[FairfieldLife] Re: New Cropcircles in England
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Cynics, vain amateur Buddhist's, egos out of control like Barry and > other fools firmly rooted in darkness are free not to comment: That list obviously doesn't include me so: It's quite a pretty little design the only bit I couldn't work out is where they measured the outer "eye" shapes from, but if you look up close they aren't very well done, a bit wobbly in places. I'm starting to wonder if they design these using GPS or SatNav it would make it much easier in the dark. But then some really good ones arrived before computer aided navigation didn't they? But I've always held a suspicion that the army is involved here, it would be a good way to test new technologies in the dark and the army testing range on Salisbury plain is right in the middle of all these circles. Keep em coming Nabby, if there is one close enough to my house I'll nip over and take a picture for you. This one is a bit too far to go on my bike in one day. > http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2008/westwoods2/westwoods2008.html >
[FairfieldLife] Re: New Cropcircles in England
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 > wrote: > > > > Cynics, vain amateur Buddhist's, egos out of control like Barry and > > other fools firmly rooted in darkness are free not to comment: > > That list obviously doesn't include me so: It's quite a pretty > little design the only bit I couldn't work out is where they > measured the outer "eye" shapes from, but if you look up close > they aren't very well done, a bit wobbly in places. > > I'm starting to wonder if they design these using GPS or SatNav > it would make it much easier in the dark. But then some really > good ones arrived before computer aided navigation didn't they? > But I've always held a suspicion that the army is involved here, > it would be a good way to test new technologies in the dark and > the army testing range on Salisbury plain is right in the middle > of all these circles. > > Keep em coming Nabby, if there is one close enough to my house > I'll nip over and take a picture for you. This one is a bit too > far to go on my bike in one day. > > > > http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2008/westwoods2/westwoods2008.html > > Point taken. These are amateur shots. Amateurs often rely on wideagle-lences which they do not know how to use thus producing quite a lot of distortion. But I do find this circle fascinating, the way those 3 interlocked heads look at you... Unfortunately there is an industry that has couped and capitalized the earlier airialshots to make money. Seems one has to buy calenders and books to view them: http://www.earthfiles.com/shop.php It's a shame how blatantly greedy capitalists are making money on circles/inspiration so freely given by our Space Brothers. They are like those fools that sells images and statues of Ganesha to make money. They will cry in the end.
[FairfieldLife] Re: New Cropcircles in England
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 > wrote: > > > > Cynics, vain amateur Buddhist's, egos out of control like > > Barry and other fools firmly rooted in darkness are free > > not to comment: > > That list obviously doesn't include me so: It's quite a pretty > little design the only bit I couldn't work out is where they > measured the outer "eye" shapes from, but if you look up close > they aren't very well done, a bit wobbly in places. > > I'm starting to wonder if they design these using GPS or > SatNav it would make it much easier in the dark. But then > some really good ones arrived before computer aided > navigation didn't they? Yes indeedy. > But I've always held a suspicion that the army is involved > here, it would be a good way to test new technologies in > the dark and the army testing range on Salisbury plain is > right in the middle of all these circles. Trouble with that theory is that there are circles all over the world. And Salisbury Plain is hardly the only U.K. location for circles. Here's an interesting bit from the Wikipedia article on crop circles: In 2002, Discovery Channel commissioned 5 aeronautics and astronautics students from MIT to create crop circles of their own. Discovery's production team consulted with crop circle researcher Nancy Talbott, who provided them with three attributes which she believed set "real" crop circles apart from known man-made circles such as those created by Doug and Dave.[35] These criteria were: 1. Elongated apical plant stem nodes 2. Expulsion cavities in the plant stems 3. The presence of 10-50 micrometer diameter magnetized iron spheres in the soils, distributed linearly Over the course of a single night the team was able to create a stereotypical "man-made" circle which they then attempted to enhance using the three criteria. The team used lengths of rope to plot their design and trampled the wheat down in a spiral pattern using lengths of wooden board attached to loops of rope. To meet criterion 2, they constructed a portable microwave emitter; using it to superheat the moisture inside the corn stalks until it burst out as steam. To meet criterion 3 they built a device - dubbed the "Flammschmeisser" - which sprayed iron particles through a heated ring. However, the device proved to be too time consuming to use and they were forced to finish the task using a pyrotechnic charge to distribute the iron around the circle. The circle was later analyzed by graduate students from MIT, who declared it to be "on a par with any of the documented cases". Their conclusion was later questioned by Talbott, noting that the team had only been able to recreate 2 of the 3 criteria. Talbott also expressed concerns that the iron particles were not distributed laterally. Furthermore, she felt that the team's use of night vision headsets and other technologically advanced items would be out of reach for the average hoaxer. The creation of the circle was recorded and used in the Discovery channel documentary "Crop Circles: Mysteries in the Fields".
