WANT US TO KNOW ABOUT. IT'S FLYING UP IN THE SKY,
THEY DIDN'T WANT US TO KNOW ABOUT IT, AND THEY TOOK THAT
TAPE. THEY DON'T WANT US TO KNOW.
SO I'M THINKING THIS WAS SOME SORT OF TEST.
>> narrator: TO THIS DAY, BRANDON HAS STUCK TO HIS STORY,
AND THE FBI CONSIDERS THE CASE OPEN AND WOULD NOT COMMENT ON
ITS FINDINGS. >> THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT THIS
EVENT WAS TAKEN VERY SERIOUSLY, OKAY, BY THE FBI AND THE
MILITARY. IT WAS DEFINITELY A MATTER OF
NATIONAL SECURITY, AS FAR AS THEY WERE CONCERNED.
>> narrator: JOSE ESCAMILLA IS A RODS RESEARCHER AND HISTORIAN
WHO HAS COLLECTED OVER 2,000 ROD IMAGES FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD,
AND ACCORDING TO JOSE, RODS HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG TIME.
>> I'M GONNA SHOW YOU A PHOTO THAT WAS TAKEN IN 1910 IN
FRANCE. HERE IT IS.
CHECK IT OUT. THIS IS THE OBJECT HERE.
IN 1910 DURING A RACE, THIS OBJECT WAS HERE.
AND IT'S DEFINITELY CYLINDRICAL IN SHAPE.
IT SEEMS TO HAVE UNDULATIONS ON IT.
>> narrator: SKEPTICS FREQUENTLY TELL ESCAMILLA RODS ARE JUST
BIRDS OR BUGS DISTORTED BY THE CAMERA, BUT HE ARGUES MANY
RODS ARE RECORDED IN PLACES WHERE ANIMALS SHOULD NOT BE
FLYING ABOUT, LIKE THIS VIDEO. >> SOMETHING'S CAPTURED ON THE
VIDEO. IT APPEARS TO BE CYLINDRICAL.
IT APPEARS TO BE MOVING AT HIGH SPEED.
>> narrator: FILMED IN MAY 1999 AND BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF
METEOROLOGIST GARY ENGLAND, THIS ROD APPEARS TO FLY THROUGH
A TORNADO. IT WAS RECORDED ON A
BROADCAST-QUALITY CAMERA FROM A NEWS HELICOPTER TRACKING
A TORNADO AS IT SWEPT THROUGH OKLAHOMA CITY.
>> A LARGE TORNADO WAS COMING UP IN THE SOUTHWEST TOWARD OKLAHOMA
CITY. IT TURNED OUT TO BE
AN F5 TORNADO. TURNED OUT TO BE A TORNADO WITH
THE STRONGEST WINDS EVER RECORDED IN HISTORY.
>> narrator: THE ROD APPEARS TO EMERGE FROM A CLOUD THAT ENGLAND
ESTIMATES IS TEN MILES AWAY FROM THE NEWS CHOPPER.
BUT DOES IT REALLY? WHEN PLAYED IN SLOW MOTION,
IT IS DIFFICULT TO TELL WHETHER THE ROD IS GOING BEHIND THE
CLOUD OR IS APPEARING AND DISAPPEARING.
>> YOU SEE WHAT APPEARS TO BE A--IT LOOKS LIKE A CYLINDRICAL
TUBE, BUT IT'S A FLASH. IT'S A--IT'S A FLASH THAT
APPEARS IN THE FRAME, BANG. IT MOVED VERY QUICKLY.
AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT JUST APPEARS OUT OF A CLOUD.
I LOOKED AT IT, AND YOU KIND OF GO, "WOW," YOU KNOW, "WHAT IS
THIS?" AND I HAVE TO TELL YOU RIGHT
NOW, I STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS.
>> narrator: JOSE ESCAMILLA HAS ALSO SEEN THE OKLAHOMA CITY
VIDEOTAPE. >> HERE'S ANOTHER ONE FARTHER
DOWN, AND THIS APPEARS TO BE GOING INTO THE FUNNEL CLOUD
ITSELF, SO THIS THING IS GOING IN THERE AT A PRETTY FAST CLIP,
AND IT'S HUGE. THAT'S AN AMAZING SHOT.
WHAT WAS IT DOING IN A THUNDERSTORM THAT TURNED OUT
TO BE--PRODUCE THE WORST TORNADO IN HISTORY?
YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE.
>> narrator: THE PHOTOGRAPHERS THAT CAPTURE RODS ON TAPE CLAIM
THEY WERE NOT VISIBLE TO THE NAKED EYE AND WERE ONLY
DISCOVERED LATER BY CHANCE, DEEPENING THE MYSTERY.
>> WHO KNOWS WHAT IT IS, BUT THERE WAS SOMETHING THERE.
>> narrator: THE ROD'S ABILITY TO APPEAR AND DISAPPEAR IN THE
BLINK OF AN EYE LEAD SOME TO AN INTERESTING THEORY:
THEY ARE SOMETHING FROM ANOTHER DIMENSION.
>> I HAVE SEEN FOOTAGE, ALL RIGHT, OF THESE THINGS THAT
APPEAR TO BE PHASING IN AND OUT. WHAT I MEAN BY PHASING IS, THEY
ARE THERE, AND PART OF THE TORSO DISAPPEARS, AND THEN THE OTHER
TORSO--THE OTHER PART COMES BACK IN.
WHETHER IT'S FROM ANOTHER DIMENSION, I CAN'T EVEN ANSWER
THAT ONE. I'M JUST TELLING YOU WHAT I'VE
SEEN. >> narrator: THIS THEORY IS NOT
WITHOUT PRECEDENT. AUTHOR AND SCIENTIST CARL SAGAN
ONCE SAID, "IF A FOURTH-DIMENSIONAL CREATURE
EXISTED, IT COULD, IN OUR THREE-DIMENSIONAL UNIVERSE,
APPEAR AND DEMATERIALIZE AT WILL."
>> IS IT THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE FOR BEINGS TO CROSS BETWEEN
DIMENSIONS? WELL, THEORETICALLY, YES.
>> narrator: PROFESSOR THOMAS BANCHOFF IS A MATHEMATICIAN AT
BROWN UNIVERSITY. >> TIME IS USED VERY FREQUENTLY
BY PHYSICISTS TO REPRESENT A FOURTH DIMENSION, ESPECIALLY
SINCE THE WORK OF EINSTEIN AND RELATIVITY THEORY, WHERE WE WANT
TO STUDY PHENOMENA AND THE PHENOMENA ARE EVENTS.
YOU HAVE THREE DIMENSIONS OF SPACE AND ONE DIMENSION OF TIME.
THE CLASSIC ANALOGY TO UNDERSTAND DIMENSIONS HIGHER
THAN OUR OWN GOES BACK TO EDWIN ABBOTT ABBOTT IN 1884.
HE WROTE THE BOOK FLATLAND. FLATLAND IS A TWO-DIMENSIONAL
WORLD LIKE THE SURFACE OF A STILL POND.
