This is why scientists stick to measuring proper length.
We've established (I think) that proper length doesn't change. So it must have to do with some .. improper length ? .. I don't know, you seem to be disinclined to explain it.
The contraction is dependent on multiple factors, the most important being the relative speed between rod and observer. There are other factors (there is no such thing as a perfectly rigid rod) but given your stubborn refusal to read (and learn) mainstream science, I will leave you to bask in your ignorance.
Mainstream science does a fantastic job at explaining the world and all, to a non scientific audience. I can't recall one other area (except QM maybe, but let's put that aside for the moment) where science doesn't admirably and unambiguously explain itself to the satisfaction of enquiring, but non scientific minds.
Sounds like you, Quantum Quack and Masterov went to the same "school". Now you are coming out of the closet.
You are seeing ghosts where there are none. I didn't even go to school .. to speak of - I had to leave at middle high school to support my imigrant, destitute, poverty stricken family. How does that fact, however, put you into place of keener understanding of reality than I ?
Cut to the chase - can you tell me in Modern English, WHY the rod, in purely relative motion, contracts, and what is the physical mechanism (not some imaginary reference frame) that makes it do so ?