--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" <steve.sun...@...> wrote: > > Dang, the Edgster telling it like it is. I have hi-lighted > some of the parts I most enjoyed, and which I felt were > most right on.
And another skeptopath to add to the list. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Why should I waste my time doing research into crop circles? > > > > All I need to do is read one article by a person who has done this, > and the below is a typical "balanced" view about crop circles. The > writer has done some homework, saved me the effort, and the conclusion > is that "man made" is overwhelmingly the "best guess" to support. > > > > Judy, do you agree with the below article? If so, we have no basis for > our having a debate. > > > > Right now though, I put you in the same category as the guy who said > to me about professional wrestling "Some of it's fake, but some's real." > Good line. Great analogy > > > > To me, you're wanting something, anything will do, to point at that > suggests woo-woo is operative in the world. You're a witch doctor trying > to find a "special bone" "special bone, I love that to shake at a > patient when you say, "I'm the exception to the rule, my bones work and > ooogaboooga is a real power that can those in the know can wield." > > > > Stop clinging to your need for wooism to be justifiable. > > > > No one's levitating, 2012 will be like Y2K, Tony's a fraud, Maharishi > dumped Guru Dev and sold out to money, crop circles are man made, > psychic surgeons palm chicken parts, Sai Baba is a pedophile, Barry > isn't all bad, you are not always right, and you are comfortable calling > names as much as Vaj. What part of this paragraph don't you agree with? > Edg in top form. Bam, bam. No malice here. Just calling people out on > their crap. It's got to be done. > > > > Your intellectual heft is often put to a low use -- you've spend 15 > years beating a dead horse you call "loser." It's sick to beat a dead > horse, and you know it. Everyone here knows it. It is true. Raunchy, > are we wrong here.? I don't think so. It's easy to get into a rut. I > think we have to call it like it is. > > I don't think there was one wasted word in this post. > > > > Edg > > > > http://www.unmuseum.org/cropcir.htm > > The article: > > > > For over twenty years the southern English countryside has been the > site of a strange phenomenon that has baffled observers and spawned > countless news stories and not a few books. In the middle of the night, > flattened circular depressions have appeared in fields of wheat, rye and > other cereal crops. They range in diameter from ten feet to almost a > hundred feet wide and vary from simple circles to complex spirals with > rings and spurs. All have sharply defined edges. > > > > The most striking feature of the circles is the frequency with which > they occur. In 1990 over 700 crop-circles appeared in Britain. > > > > People who attempt to study these circles have coined a name for > themselves: cereologists. The word comes from the name of the Roman > goddess of vegetation, Ceres. There are two favorite theories held by > cereologists that think crop circles are the result of some not well > understood physical phenomena. The first is that the depressions are the > result of an unusual weather effect. George Tenence Meaden, a former > professor of physics, calls this a "plasma vortex phenomenon" which he > defines as "a spinning mass of air which has accumulated a significant > fraction of electrically charged matter." According to Meaden the effect > is similar to that of ball lightning, but larger and longer lasting. > > > > The second theory is that somehow crop-circles are created by UFOs. > Proponents of this theory note that occasionally crop circles seem to > appear in conjunction with a UFO sighting. > > > > Some of the early, simple crop circles certainly do suggest fields > that might have been flattened by the weight of a grounded flying > saucer. As the circles have become more complex in shape, though, > proponents of the UFO theory have had to modify their ideas suggesting > that the marks left are due to a strange effect of the craft's drive > force on the plants. Others even argue that the shapes are messages > purposefully left by the saucer's crew. > > > > The most likely explanation for almost all of the crop circles is that > they are hoaxes. Even the most ardent fans of either the weather or UFO > theories admit that a significant fraction of the circles are man-made. > One cereologist, a believer in the weather theory, Jenny Randles, wrote: > "I would put the hoaxes to comprise something over 50 percent of the > total." > > > > Why don't these backers of the weather or UFO explanations believe > that all the circles are hoaxed? Most would argue that a close > examination of a circle will reveal differences between a hoaxed circle > and a "genuine" circle. There is no clear criteria about what makes > circles genuine or not, though. In fact the BBC asked one circle > "expert" to examine a formation they had found. The expert declared it > real, only to have to reverse his judgment when the BBC film crew told > him they'd had the circle especially built for the occasion. > > > > Some cereologists