AND ONE OF THE KEY THINGS IN THAT TWO-DIMENSIONAL WORLD IN
THE STORY IS A VISITATION FROM A CREATURE FROM A HIGHER
DIMENSION. A HIGHER DIMENSION IS SPACELAND,
AND YOU HAVE A BEACH BALL THAT'S READY TO COME THROUGH FLATLAND.
WHEN IT DOES, A SQUARE, THE NARRATOR OF FLATLAND,
JUST SEES THE INTERSECTION OF THE SPHERE WITH THE PLANE.
HE SEES A CIRCLE. HE RECOGNIZES CIRCLES.
HE'S FAMILIAR WITH THOSE IN HIS WORLD.
BUT A CIRCLE THAT APPEARS MYSTERIOUSLY AND THEN DISAPPEARS
IS SOMETHING THAT IS VERY HARD FOR HIM TO EXPLAIN.
>> narrator: TIME TRAVEL AND MULTIPLE DIMENSIONS HAVE LONG
BEEN THE BASIS FOR GREAT STORIES.
IN 1895, H.G. WELLS WROTE THE SCIENCE FICTION THRILLER
THE TIME MACHINE, LATER MADE INTO TWO MOVIES.
BUT MOST RODS SEEM TO BE FLYING, NOT JUST POPPING IN LIKE WELLS'
TIME MACHINE. ONE WAY TO VERIFY WHETHER RODS
ARE EITHER MILITARY EXPERIMENTS OR AN UNDISCOVERED FLYING
CREATURE IS TO SEE WHETHER AN OBJECT SIMILAR IN SHAPE CAN
ACTUALLY FLY. MONSTER QUEST PUTS IT TO
THE TEST. >> narrator: DR. HUI HU IS AN
AEROSPACE ENGINEER AT IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY.
>> narrator: MONSTER QUEST AND DR. HU HAVE ENLISTED SEVERAL
ENGINEERING STUDENTS TO HELP WITH AN EXPERIMENT.
>> IF THESE THINGS ARE REAL, IT COULD OPEN UP A WHOLE NEW
DOOR TO AERODYNAMICS. >> narrator: THEY WILL BUILD TWO
DIFFERENT MODELS: ONE WITH SOFT, FLEXIBLE WINGS TO SIMULATE
THE DESCRIPTIONS OF RODS PROPELLED BY THIN MEMBRANES,
THE OTHER MORE RIGID, RESEMBLING THE DESCRIPTIONS OF
MISSILE-SHAPE RODS. >> WHEN WE TEST THESE THINGS,
THE BEST-CASE SCENARIO WE'RE GONNA FIND IS GOOD LIFT AND DRAG
NUMBERS. THAT'LL TELL US WHETHER OR NOT
THIS THING ACTUALLY HAS CAPABLE OF FLIGHT.
ON THE OTHER SIDE, THE WORST THING THAT CAN HAPPEN IS,
WE TURN ON THE WIND TUNNEL AND THE THING JUST SPLITS APART.
>> narrator: THE FLIGHTWORTHINESS AND AERODYNAMIC
CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH MODEL WILL BE DETERMINED USING THE
WIND TUNNEL AT IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY.
>> THE MODELS WE MADE WERE, AGAIN, BASICALLY A FLAT PLATE,
BUT THE ENDS OF IT WERE SOMEWHAT FLEXIBLE SO IT COULD MOVE
A LITTLE BIT IN THE AIRSTREAM. AND THEN WE COVERED IT WITH
A LATEX SHEET TO SIMULATE, LIKE, A SKIN OR JUST SOME KIND OF
COVERING. >> narrator: THE WIND TUNNEL
ALLOWS THE STUDENTS TO MEASURE DRAG AND LIFT IN A CONTROLLED
ENVIRONMENT. ELECTRONIC SENSORS PROVIDE EXACT
NUMBERS. BUT IS THEIR EXPERIMENT RELEVANT
TO THIS PHOTO? ALLEGEDLY PICTURING A CRAFT
THAT IS AT HOME IN THE WATER AS WELL AS THE ATMOSPHERE,
LEAVING SOME TO THINK THAT RODS ARE ALIEN UFOs.
>> IT WAS TAKEN OFF OF NORWAY IN JULY 1957.
IT'S A ROD, YOU KNOW, COMING OUT OF THE OCEAN.
BELIEVE THAT RODS COULD BE A UFO.
NOW A PHOTOGRAPH HAS SURFACED WHICH BEARS CLOSER SCRUTINY.
>> WE FOUND A PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN BY A NAVAL PERSON.
IT WAS TAKEN OFF OF NORWAY IN JULY 1957.
IT'S A ROD, YOU KNOW, COMING OUT OF THE OCEAN TAKEN WITH
35-MILLIMETER FILM. >> narrator: IT HAS THE ROD
SHAPE BUT SEEMS TO BE MOVING SIDEWAYS, AWAY FROM THE WATER,
UNLIKE ANY OTHER ROD IMAGES. WHILE RODS ARE, BY DEFINITION,
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS, ARE THEY FROM ANOTHER WORLD?
>> I DON'T THINK SO. I MEAN, WE HAVE OBJECTS--
RODLIKE OBJECTS FLYING IN, BUT THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY
MEAN THAT AN ALIEN, YOU KNOW, MADE THEM.
>> narrator: THIS OPTICAL PHYSICIST SAYS THE CLASSIC
WINGED ROD IMAGES AND CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THEM
ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE TYPICAL ALIEN UFO SIGHTINGS.
>> THE UFO SUBJECT, OF COURSE, HAS A LONG HISTORY, APPROACHING
60 YEARS NOW, AND IT'S NOT JUST VISUAL.
IT'S NOT JUST FILM OR VIDEOS OF THINGS MOVING AT HIGH SPEED.
THE UFO PHENOMENON HAS NUMEROUS WITNESS CASES WHERE THEY SEE
SOME OBJECT EITHER STANDING STILL, OR THEY SEE VERY CLEARLY
AN OBJECT MOVING SLOWLY ENOUGH SO THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT THEY
CAN TELL THE SHAPE. >> narrator: REGARDLESS OF
WHETHER RODS ARE FROM EARTH OR SOMEPLACE ELSE, THE QUESTION
FOR THE IOWA ENGINEERS IS, CAN THE UNUSUAL ROD WING DESIGN
PROVIDE SUFFICIENT LIFT FOR FLIGHT?
>> IN ORDER FOR THE FLYING ROD TO FLY, YOU MUST HAVE LIFT,
AND YOU MUST HAVE ENOUGH FORCE TO OVERCOME DRAG.
AND SO THE WIND TUNNEL CAN TELL US, BASICALLY, THE
CHARACTERISTIC--ITS LIFT AND DRAG CHARACTERISTICS.
>> narrator: WHILE THEY KNOW THE SHAPE, THEY DO NOT KNOW
WHETHER RODS ARE RIGID OR SOFT-BODIED, SO THEY ARE
BUILDING ONE OF EACH AND WILL TEST THE FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS
OF BOTH STRUCTURES. THE FIRST MODEL TO ENTER THE
WIND TUNNEL IS THE FLEXIBLE BODY.