[FairfieldLife] Re: New Cropcircles in England
Their > conclusion was later questioned by Talbott, noting that the team had > only been able to recreate 2 of the 3 criteria. Talbott also > expressed concerns that the iron particles were not distributed > laterally. Furthermore, she felt that the team's use of night vision > headsets and other technologically advanced items would be out of > reach for the average hoaxer. Doesn't this just prove that the somewhat nutty guys who are so into this that they would spend their nights doing it are just way better at it than a bunch of hired dabblers? It seems to make the point that no extraterrestrial agency is necessary doesn't it? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 > > wrote: > > > > > > Cynics, vain amateur Buddhist's, egos out of control like > > > Barry and other fools firmly rooted in darkness are free > > > not to comment: > > > > That list obviously doesn't include me so: It's quite a pretty > > little design the only bit I couldn't work out is where they > > measured the outer "eye" shapes from, but if you look up close > > they aren't very well done, a bit wobbly in places. > > > > I'm starting to wonder if they design these using GPS or > > SatNav it would make it much easier in the dark. But then > > some really good ones arrived before computer aided > > navigation didn't they? > > Yes indeedy. > > > But I've always held a suspicion that the army is involved > > here, it would be a good way to test new technologies in > > the dark and the army testing range on Salisbury plain is > > right in the middle of all these circles. > > Trouble with that theory is that there are circles > all over the world. And Salisbury Plain is hardly > the only U.K. location for circles. > > Here's an interesting bit from the Wikipedia article > on crop circles: > > In 2002, Discovery Channel commissioned 5 aeronautics and > astronautics students from MIT to create crop circles of their own. > Discovery's production team consulted with crop circle researcher > Nancy Talbott, who provided them with three attributes which she > believed set "real" crop circles apart from known man-made circles > such as those created by Doug and Dave.[35] These criteria were: > > 1. Elongated apical plant stem nodes > 2. Expulsion cavities in the plant stems > 3. The presence of 10-50 micrometer diameter magnetized iron spheres > in the soils, distributed linearly > > Over the course of a single night the team was able to create a > stereotypical "man-made" circle which they then attempted to enhance > using the three criteria. The team used lengths of rope to plot their > design and trampled the wheat down in a spiral pattern using lengths > of wooden board attached to loops of rope. > > To meet criterion 2, they constructed a portable microwave emitter; > using it to superheat the moisture inside the corn stalks until it > burst out as steam. To meet criterion 3 they built a device - dubbed > the "Flammschmeisser" - which sprayed iron particles through a heated > ring. However, the device proved to be too time consuming to use and > they were forced to finish the task using a pyrotechnic charge to > distribute the iron around the circle. > > The circle was later analyzed by graduate students from MIT, who > declared it to be "on a par with any of the documented cases". Their > conclusion was later questioned by Talbott, noting that the team had > only been able to recreate 2 of the 3 criteria. Talbott also > expressed concerns that the iron particles were not distributed > laterally. Furthermore, she felt that the team's use of night vision > headsets and other technologically advanced items would be out of > reach for the average hoaxer. > > The creation of the circle was recorded and used in the Discovery > channel documentary "Crop Circles: Mysteries in the Fields". >
[FairfieldLife] Re: New Cropcircles in England
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 > > wrote: > > > > > > Cynics, vain amateur Buddhist's, egos out of control like > > > Barry and other fools firmly rooted in darkness are free > > > not to comment: > > > > That list obviously doesn't include me so: It's quite a pretty > > little design the only bit I couldn't work out is where they > > measured the outer "eye" shapes from, but if you look up close > > they aren't very well done, a bit wobbly in places. > > > > I'm starting to wonder if they design these using GPS or > > SatNav it would make it much easier in the dark. But then > > some really good ones arrived before computer aided > > navigation didn't they? > > Yes indeedy. > > > But I've always held a