claim that the plants in hoaxed circles have broken > stems while those in real circles are bent. It seems the bending is the > result of the condition of the plant rather than the type of force used > in flattening it. During the summer green, moist, wheat is easily bent > and can only be broken with great difficulty. > > > > So how do you hoax a crop circle? The tools are simple: A stake, a > chain or rope, some boards, and a few people. The stake is pounded into > the ground at the center of the soon-to-be circle and the rope attached > to it. The rope is then stretched out and someone standing at the end > marches around the stake to make a perimeter. The boards can then be > used to easily flatten the plants within the circle. Rings can be made > through the same technique simply by leaving some sections undamaged. > (Warning: The above information is not meant to encourage anybody to > trespass or vandalize. If you want to experiment with making a circle > get the owner of the grounds permission before starting.) > > > > Since nobody can tell the difference between a hoaxed and "genuine" > circle, is there any reason not to believe that all of them are hoaxed? > Probably not. Several factors argue in favor of the complete hoax > theory. First, there is a lack of historical precedent for crop circles. > Crop circles as they are seen today are a recent phenomenon only twenty > or thirty years old. Secondly, the number and complexity of the circles > have grown in proportion to the media coverage of them (suggesting that > people are more apt to make circles if the circles get in the news). > Finally, there are almost no credible reports of someone actually seeing > a circle being made by either a UFO or weather phenomena (suggesting > that the hoaxers are purposefully keeping out of sight). > > > > Perhaps the mystery here is not what makes the circles, but what would > cause so many other-wise normal people in southern Britain to make > strange circles in the middle of the night in a farm field? > > > > Correction: For a while we mis-identified the crop circle expert in > the BBC incident as Colin Andrews. Our apologies to Mr. Andrews. > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" jstein@ wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > > If Edg had done his homework, he'd know that there > > > > > are aspects to some of the crop circles that can't > > > > > be conveniently attributed to "fooling" abilities on > > > > > the part of human beans. I discussed some of these- > > > > > -with links--the last time we had this discussion. > > > > > Edg could find those posts easily by searching for > > > > > "authfriend" and "crop circles." Then he could take > > > > > a gander at the links and inform himself. > > > > > > > > Such acid in your tone, tsk. > > > > > > After you've called me a liar, I should be all > > > sweet and submissive? > > > > > > Why should I inform > > > > myself about what I think is an impossibility? > > > > > > "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the > > > facts." > > > > > > > If you're going to win this debate, > > > > > > What would "winning" mean in this context, Edg? > > > > > > You aren't going to be able to get it right, > > > because you haven't been paying attention to > > > what I'm saying. You're much too anxious to > > > hear yourself talk than to listen to the person > > > you're talking to. > > > > > > you > > > > gotta at least own the topic enough to educate others > > > > again and again - like I do when I promote my "true > > > > knowledge about the Absolute" herein. Repeat repeat > > > > repeat. But you don't, and I think it's a tell -- not > > > > that you're lazy or a bad teacher -- but that you > > > > don't have the mojo to plunk down on the table, and so > > > > you send folks into the history of the posts -- > > > > knowing what a piece of shit the Yahoo search function > > > > is. > > > > > > Yahoo Search works just fine for most posts before > > > March 19. My past posts on this topic, in which I > > > plunked down more mojo than you have the guts to > > > deal with, are easily accessible. > > > > > > <snip> > > > > Judy, seriously, do you really mean to say that > > > > someone like The Great Randi couldn't make a joke out > > > > of the whole notion that there are non-human > > > > explanations > > > > > > It's "The Amazing Randi," and he's perfectly > > > capable of making a joke out of anything he > > > doesn't care to believe in. Big whoop. At least > > > get his moniker right. > > > > > > <snip> > > > > Frankly, I count on your intellect to post stuff here > > > > that penetrates the crop circle type of "mystery" > > > > enough to rule out non-human causes > > > > > > Been there, done that, to the extent that it *can* > > > be done. You don't want to know about it, so you > > > aren't going to look it up. > > > > > > You wouldn't even have to refer to my past posts, > > > BTW, to inform yourself sufficiently to have a > > > reasonable discussion. I just thought it would > > > be easier for you to start with the sources I > > > cited than have to plow through the Web on your > > > own to find them. > > > > > > It's a big topic. Google gives you over a million > > > hits. Most of them are crap. > > > > > >