>> WE'LL BEGIN. [fan whirring]
[wind rushing] AS THE WIND SPEED INCREASES,
THE TEAM MAKES ADJUSTMENTS IN THE PRESENTATION ANGLE OF
THE ROD. THE FLEXIBLE ROD MODEL SOON
BEGINS TO SHAKE, BECOMING UNSTABLE IN THE WIND, UNABLE
TO PROVIDE CONSISTENT LIFT. THE RIGID ROD MODEL IS NEXT
TO BE TESTED. AND AS THE WIND SPEED INCREASES,
THE MODEL REMAINS STABLE. AS THEY ADJUST THE FLIGHT ANGLE,
POSITIVE DRAG AND LIFT NUMBERS BEGIN TO APPEAR.
THE PERFORMANCE OF THE RIGID MODEL SURPRISES THE STUDENTS.
>> WE GOT THE NUMBERS BACK, AND ONE OF THE TESTS WAS PRETTY
SURPRISING. IT WAS A LITTLE BIT STIFFER.
IT WASN'T FLAPPING AROUND IN THE WIND AS MUCH AS OTHER ONES,
AND IT ACTUALLY SHOWED A LITTLE BIT OF A LIFT NUMBER.
>> narrator: WHILE THE RIGID MODEL DID PERFORM BETTER THAN
THE FLEXIBLE BODY, IT IS STILL NOT A GOOD FLYING DESIGN.
>> IT'S JUST GONNA HAVE A LOT OF DRAG AND NOT A WHOLE LOT OF
LIFT, SO IT WOULD TAKE A HUGE PROPULSION SYSTEM TO GET IT
MOVING THROUGH THE AIR. >> narrator: BUT IF RODS ARE
FROM THE FOURTH DIMENSION, AND WE ARE ONLY SEEING A PORTION
OF THEM AT ANY GIVEN TIME, WE MAY NOT HAVE THE COMPLETE
PICTURE. >> THIS PARTICULAR STUDY,
I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT ERROR THAT WE MAY HAVE IS THAT WE MAY
NOT HAVE THE COMPLETE VEHICLE. IT IS VERY, VERY POSSIBLE
THAT WE'RE TESTING ONLY A PART OF THE VEHICLE.
AND THEREFORE, IF THE TEST SHOWS THAT THIS AIRPLANE OR THIS ROD
DOES NOT FLY, IT MAY BE THAT WE'RE ONLY TESTING, FOR EXAMPLE,
JUST A TAIL PART OF AN AIRPLANE, FOR EXAMPLE, AND THAT WE DON'T
HAVE THE WHOLE PICTURE. >> narrator: WHILE PICTURES OF
RODS ARE A RELATIVELY NEW PHENOMENON, HISTORY SAYS HUMANS
SAW SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR CENTURIES AGO AND WITH THE NAKED
EYE. [roaring]
A 1,000-YEAR-OLD STONE CARVING FOUND IN ARGENTINA REVEALS AN
IMAGE THAT CLOSELY RESEMBLES A ROD.
THE ISSUE HERE IS, HOW WAS MAN ABLE TO SEE A ROD 1,000 YEARS
AGO, LONG BEFORE THE ADVENT OF CAMERAS?
>> MODERNIZED PEOPLE LIKE OURSELVES--WE LIVE IN A VERY
TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY. WE'RE ESSENTIALLY DOMESTICATED
ANIMALS. >> narrator: DR. ROBERT
CORRUCCINI IS A PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY WITH
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY AT CARBONDALE.
HE SAYS, OVER THE YEARS, SOME OF MAN'S SENSES HAVE BEEN
DIMINISHED. >> WHEN YOU SPEND A LONG TIME
LOOKING AT THE PRINTED PAGE OR AT A TV SCREEN, WE DON'T
FOCUS THE EYE MUSCLES. WE DON'T DYNAMICALLY EXERCISE
THE EYE MUSCLES. BUT NONWESTERN PEOPLE DEFINITELY
DO, AND THEY HAVE-- IN FACT 20/15 IS THE AVERAGE
VISUAL ACUITY FOR A NONLITERATE PERSON, WHEREAS WE GO WITH 20/20
BEING PERFECT VISION. AN OBJECT IN THE SKY WOULD
DEFINITELY BE MORE--MORE VISIBLE TO SOMEBODY THAT USES THEIR
EYES, EVEN A MODERN PERSON THAT'S NONLITERATE OR PROBABLY--
ANCIENT PREHUMANS AND HUMANS PROBABLY COULD SEE FURTHER AND
MORE--MORE SHARPLY THAN WE CAN. >> narrator: THIS ROD IMAGE MAY
SUPPORT CORRUCCINI'S POINT. SHOT AT ZOO IN MINNESOTA IN
2005, THIS APE SEEMS TO NOTICE THE ROD AS IT STREAKS PAST,
SOMETHING THE PHOTOGRAPHER SAYS THAT HE DID NOT SEE.
>> EARLY HUMANS NOT ONLY WOULD'VE BEEN USING THEIR EYES
MORE DYNAMICALLY, BUT IT WOULD BE MORE IMPORTANT TO THEM.
IT WOULD BE A FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE IN THEIR SURVIVAL.
SO PROBABLY THEIR PERIPHERAL VISION WOULD'VE BEEN USED MORE
AND WOULD'VE BEEN SHARPER AS WELL AS THE DISTANT VISION
STRAIGHT AHEAD. >> narrator: BUT THERE IS AN
ACCOUNT WHERE MODERN MAN REPORTED SEEING A ROD.
THIS STORY FIRST APPEARED IN 1891 IN THE CRAWFORDSVILLE,
INDIANA, NEWSPAPER. [growling]
THE STORY GOES THAT TWO ICE MEN WERE WORKING OUTSIDE IN
CRAWFORDSVILLE AT ABOUT 2:00 A.M. WHEN A BIZARRE OBJECT
SAILED OVERHEAD. >> WHOA.
JIM, WHAT'S THAT UP IN THE SKY? LOOK AT IT.
SEE THAT LIGHT? >> I SEE IT, BUT I DON'T KNOW
WHAT IT IS. >> I NEVER SAW ANYTHING LIKE IT.
>> I KNOW. >> narrator: THE ICE MEN
DESCRIBED THE OBJECT AS A SEEMINGLY HEADLESS MONSTER ABOUT
20 FEET LONG AND 8 FEET WIDE WITH NO HEAD OR TAIL AND
PROPELLED BY FINLIKE ATTACHMENTS.
>> EASY, PENNY. >> narrator: IT WAS CALLED THE
SKY MONSTER AND WAS SAID TO SWIM THROUGH THE AIR, MUCH LIKE THESE
RODS, SHOT NEAR A CAVE IN MEXICO.
>> WE WANTED TO GO THERE AND BE THE FIRST TO BASE JUMP INTO THE
CAVE. [laughter]
BASICALLY, WE WOULD JUMP FROM THE RIM, FREE FALL FOR FOUR OR
FIVE SECONDS, OPEN OUR PARACHUTES, AND THEN LAND
SOMEWHERE AT THE BOTTOM. >> ONE, TWO, THREE.
>> narrator: MARK LICHTLE IS AN EXTREME CAMERAMAN.
IN NOVEMBER OF 1996, WHILE BASE JUMPING AT THE CAVE OF THE
SWALLOWS, LOCATED 20 MILES FROM AQUISMON, MEXICO, HE CAPTURED
SOME OF THE MOST IMPRESSIVE ROD IMAGES TO DATE.