suspicion that the army is involved > > here, it would be a good way to test new technologies in > > the dark and the army testing range on Salisbury plain is > > right in the middle of all these circles. > > Trouble with that theory is that there are circles > all over the world. And Salisbury Plain is hardly > the only U.K. location for circles. > > Here's an interesting bit from the Wikipedia article > on crop circles: > > In 2002, Discovery Channel commissioned 5 aeronautics and > astronautics students from MIT to create crop circles of their own. > Discovery's production team consulted with crop circle researcher > Nancy Talbott, who provided them with three attributes which she > believed set "real" crop circles apart from known man-made circles > such as those created by Doug and Dave.[35] These criteria were: > > 1. Elongated apical plant stem nodes > 2. Expulsion cavities in the plant stems > 3. The presence of 10-50 micrometer diameter magnetized iron spheres > in the soils, distributed linearly > > Over the course of a single night the team was able to create a > stereotypical "man-made" circle which they then attempted to enhance > using the three criteria. The team used lengths of rope to plot their > design and trampled the wheat down in a spiral pattern using lengths > of wooden board attached to loops of rope. > > To meet criterion 2, they constructed a portable microwave emitter; > using it to superheat the moisture inside the corn stalks until it > burst out as steam. To meet criterion 3 they built a device - dubbed > the "Flammschmeisser" - which sprayed iron particles through a heated > ring. However, the device proved to be too time consuming to use and > they were forced to finish the task using a pyrotechnic charge to > distribute the iron around the circle. > > The circle was later analyzed by graduate students from MIT, who > declared it to be "on a par with any of the documented cases". Their > conclusion was later questioned by Talbott, noting that the team had > only been able to recreate 2 of the 3 criteria. Talbott also > expressed concerns that the iron particles were not distributed > laterally. Furthermore, she felt that the team's use of night vision > headsets and other technologically advanced items would be out of > reach for the average hoaxer. > > The creation of the circle was recorded and used in the Discovery > channel documentary "Crop Circles: Mysteries in the Fields". Not to mention that some of the cropcircles has been made in less than 20 minutes, as evidenced by pilots covering the area.
[FairfieldLife] Re: New Cropcircles in England
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 > > wrote: > > > > > > Cynics, vain amateur Buddhist's, egos out of control like > > > Barry and other fools firmly rooted in darkness are free > > > not to comment: > > > > That list obviously doesn't include me so: It's quite a pretty > > little design the only bit I couldn't work out is where they > > measured the outer "eye" shapes from, but if you look up close > > they aren't very well done, a bit wobbly in places. > > > > I'm starting to wonder if they design these using GPS or > > SatNav it would make it much easier in the dark. But then > > some really good ones arrived before computer aided > > navigation didn't they? > > Yes indeedy. > > > But I've always held a suspicion that the army is involved > > here, it would be a good way to test new technologies in > > the dark and the army testing range on Salisbury plain is > > right in the middle of all these circles. > > Trouble with that theory is that there are circles > all over the world. And Salisbury Plain is hardly > the only U.K. location for circles. And hardly the only UK location for army camps, you can't walk five miles round my way without seeing tanks patrolling the pine woods. It's just an idea it could be anyone. And I have to accept, anything. Until we know for sure. But I'm convinced it's people doing this, the one above is too irregular in places to be from the Space Brothers, and I know that sounds like a stupid thing to say but if they have the technology to get all the way over here then why don't why do a decent job? Same thing goes for earth energies or angels or whatever, I just think it would be more convincing. I'll put money on the fact that it's done by a bunch of drunk squaddies with the latest GPS or geography students or artists. I hope Nabby is right but I've seen too many supposedly expert opinions crumble away. > Here's an interesting bit from the Wikipedia article > on crop circles: It is interesting but I remember a programme about CCs, two "experts" with