Rods gain their name from their rodlike shape. However, they have also been called "flying rods", "skyfish" and "solar entities". They appear to be anywhere from 5 inches to 1 meter in length, and it is proposed by that they have a thin membrane across their axis that is used for propulsion through the air, in a manner similar to the way a cuttlefish uses its fins. Rods are not classified as atmospheric beasts because rods are nearly always described as much smaller than atmospheric beasts, as invisible to the naked eye, and in addition rods have a much shorter history as a subject of research in the fields of cryptozoology and the paranormal.

(로드란 이름의 유래는 막대기모양에서 왔고, 혹은 "날아다니는 막대기, 날으는 물고기, 태양계 생명체" 라고도 불린다. 이들은 5인치에서 1미터정도 길이고 주위에는 "두피"로 둘러저서 하늘을 자유자제로 비행할수 있게 되어져있다. 로드는 특별하게 어느 종에도 속해있지않은데 이유는 그 어떤 종보다 작기 때문이다.

[edit] Explanations

Rods are not taken seriously even by most cryptozoologists. All evidence points to the conclusion that they are mere tricks of light that result from how images (primarily video images) are recorded and played back. In particular, the fast passage before the camera of an insect flapping its wings has been shown directly to produce rod-like effects, due to motion blur in the two interlaced image fields that compose each video frame, lasting 1/60th of a second (NTSC video format). This criticism points to video being physically unable to capture a clean image of something that moves so fast relative to the camera. In particular, the "membrane" in a video frame of a rod is effectively a time-lapse of the wings of the flying animal in different positions over several wingbeats, while the central "rod" is a time-lapse image of the body, related to the distance traveled in 1/60th of a second. The effect is especially pronounced with large, long-bodied insects that have broad wings and fairly slow wingbeats, such as mantises, grasshoppers, and katydids, or completely opaque wings such as moths. On video equipment that resolves the two fields, the "rod" effect can be seen to alternate from one field to the other, producing the distinctive gaps between successive images ([1]). Similar results can be produced using standard film, if there is a long exposure and/or a stroboscopic lighting effect that lasts more than a single wingbeat. This is the technical evidence, demonstrating that one can produce "rod" effects at will if one uses the right equipment, lighting, and subject.

로드는 과학자들로 부터 인정을 받지 못하고있다. 주로 로드는 빛의 굴절이나 비디오 카메라가 빠른 사물의 초점을 정확히 포착할수 없기에 생기는 현상이라고 말합니다.  주로 나방이나 메뚜기가 빠른 속력으로 지나가면 남기는 잔상이 주된 요인이라고 설명하고있다.

[edit] Flying Rod mystery solved?

In the early autumn of 2005, news bulletins in China and Hong Kong reported on a story which debunked the flying rods. Surveillance cameras in a research facility in Jilin supposedly captured video footage of flying rods identical to those shown in Jose Escamilla's video. The curious research staff of the facility, being scientists, decided that they would attempt to catch one. Huge nets were set up and the same surveillance cameras captured rods flying into the trap. When the nets were inspected, the "rods" were no more than regular moths and other flying insects. Subsequent investigations proved that the appearance of flying rods on video was an optical illusion created by the slower recording speed of the camera (done to save video space). This is the empirical evidence, showing that the "rods" themselves can be captured, and that they do indeed prove to be ordinary animal

중국 홍콩에서 기구를 이용해 로드를 잡았는데 그것은 보통의 나방이였다고 한다.