>> WELL, WHEN WE FIRST WENT TO THE CAVE ON THE FIRST FEW TRIPS,
WE--WE DID NOT SEE RODS. WE DID NOT KNOW WHAT RODS WERE.
WE WERE JUST DOWN THERE DOING OUR JUMPING AND FILMING.
[birds chirping] WHEN THE VIDEO FOOTAGE AIRED ON
TELEVISION, WE GOT A PHONE CALL FROM A JOSE ESCAMILLA, WHO SAID,
"DO YOU REALIZE WHAT YOU CAUGHT ON YOUR TAPE?"
HE GOES, "THERE'S RODS ON YOUR TAPE."
>> narrator: SKEPTICS OF THE RODS PHENOMENON SAID THESE
STRANGE IMAGES ARE LIKELY BIRDS OR BUGS.
WHAT MAKES THIS FOOTAGE INTERESTING IS THAT ALL THREE
ARE SEEN TOGETHER, AND THEY DON'T LOOK ALIKE.
>> THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF RODS, AND IT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE
BECAUSE, ONE, IT'S GOT RODS AT DIFFERENT LEVELS IN THE CAVE,
IT'S GOT BIRDS IN THE SCENE, AND IT ALSO HAS A JUMPER UNDER
PARACHUTE DOWN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CAVE.
WHAT'S GOOD ABOUT THIS IS, IT GIVES US A GREAT IDEA OF RODS
COMPARED TO THE BIRDS. [air rushing]
>> narrator: LICHTLE SAYS HE NEVER SAW OR HEARD THE RODS
DURING HIS CAVE DIVE, THOUGH HE WAS AWARE OF THE BIRDS AND BUGS
AROUND HIM. >> I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND PLAY
SOME SHOTS WITH RODS IN IT, AND YOU'LL SEE MANY RODS DARTING
THROUGH THE LENS. AND AS YOU WATCH, YOU'LL ALSO
NOTICE THAT THERE ARE OTHER THINGS IN THE SCENE, WHICH ARE
JUST THE COMMON BUGS. BUT HERE WE HAVE ONE HERE.
HERE GOES ONE THERE. [birds singing]
[parachute billowing] IN REGULAR MOTION, YOU'LL FIND
THAT THE RODS APPEAR THROUGH THE SHOT FAIRLY QUICKLY.
BUT IF WE WATCH IT IN SLOW MOTION...
AGAIN, WATCH THROUGH HERE. AND WE'LL WATCH AGAIN, FRAME BY
FRAME. IT'S QUICKLY GOING THROUGH.
YOU'RE SEEING THE ROD FLY RIGHT THROUGH THE FRAME.
AGAIN, WE'RE SHOOTING AT 30 FRAMES A SECOND, SO YOU'RE GONNA
GET ONE STILL FRAME, TWO FRAMES, THREE FRAMES, FOUR FRAMES, FIVE,
AND IT'S THROUGH THE FRAME. SO WHAT WE'RE PROVING THERE
IS THAT THIS CREATURE, WHATEVER IT MAY BE, IS FLYING
AT AN EXTREMELY FAST RATE. PROBABLY THE REASON WHY WE CAN'T
SEE THEM WITH THE HUMAN EYE. THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE OUT
THERE THAT JUST WANT TO SAY THESE ARE BUGS FLYING FAST
THROUGH THE LENS. I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY
ARE. >> narrator: JOSE ESCAMILLA
AGREES THAT THESE RODS ARE LIKELY NOT BUGS.
>> A ROD IS WHAT I FEEL IS AN ENTITY OF SOME KIND THAT EXISTS
AMONG US. IT IS A CYLINDRICAL-SHAPED
OBJECT THAT SEEMS TO BE ALIVE. IT HAS THE BEHAVIOR OF A LIVING
ORGANISM. >> narrator: THERE MAY BE
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE THAT RODS ARE, IN FACT, ANIMALS.
VIDEOTAPED OUTSIDE A CAVE IN CHINA IN 2005, THIS ROD FEATURES
DETAILS NEVER BEFORE SEEN AND COULD BE THE KEY TO UNLOCKING
THE MYSTERY. >> IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THE
PICTURES OF RODS THAT I'VE SEEN. I THINK IS--THIS IS ACTUALLY
A SHOT OF AN ANIMAL. QUICKLY STREAK THROUGH THE
CAMERA'S FIELD OF VIEW IN JUST A FRACTION OF A SECOND,
BUT NOT THIS ROD. IT HAS A DISTINCT FLIGHT
PATTERN. VIEWED FRAME BY FRAME, YOU CAN
CLEARLY SEE AN OBJECT ABOUT 18 INCHES LONG FLY PAST THE 6-FOOT
MAN IN THE SCREEN. EVEN AS IT CHANGES DIRECTIONS,
TWO SETS OF WINGS ARE CLEARLY VISIBLE.
IT DARTS AND WEAVES AROUND THE MAN LOOKING MORE LIKE AN ANIMAL
IN FLIGHT THAN A MISSILE'S TRAJECTORY.
IF RODS REALLY ARE JUST PHOTOGRAPHIC ABERRATIONS,
AS SOME SKEPTICS CLAIM, THERE MAY BE A WAY TO REVEAL THEIR
TRUE IDENTITY. MONSTER QUEST HAS ASKED
HIGH-SPEED CAMERA EXPERT PETER SCHMITZ TO CONDUCT A SIMPLE
EXPERIMENT: FILM A HUMMINGBIRD ON A STANDARD VIDEO CAMERA WHILE
RECORDING THE SAME BIRD ON A SUPERHIGH-SPEED CAMERA.
SCHMITZ WORKS FOR MOTION ENGINEERING.
HIS HIGH-SPEED FILM WORK IS USED BY SCIENTISTS TO SEE WHAT IS
REALLY HAPPENING DURING FAST MOTION.
THE SUPERFAST SHUTTER SPEED REVEALS DETAIL IN EVEN
THE FASTEST-MOVING OBJECTS, LIKE THIS INTERNAL COMBUSTION
ENGINE OR THIS FLUID DYNAMICS TEST.
THE PRECISE DETAILS REVEALED BY THE HIGH-SPEED CAMERAS HAVE
GIVEN SCIENCE A BETTER LOOK AT HOW MATERIALS ACT AND REACT
UNDER STRESS AND PRESSURE. ORNITHOLOGIST CAROL HENDERSON
AND BIRDER MARTHA YUILL WILL BE JOINING SCHMITZ FOR THE
EXPERIMENT. THEY WERE ASKED TO VIEW THE CAVE
IMAGE TO DETERMINE IF THIS IS THE FLIGHT PATTERN OF A BIRD.
>> WELL, I'M NOT SURE WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR HERE.
I'VE NEVER HEARD OF THESE THINGS.
>> I HAVEN'T EITHER. NEVER SEEN IT.
NEVER HEARD IT. LET'S TAKE A LOOK.
>> OKAY, HERE IT COMES. >> THERE WE GO.