competing theories were taken to a fresh crop circle and allowed to test it. Neither of them knew that the other was also being given access but both of them claimed that the circle "proved" their ideas, which were contradictory, on how the circles are formed and the effects on the straw. Both tested for something and found proof but they couldn't both have been right! Imagine how pissed off they were when the documentary maker showed them film of the circle being made by Doug and Dave the night before. They really weren't happy but they should have been pleased because they helped demonstrate an important point about science and crop circles. I am at a loss as to how they do it in such a short time though, and at night, damn clever. But then they've had a lot of practise. > In 2002, Discovery Channel commissioned 5 aeronautics and > astronautics students from MIT to create crop circles of their own. > Discovery's production team consulted with crop circle researcher > Nancy Talbott, who provided them with three attributes which she > believed set "real" crop circles apart from known man-made circles > such as those created by Doug and Dave.[35] These criteria were: > > 1. Elongated apical plant stem nodes > 2. Expulsion cavities in the plant stems > 3. The presence of 10-50 micrometer diameter magnetized iron spheres > in the soils, distributed linearly > > Over the course of a single night the team was able to create a > stereotypical "man-made" circle which they then attempted to enhance > using the three criteria. The team used lengths of rope to plot their > design and trampled the wheat down in a spiral pattern using lengths > of wooden board attached to loops of rope. > > To meet criterion 2, they constructed a portable microwave emitter; > using it to superheat the moisture inside the corn stalks until it > burst out as steam. To meet criterion 3 they built a device - dubbed > the "Flammschmeisser" - which sprayed iron particles through a heated > ring. However, the device proved to be too time consuming to use and > they were forced to finish the task using a pyrotechnic charge to > distribute the iron around the circle. > > The circle was later analyzed by graduate students from MIT, who > declared it to be "on a par with any of the documented cases". Their > conclusion was later questioned by Talbott, noting that the team had > only been able to recreate 2 of the 3 criteria. Talbott also > expressed concerns that the iron particles were not distributed > laterally. Furthermore, she felt that the team's use of night vision > headsets and other technologically advanced items would be out of > reach for the average hoaxer. Big mistake. I wouldn't assume anything of the sort. She has no ideas wh
[FairfieldLife] Re: New Cropcircles in England
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Their > > conclusion was later questioned by Talbott, noting that the > > team had only been able to recreate 2 of the 3 criteria. > > Talbott also expressed concerns that the iron particles were > > not distributed laterally. Furthermore, she felt that the > > team's use of night vision headsets and other technologically > > advanced items would be out of reach for the average hoaxer. > > Doesn't this just prove that the somewhat nutty guys who are so > into this that they would spend their nights doing it are just > way better at it than a bunch of hired dabblers? It seems to > make the point that no extraterrestrial agency is necessary > doesn't it? Well, not really. They could only meet two of the three criteria, for one thing; and they didn't do such a good job with one of the two they managed to accomplish. But even more of a problem is why crop circle makers would go to all the trouble of creating these effects with advanced technology in the first place: > > 1. Elongated apical plant stem nodes > > 2. Expulsion cavities in the plant stems > > 3. The presence of 10-50 micrometer diameter magnetized > >iron spheres in the soils, distributed linearly These characteristics were only discovered after intensive scientific investigation; they aren't anything anybody would be able to see without careful measurements with complicated instruments. Nor would they result simply from the process of mashing down crops in patterns. It strains credulity to think circle makers would have "planted" this kind of anomalous, virtually invisible evidence throughout circles that would have been difficult enough to create overnight without it. This is an instance where what I've called the folk- wisdom version of Occam's razor applies. You really have to stand on your head to explain it away.