>> NOW, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE-- IF THERE ARE WINGS, THEY'RE VERY
TRANSPARENT. >> narrator: THE ROD'S
MANEUVERABILITY AND SPEED EXHIBITED IN THE FOOTAGE SEEMS
TO POINT TO ONE BIRD IN PARTICULAR.
>> THE ONLY BIRD THAT I'VE SEEN THAT IT COULD RESEMBLE WOULD BE
A HUMMING BIRD. >> narrator: HUMMINGBIRDS CAN
HAVE UP TO 70 WING BEATS PER SECOND, MAKING THEM FAST AND
HIGHLY MANEUVERABLE. COULD THE SPEED OF THE WING BEAT
ALSO EXPLAIN THE BLURRED IMAGE? >> SO WE'VE GOT ONE CAMERA
THAT'LL BE RECORDING AT 30 FRAMES PER SECOND, WHICH IS MORE
OF A CONVENTIONAL-TYPE CAMERA, AND THEN WE'VE GOT A HIGH-END,
HIGH-SPEED VIDEO CAMERA. THIS CAMERA WILL ALLOW US TO
TAKE, PROBABLY TODAY, AROUND 500 TO 2,000 FRAMES PER SECOND.
>> narrator: THE CAMERAS WILL BE TRAINED ON AN IRIG CLOCK
OR COUNTER SO THEY CAN MATCH THE IMAGES OF BOTH
CAMERAS. >> WE SHOULD BE ABOUT TO PLAY
THE VIDEOS BACK AND MARRY THEM TOGETHER AND BE ABLE TO
DETERMINE, USING THE HIGH-SPEED VIDEO CAMERA--
IF WE'RE PICKING UP WHAT LOOKS TO BE A ROD WITH THE
CONVENTIONAL CAMERA, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SLOW IT DOWN ENOUGH
AND IDENTIFY JUST WHAT IT IS THAT'S FLYING THROUGH THAT FIELD
OF VIEW. >> narrator: PETER IS HOPING A
HUMMINGBIRD WILL FLY THROUGH FOR COMPARISON.
THEY HAVE SET UP THE CAMERAS NEAR AN ACTIVE FEEDING STATION,
BUT BEFORE THE EXPERIMENT CAN BEGIN, THERE IS A PROBLEM.
>> A LITTLE THIN ON BIRDS OUT HERE THIS MORNING.
IS THERE ANYTHING EXCITING HAPPENING, A CHANGE IN THE
WEATHER? >> IT IS A LITTLE QUIET HERE.
A FEW HOURS AGO, WE HAD A HAWK COMING THROUGH THE YARD,
EITHER A COOPER'S HAWK OR A SHARP-SHINNED HAWK,
AND THEY EAT OTHER BIRDS. SO THINGS ARE LAYING A LITTLE
BIT LOW. >> narrator: WITH THE BIRDS
GONE, YUILL AND HENDERSON REVIEW THE CAVE VIDEO AGAIN, BUT THIS
TIME, THEY DISCOVER SOME PROBLEMS WITH THEIR HUMMINGBIRD
THEORY. >> IN A CAVE SETTING LIKE THIS,
AND CONSIDERING THE WHITE COLOR OF THE CREATURE BEING
SHOWN, IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THAT WOULD BE A LOGICAL PLACE
FOR A BIRD TO BE. >> IT ALMOST LOOKED LIKE THERE
WERE TWO SETS OF WINGS, BUT YOU COULDN'T REALLY SEE
A FLAPPING AT ALL. >> narrator: NOT ONLY IS A CAVE
AN UNLIKELY PLACE FOR A HUMMINGBIRD, GEOGRAPHICALLY
THERE IS A PROBLEM. >> HUMMINGBIRDS ARE ONLY FOUND
IN NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA. THEY'RE NOT FOUND IN AFRICA
OR ASIA. SO THE SETTING OF THIS
PARTICULAR FILM WOULD EXCLUDE THE HUMMINGBIRD AS A
POSSIBILITY. >> narrator: IF NOT A BIRD,
THEN WHAT? >> IT LOOKS TO ME MORE LIKE
INSECT FLIGHT THAN IT WOULD ANY KIND OF BIRD FLIGHT.
>> INSECT WAS THE FIRST THING THAT SORT OF POPPED INTO MY
MIND, NOT BIRD. >> narrator: COULD RODS ACTUALLY
BE AN UNDISCOVERED BUG? HISTORY SAYS AN EVOLUTIONARY
PREDECESSOR OF FLYING INSECTS LOOKED VERY SIMILAR.
>> THE MOST PLAUSIBLE PROTOPTERYGOTE WOULD LOOK QUITE
LIKE MANY OF THE PICTURES OF RODS.
>> narrator: PROFESSOR ROBIN WOOTTON OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
EXETER IN THE UNITED KINGDOM IS A LEADING EXPERT ON INSECT
BIOMECHANICS, PALEONTOLOGY, AND EVOLUTION.
HE SAYS THE FIRST BUGS PROBABLY LOOKED LIKE RODS, AS
DEMONSTRATED BY THIS FLYABLE MODEL.
>> THE ORIGIN OF INSECT FLIGHT WAS PROBABLY ABOUT 360 MILLION
YEARS AGO. PROTOPTERYGOTE IS A NAME WHICH
HAS BEEN GIVEN TO A KIND OF HYPOTHETICAL ANCESTOR OF THE
WINGED INSECTS. SO THESE THINGS WOULD BE GLIDING
USING THE MOVEABLE WINGLETS TO STABILIZE THEIR FALL.
>> narrator: BUT THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE PROTOPTERYGOTE
THEORY. >> I THINK IT'S EXTREMELY
UNLIKELY THAT PROTOPTERYGOTES WOULD SURVIVE FOR ANY LENGTH
OF TIME, BECAUSE THESE ARE TRANSITIONAL FORMS.
THEY'RE NOT VERY GOOD AT FLIGHT. THEY WOULD NEED TO HAVE VERY--
BE IN VERY ISOLATED, VERY STRANGE CONDITIONS NOT TO BE--
NOT TO HAVE BECOME EXTINCT. THERE IS THE ARGUMENT,
OBVIOUSLY, THAT THERE ARE INTERMEDIATE FORMS IN
THE MAMMALS IN PARTICULAR, THE FLYING SQUIRRELS,
THE FLYING PHALANGERS, THOSE KIND OF THING.
AND SO IN THAT SENSE, IT'S NOT INCONCEIVABLE THAT AN
INTERMEDIATE STAGE WHICH WASN'T VERY GOOD AT ACTIVE FLIGHT COULD
NONETHELESS MAKE USE OF GLIDING. SO ONE CAN'T RULE IT OUT
ENTIRELY. >> narrator: BUGS MAY ACTUALLY
MAKE SENSE. THERE ARE DRAGONFLIES WITH
MULTIPLE WINGS, AND MANY CAN TRAVEL AS FAST AS SMALL BIRDS.
THEY ARE ALSO HIGHLY MANEUVERABLE AND COULD PRODUCE
A SIMILAR FLIGHT PATTERN. PETER SCHMITZ IS SETTING UP
ANOTHER EXPERIMENT USING THE SIDE-BY-SIDE HIGH-SPEED
AND STANDARD-SPEED CAMERAS IN HIS BACKYARD, WHERE HE REGULARLY
SEES AN ASSORTMENT OF BUGS. >> WELL, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN GO
OUT THERE, SET UP A LIGHT, TRY TO ATTRACT SOME BUGS.
>> LET'S GIVE IT A TRY. >> narrator: FLOODLIGHTS SHOULD
ATTRACT MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF BUGS INTO THE CAMERA'S FIELD OF
VIEW. PETER SCHMITZ AND FIELD PRODUCER
DOUG HIJICEK MUST ALIGN THE CAMERAS SO THEY ARE SEEING
THE EXACT-SAME FIELD OF VIEW. ONCE AGAIN, THE KEY TO THE
EXPERIMENT IS THE DIGITAL CLOCK PLACED IN FRONT OF BOTH THE
HIGH-SPEED CAMERA AND THE STANDARD-SPEED CAMERA.
ANY OBJECT PASSING THROUGH BOTH FIELDS OF VIEW CAN BE MATCHED
WITH A SPLIT-SECOND READOUT. >> STAND BY FOR WOOD CHIPS.
>> narrator: TOSSING WOOD CHIPS IN THE FIELD OF VIEW CONFIRM
THE CAMERAS ARE PROPERLY ALIGNED.
>> THERE'S YOUR WOOD CHIPS FLYING BY.
AT 250 FRAMES A SECOND, WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE BLUR.
>> YEAH, THE WOOD CHIPS STREAKED ON MINE.
>> I GOT 'EM. NOW WE JUST GOT TO WAIT FOR A
ROD TO FLY BY. >> narrator: IT WILL BE A LONG
NIGHT FOR SCHMITZ AND HIS EXPERIMENT.
ROD RESEARCHER JOSE ESCAMILLA HAS HEARD THE BIRD AND THE BUG
CONCLUSION FROM CAROL AND YUILL AND HAS AN ISSUE WITH IT.
>> THAT IS NOT AN INSECT. >> IT'S NOT AN INSECT.
>> AND IT'S NOT A BIRD. >> THIS THING PASSED RIGHT BY
HIS EAR, YOU KNOW. WHY DIDN'T HE REACT?
ALL RIGHT, IF IT WAS A MOTH OR AN INSECT OR A MOSQUITO,
YOU'D HAVE HEARD-- YOU KNOW, YOU'D REACT.
I MEAN, YOU-- [makes buzzing noise]
YOU KNOW, YOU'LL HEAR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THIS GUY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW ANYTHING PASSED BY HIM.
WHY DIDN'T HE REACT? >> REPORTER DAN BAZILE AGREES
THAT IT IS NOT A BIRD OR BUG. THE ROD RECORDED OVER ALBANY
AIRPORT WAS TOO LARGE AND FAST TO BE ANY KNOWN BUG OR BIRD.
>> IT WASN'T MOVING LIKE AN INSECT, WHERE YOU CAN SEE--
WELL, THEY CAN MOVE HERE, MOVE THERE.
IT WAS MOVING STRAIGHT, SUPERSONIC SPEED,
AND IT LOOKS LIKE A MISSILE. >> narrator: HIGH SPEED SEEMS
TO BE A RECURRING THEME AND COULD EXPLAIN WHY PEOPLE
ARE NOT ABLE TO SEE RODS. BUT DETERMINING HOW FAST THEY
TRAVEL IS DIFFICULT. IN MOST VIDEOS, THERE IS NO
KNOWN REFERENCE FOR GAUGING DISTANCE.
BUT THE CHINA CAVE ROD IS THE EXCEPTION.
JUST HOW FAST IS THIS ROD MOVING?
SCHMITZ, THE ONLY ROD VIDEO THAT CONTAINS ENOUGH MEASURABLE
POINTS FOR CALCULATING AN ESTIMATED SPEED IS THE CHINA
CAVE ROD. TO DETERMINE SPEED, THERE MUST
BE A STARTING POINT, AN ENDING POINT, AND ELAPSED TIME.
IN THE CHINA CAVE VIDEO, THE STARTING POINT IS THE CAVE
OPENING. AS THE MAN STEPS THROUGH THE
OPENING, A LIGHT CHANGE IS CLEARLY SEEN.
HE TAKES TEN STRIDES, OR AN ESTIMATED 30 FEET, INTO
THE CAVE, THE END POINT. THE ROD APPEARS AT APPROXIMATELY
THE SAME POINT AT THE CAVE ENTRANCE, DETERMINED BY THE
SAME LIGHT CHANGE MARKING THE IN POINT FOR BOTH SUBJECTS.
THE ROD IS VISIBLE FOR 30 FRAMES BEFORE IT APPEARS TO RISE OVER
THE MAN'S SHOULDER APPROXIMATELY 30 FEET INTO THE CAVE.
SHOT AT 30 FRAMES PER SECOND, THIS MEANS IT TOOK THE ROD
APPROXIMATELY ONE SECOND TO TRAVEL THE ESTIMATED 30 FEET.
THAT CALCULATES TO 30 FEET PER SECOND OR 20.46 MILES PER HOUR,
WELL WITHIN THE RANGE OF MANY BIRDS, BUGS, AND BATS.
BUT SPEED ASIDE, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE UNUSUAL IMAGES?
THERE ARE NO KNOWN ANIMALS THAT HAVE TWO SETS OF WINGS SPACED
APART IN QUITE THE WAY THESE RODS DO.
DR. HU BELIEVES THE ANSWER TO THE ROD MYSTERY IS IN
THE CAMERA. >> narrator: DR. HU IS
DESCRIBING A PROCESS BY WHICH VIDEO IS RECORDED.
IN FILM CAMERAS, IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT SHUTTER SPEED
AFFECTS THE IMAGE. A SLOW SHUTTER SPEED CAN CREATE
BLURRING OR ELONGATED IMAGES, AS IN THIS EXAMPLE.
BUT WHEN THE SHUTTER SPEED IS INCREASED, THE BLUR IS
REDUCED OR EVEN ELIMINATED. HOWEVER, IN VIDEO, THE RECORDING
PROCESS IS DIFFERENT. THE MOVING PICTURE IS MADE UP
OF A SERIES OF STILLS, OR FRAMES.
WITHIN EACH FRAME, THERE ARE TWO FIELDS INTERLACED TOGETHER
TO GIVE THE VIDEO A SMOOTH MOTION.
SO IN A CAMERA THAT RECORDS AT 30 FRAMES PER SECOND, THERE ARE
60 FIELDS PER SECOND. >> narrator: THE DUAL FIELDS IN
EACH FRAME OF VIDEO CAN CREATE ELONGATION AND DUPLICATION OF
OBJECTS MOVING AT HIGH SPEEDS. USING THIS CAR AS AN EXAMPLE,
NOT ONLY IS IT ELONGATED WHEN THE TWO FIELDS ARE COMBINED,
BUT FOUR WHEELS ARE VISIBLE INSTEAD OF TWO.
TO DEMONSTRATE, DR. HU HAS SET UP A SIMPLE EXPERIMENT:
FIRE A PAINT BALL THROUGH THE FIELD OF VIEW OF A VIDEO
CAMERA. IF HIS THEORY IS CORRECT,
WE WILL SEE NOT A SINGLE BALL PASSING BY, BUT AN IMAGE IN EACH
FIELD, CREATING A DOUBLED OR ELONGATED IMAGE OF THE BALL.