[FairfieldLife] Re: New Cropcircles in England
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > Their > > > conclusion was later questioned by Talbott, noting that the > > > team had only been able to recreate 2 of the 3 criteria. > > > Talbott also expressed concerns that the iron particles were > > > not distributed laterally. Furthermore, she felt that the > > > team's use of night vision headsets and other technologically > > > advanced items would be out of reach for the average hoaxer. > > > > Doesn't this just prove that the somewhat nutty guys who are so > > into this that they would spend their nights doing it are just > > way better at it than a bunch of hired dabblers? It seems to > > make the point that no extraterrestrial agency is necessary > > doesn't it? > > Well, not really. They could only meet two of the three > criteria, for one thing; and they didn't do such a good > job with one of the two they managed to accomplish. > > But even more of a problem is why crop circle makers > would go to all the trouble of creating these effects > with advanced technology in the first place: > > > > 1. Elongated apical plant stem nodes > > > 2. Expulsion cavities in the plant stems > > > 3. The presence of 10-50 micrometer diameter magnetized > > >iron spheres in the soils, distributed linearly It may be an artifact of the unknown process that they use. Which also answers this point: > It strains credulity to think circle makers would have > "planted" this kind of anomalous, virtually invisible > evidence throughout circles that would have been > difficult enough to create overnight without it. It may be just a byproduct of how they are doing it. The extent of human ingenuity is fantastic. The jump you don't seem to make, which many people do who are into this is to claim, is that they know they are done my aliens. Same with UFOs, they are "unidentified." The jump to identifying them as alien crafts is an unnecessary jump. with crop circles all we can say is that we don't have all the answers to all ways they are done. But the suggestion that we need to imagine that humans couldn't do it seems far fetched to me. Is this one for your "don't rule it out" box? I think I am more convinced that it is humans who are really into this kind of thing. But this topic always interests me in where you are drawing your lines while challenging the simple explanations. It is one of your best "raps" IMO. > > These characteristics were only discovered after > intensive scientific investigation; they aren't anything > anybody would be able to see without careful > measurements with complicated instruments. Nor would > they result simply from the process of mashing down > crops in patterns. > > It strains credulity to think circle makers would have > "planted" this kind of anomalous, virtually invisible > evidence throughout circles that would have been > difficult enough to create overnight without it. > > This is an instance where what I've called the folk- > wisdom version of Occam's razor applies. You really > have to stand on your head to explain it away. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: New Cropcircles in England
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Cynics, vain amateur Buddhist's, egos out of control like > > > > Barry and other fools firmly rooted in darkness are free > > > > not to comment: > > > > > > That list obviously doesn't include me so: It's quite a pretty > > > little design the only bit I couldn't work out is where they > > > measured the outer "eye" shapes from, but if you look up close > > > they aren't very well done, a bit wobbly in places. > > > > > > I'm starting to wonder if they design these using GPS or > > > SatNav it would make it much easier in the dark. But then > > > some really good ones arrived before computer aided > > > navigation didn't they? > > > > Yes indeedy. > > > > > But I've always held a suspicion that the army is involved > > > here, it would be a good way to test new technologies in > > > the dark and the army testing range on Salisbury plain is > > > right in the middle of all these circles. > > > > Trouble with that theory is that there are circles > > all over the world. And Salisbury Plain is hardly > > the only U.K. location for circles. > > And hardly the only UK location for army camps, you > can't walk five miles round my way without seeing > tanks patrolling the pine woods. It's just an idea > it could be anyone. And I have to accept, anything. > Until we know for sure. > > But I'm convinced it's people doing this, the one above > is too irregular in places to be from the Space Brothers, > and I know that sounds like a stupid thing to say but if > they have the technology to get all the way over here then > why don't why do a decent job? FWIW, I don't think it's the "Space Brothers." I don't know what the hell it is. But this one is actually about as regular as they get. I don't see how they could be made any more regular, considering that they're made in natural materials. I'm not even sure what you're referring to about irregularities. > > Here's an interesting bit from the Wikipedia article > > on crop circles: > > It is interesting but I remember a programme about CCs, > two "experts" with competing theories were taken to a > fresh crop circle and allowed to test it. Neither of them > knew that the other was also being given access but both > of them claimed that the circle "proved" their ideas, > which were contradictory, on how the circles are formed > and the effects on the straw. Both tested for something > and found proof but they couldn't both have been right! > > Imagine how pissed off they were when the documentary > maker showed them film of the circle being made by Doug > and Dave the night before. They really weren't happy > but they should have been pleased because they helped > demonstrate an important point about science and crop > circles. I don't know anything about this particular incident, although I know there have been such donnybrooks. The question is whether the one you refer to is anything like what Wikipedia described in terms of the tests performed. Also see my post to Curtis about the extreme unlikelihood of human circle makers using advanced technology to plant this kind of virtually invisible evidence in their circles, effects that have nothing to do with the *patterns* themselves, or the purportedly perfectly ordinary creation thereof. > I am at a loss as to how they do it in such a short time > though, and at night, damn clever. But then they've had > a lot of practise. If you're at a loss to know how they create the patterns overnight, you should be gobsmacked to find that while they're doing that, they *also* are using complicated technology to create effects (at least one of which couldn't be replicated) that can be discovered only by careful measurement with advanced scientific instrumentation--and were doing so well before the Discovery Channel project was undertaken.