THE EXPERIMENT IS NOT A COMPLETE SUCCESS.
THE BALL HAS CLEARLY BECOME A BLURRED, ELONGATED IMAGE
IN THIS FROZEN FRAME, BUT WHEN THE FRAME IS SPLIT
INTO TWO FIELDS, IT IS SEEN IN ONLY ONE FIELD.
THE MOST LIKELY REASON IS BECAUSE THE PAINT BALL WAS
MOVING TOO FAST TO BE CAPTURED IN BOTH FIELDS.
BUT HIS THEORY IS STILL VALID. ALL IMAGES WOULD BE DOUBLED.
IN OTHER WORDS, ONE PAIR OF WINGS BECOMES TWO, AND TWO PAIR
OF WINGS BECOMES FOUR. BUT THEN HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN
THIS ROD WITH AN ODD NUMBER OF WINGS?
>> HOLD ON. WAIT, WAIT, WAIT.
I JUST SAW SOMETHING. LOOK AT THIS.
>> THREE SETS OF WINGS. >> YEAH.
THAT'S DIFFERENT. >> narrator: JOSE AND HIS
ASSISTANT HAVE FOUND A ROD IMAGE THAT SEEMS TO CONTRADICT
DR. HU'S DOUBLING THEORY. >> WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
>> IT MEANS THAT THEIR THEORY ABOUT DOUBLE IMAGE IS NOT GONNA
WASH WITH THIS. >> narrator: GOING BACK TO
DR. HU'S INTERLACING THEORY, A VIDEOTAPED IMAGE CAN ONLY HAVE
WINGS IN MULTIPLES OF TWO. THREE SETS OF WINGS WOULD SEEM
TO BE IMPOSSIBLE, AS NO KNOWN BIRD OR FLYING MAMMAL HAS SUCH
A CHARACTERISTIC. BUT WHAT ABOUT AN INSECT?
>> NO INSECT HAS THREE PAIRS OF WINGS.
THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PAIRS OF WINGS IN ANY INSECT,
KNOWN OR--MODERN OR FOSSIL, IS TWO PAIRS.
DR. WOOTTON HAS SEEN ALL THE ROD IMAGES FEATURED IN THIS SHOW
AND WAS ASKED, "ARE ANY OF THESE RODS INSECTS?"
>> THERE'S NOTHING SPECIFICALLY INSECT ABOUT ANY OF THE SHOTS
I'VE SEEN. THE STROKE PLANES OF INSECTS
TEND TO BE DOWN AND FORWARD AND THEN UP AND BACK, SOMETIMES LIKE
THAT BUT ALWAYS IN THIS SORT OF WAY.
NEVER ARE THEY ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
THE INDIVIDUAL SHOTS OF THESE-- SOME OF THESE IMAGES IN THE CAVE
OF THE SWALLOWS SHOW THE OPPOSITE.
THEY SHOW THE WINGS APPARENTLY UP THERE AT THE TOP OF
THE STROKE AND DOWN THERE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE STROKE,
AND THAT WOULD NOT FIT WITH ANY INSECT THAT I KNOW OF.
I DON'T THINK THESE ARE PERFORMING POWERED FLIGHT
AT ALL. I DON'T THINK THEY FIT IN WITH
ANY KNOWN WAY OF PROPELLING AN OBJECT THOUGH AIR.
BUT THEY'RE NOT BEATING WINGS. THEY'RE NOT OPERATING IN THE WAY
THAT INSECTS WOULD. IT IS MY VIEW, THESE ARE
PROJECTILES. THEY HAVE TO BE PROJECTED BY
SOMETHING. >> narrator: PETER SCHMITZ AND
THE HIGH-SPEED CAMERA TEST MAY REVEAL THE ANSWER TO THIS
MYSTERY. AS A CREW MEMBER SHAKES THE
BUSHES AND LAWN TO GET MORE BUGS MOVING THROUGH THE FIELD OF
VIEW, RODS SUDDENLY APPEAR ON THE STANDARD CAMERA.
THEY HAD BEEN HIDING IN THE FOLIAGE.
CYLINDRICAL IMAGES RECORDED ON FILM AND VIDEOTAPE AROUND
THE WORLD. THE FBI ALLEGEDLY INVESTIGATED
THIS MAN'S VIDEO OF A MISSILE-LIKE ROD OVER AN ALBANY
AIRPORT. THIS SCIENTIST SAYS RODS ARE
JUST PHOTOGRAPHIC ABERRATIONS CREATED BY THE CAMERAS
THEMSELVES. THIS MAN SAYS A CREATURE THAT
LOOKS MUCH LIKE A ROD DID EXIST AT ONE TIME.
AND THIS MAN SAYS IT IS A REAL CREATURE THAT MAY BE ABLE TO
MAKE ITS WAY IN AND OUT OF THE FOURTH DIMENSION.
AND THIS CAMERA EXPERT HAS CAUGHT A ROD SIMULTANEOUSLY
ON BOTH A HIGH-SPEED AND STANDARD-SPEED CAMERA.
AS A CREW MEMBER STIRS THE SURROUNDING FOLIAGE,
RODS APPEAR, FIRST AS JUST A STREAK.
BUT WHEN MOVING CLOSER TO THE CAMERA AND THE LIGHT SOURCE,
THE IMAGE TAKES ON A MORE ROD-LIKE FORM.
THE HIGH-SPEED CAMERA HAS BEEN ROLLING AS WELL AT 1,000 FRAMES
PER SECOND COMPARED TO THE 30-FRAMES-PER-SECOND CAMERA.
THE SOURCE IS REVEALED: A MOTH. BY HAVING THE SPLIT-SECOND CLOCK
READ OUT IN BOTH CAMERA VIEWS, YOU CAN MATCH THE EXACT OBJECT
IN BOTH CAMERAS. >> WE DID CAPTURE A FEW IMAGES
THAT WERE VERY TELLING, IMAGES THAT APPEARED TO BE RODS,
BUT WHEN WE LOOKED AT THEM MORE CLOSELY WITH THE HIGH-SPEED
VIDEO, DETERMINED THEY WERE NOTHING MORE THAN A BUG FLYING
THROUGH OUR FIELD OF VIEW. >> narrator: SO ARE ALL RODS
BUGS? NOT NECESSARILY.
IN THIS SERIES OF DIGITAL STILL PHOTOS SHOT BY ANN DJELEVIC
IN MALMO, SWEDEN, A ROD SWOOPS DOWN TO THE WATER.
AS HE INCREASES THE SHUTTER SPEED DURING SUCCESSIVE
EXPOSURES, THE ROD CLEARLY IS SEEN AS A SEAGULL.
BUT WHEN HE DECREASES THE SHUTTER SPEED, IT BECOMES
A ROD AGAIN. AND REMEMBER THE FAILED PAINT
BALL TEST? IN FOUR CONSECUTIVE FIELDS OF
VIDEO, A PIECE OF RED DEBRIS FROM THE PAINT BALL CAN BE SEEN
FALLING THROUGH THE SCREEN, CREATING A ROD IMAGE.
BECAUSE OF THE WIDE VARIETY OF LOCATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTS,
SIZES AND FLIGHT PATTERNS, THE MOST PLAUSIBLE THEORY IS
THAT RODS ARE MANY DIFFERENT FAST-MOVING OBJECTS ALL
DISTORTED BY THE CAMERA ITSELF. THAT COULD EXPLAIN THIS IMAGE
SHOT BY NASA IN 1994. THE ROD IMAGE IS LIKELY JUST
SPACE DEBRIS. AND THIS VIDEO SHOT IN 1995
OF A ROD CLEARLY SWIMMING UNDERWATER, A KNOWN FISH COULD
BE RESPONSIBLE. IT WOULD ALSO EXPLAIN WHY RODS
MIGHT BE SEEN IN THE TORNADO FOOTAGE SHOT IN OKLAHOMA,
LIKELY DEBRIS PROPELLED BY THE STORM AT HIGH SPEEDS.
>> A LOT OF PEOPLE LIKE TO THINK THAT PICTURES DON'T LIE OR
CAMERAS DON'T LIE, AND THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY TRUE.
THEY--THEY DO THE BEST THEY CAN TO TELL THE TRUTH.
>> narrator: MIKE BERGERON IS AN ENGINEER WITH PANASONIC
BROADCASTING, A COMPANY THAT MANUFACTURES CAMERAS.
>> ANY CAMERA IS CAPABLE OF PRODUCING WHAT WE CALL
ARTIFACTS. AN ARTIFACT IS JUST SOMETHING
THAT APPEARS IN THE PICTURE THAT WASN'T ACTUALLY THERE
THAT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN VISIBLE TO SOMEONE STANDING THERE,
WATCHING. >> narrator: BUT IF RODS ARE ALL
KNOWN OBJECT DISTORTED BY THE CAMERA, WHY ARE THEY NOT
SEEN ALL THE TIME? >> A CAMERA CAN BE FOOLED JUST
AS YOUR EYES CAN BE FOOLED. DIFFERENT THINGS MIGHT FOOL
THE CAMERA THAT WOULDN'T FOOL YOUR EYES IF YOU WERE THERE,
AND A CAMERA, ESPECIALLY A MODERN DIGITAL CAMERA, IT MAKES
ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT IT THINKS PICTURES OUGHT TO DO IN A NORMAL
SITUATION. NOW, OCCASIONALLY, IT GUESSES
WRONG, AND IT CREATES THINGS THAT AREN'T THERE.
>> narrator: AND WHAT ABOUT THE MEXICAN CAVE VIDEO WHERE
BIRDS, BUGS, AND RODS ARE ALL SEEN IN THE SAME FIELD OF VIEW
AT THE SAME TIME? >> THE MOVING OBJECTS THAT ARE
MOST LIKELY TO CAUSE A DOUBLE-IMAGE ARTIFACT OR
A MOTION-BLUR ARTIFACT ARE THE OBJECTS THAT ARE MOVING
THE FASTEST FROM THE CAMERA'S POINT OF VIEW.
THE THINGS THAT WILL APPEAR TO BE MOVING THE FASTEST FROM
THE CAMERA'S PERSPECTIVE ARE THINGS RIGHT IN FRONT OF IT.
SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE GOING THAT FAST TO BE GOING VERY FAST
AS FAR AS THE IMAGER IS CONCERNED.
IF THEY'RE MOVING FAST ENOUGH, THEY CAN GET A MOTION BLUR
WHERE THEY ARE IN MANY PLACES AT ONCE IN THE COURSE OF ONE
EXPOSURE. >> narrator: THE REASON RODS ARE
ONLY FOUND OCCASIONALLY IS BECAUSE YOU NEED JUST THE RIGHT
MIX OF OBJECT SPEED, DISTANCE FROM THE CAMERA, SHUTTER SPEED,
AND LIGHT. HISTORY SAYS EARLY BUGS DID LOOK
LIKE RODS BUT LIKELY WERE NOT GOOD AT FLIGHT.
>> NOW THAT WE'RE COMING TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE WAY IN WHICH
INSECTS DO WORK IN TERMS OF AERODYNAMICS AND IN TERMS OF
OTHER ASPECTS OF--OF THEIR FLIGHT MECHANISMS, NOW AT LAST,
A PROPER KNOWLEDGE OF INSECTS IS BEGINNING TO FEED INTO
TECHNOLOGY. >> narrator: AND THE ENGINEERING
TEAM SAYS ONE ROD MODEL COULD FLY, BUT THE PROPULSION SYSTEM
WOULD NEED TO BE QUITE POWERFUL. >> IF ROD--THE FLYING ROD IS
DISCOVERED TO BE INDEED FLYABLE, IT WOULD NOT BE A SURPRISE
TO SCIENCE. >> narrator: AND IF SOME RODS
REALLY ARE UNDISCOVERED CREATURES OR OBJECTS, SCIENCE
COULD LEARN FROM THEIR DESIGN. >> THERE MAY BE EVEN BETTER WAYS
OF FLYING THAT REMAIN TO BE DISCOVERED.
>> narrator: IN THIS EXPERIMENT, MONSTER QUEST USED
SOPHISTICATED PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT UNDER CONTROLLED
CONDITIONS TO REVEAL THE TRUE IDENTITY OF SEVERAL RODS,
PROVING THAT THEY CAN BE DEBRIS, BIRDS, OR BUGS.
BUT WITHOUT ADDITIONAL DATA, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW FOR
SURE WHAT CREATURE OR OBJECT IS BEHIND EACH AND EVERY ROD
IMAGE, LIKE THE MYSTERIOUS VIDEO SHOT BY BRANDON MOWRY IN ALBANY,
NEW YORK. WE KNOW ONLY THAT THE CAMERA
RECORDED A DISTORTED IMAGE OF SOME KIND OF WINGED OBJECT OVER
THE AIRPORT THAT DAY. HOWEVER, UNTIL THE FBI RELEASES
THE RESULTS OF THEIR INVESTIGATION, WE MAY NEVER KNOW
FOR SURE. >> WHAT WE DO KNOW IS IT CREATED
ENOUGH HAVOC, RIGHT, TO HAVE THE FBI INTERROGATE THE
CAMERAMAN AND FOR THEM TO TAKE THE TAPE AND TRY TO JUST SWEEP
IT UNDER THE RUG, BECAUSE WE'VE NEVER HEARD ANYTHING OF WHAT
HAPPENED TO THAT TAPE ANYMORE. >> narrator: AT THIS TIME,
SCIENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE PROBABILITY THAT RODS EXIST IN
THE MODERN WORLD, BUT THE DOOR IS STILL OPEN.
>> TO SAY THAT THEY DON'T EXIST, THAT'S--THAT'S INCORRECT.
THEY'RE THERE. WHAT ARE THEY?
THAT'S THE TOUGHER QUESTION. >> IN SCIENCE, IT'S VERY
IMPORTANT THAT WE'RE OPEN MINDED, BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW
EVERYTHING. Captioning by<font color="#008000"> CaptionMax
www.captionmax.com</font> www.captionmax