[FairfieldLife] Re: New Cropcircles in England
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > Their > > > conclusion was later questioned by Talbott, noting that the > > > team had only been able to recreate 2 of the 3 criteria. > > > Talbott also expressed concerns that the iron particles were > > > not distributed laterally. Furthermore, she felt that the > > > team's use of night vision headsets and other technologically > > > advanced items would be out of reach for the average hoaxer. > > > > Doesn't this just prove that the somewhat nutty guys who are so > > into this that they would spend their nights doing it are just > > way better at it than a bunch of hired dabblers? It seems to > > make the point that no extraterrestrial agency is necessary > > doesn't it? > > Well, not really. They could only meet two of the three > criteria, for one thing; and they didn't do such a good > job with one of the two they managed to accomplish. > > But even more of a problem is why crop circle makers > would go to all the trouble of creating these effects > with advanced technology in the first place: > > > > 1. Elongated apical plant stem nodes > > > 2. Expulsion cavities in the plant stems > > > 3. The presence of 10-50 micrometer diameter magnetized > > >iron spheres in the soils, distributed linearly > > These characteristics were only discovered after > intensive scientific investigation; they aren't anything > anybody would be able to see without careful > measurements with complicated instruments. Nor would > they result simply from the process of mashing down > crops in patterns. > > It strains credulity to think circle makers would have > "planted" this kind of anomalous, virtually invisible > evidence throughout circles that would have been > difficult enough to create overnight without it. It reminds me of the Noahs Ark someone found on top of mount Ararat in Turkey. They were convinced it was the real thing as it was boat shaped and magnetic imaging revealed it had metal nails set at regular intervals all over it just like a boat would have. When someone independent got permission to examine it they turned to be natural. It was case of someone with an interest in it being what they wanted it to be misinterpeting the evidence to suit their theory. Just as the two circle experts did in the documentary I mentioned. > This is an instance where what I've called the folk- > wisdom version of Occam's razor applies. You really > have to stand on your head to explain it away. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: New Cropcircles in England
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > But even more of a problem is why crop circle makers > > would go to all the trouble of creating these effects > > with advanced technology in the first place: > > > > > > 1. Elongated apical plant stem nodes > > > > 2. Expulsion cavities in the plant stems > > > > 3. The presence of 10-50 micrometer diameter magnetized > > > >iron spheres in the soils, distributed linearly > > It may be an artifact of the unknown process that they use. Who uses? The guys with a couple of boards and a rope who supposedly are creating all these circles? > Which also answers this point: > > > It strains credulity to think circle makers would have > > "planted" this kind of anomalous, virtually invisible > > evidence throughout circles that would have been > > difficult enough to create overnight without it. > > It may be just a byproduct of how they are doing it. The > extent of human ingenuity is fantastic. You would think that if this were the case, the scientists who are intent on debunking a non-human origin for the circles would be able to extrapolate from these highly specific effects to how they are doing it. > The jump you don't seem to make, which many people do who > are into this is to claim, is that they know they are done > my aliens. Right, I don't make that jump. > Same > with UFOs, they are "unidentified." The jump to identifying > them as alien crafts is an unnecessary jump. with crop circles > all we can say is that we don't have all the answers to all ways > they are done. But the suggestion that we need to imagine that > humans couldn't do it seems far fetched to me. Is this one for > your "don't rule it out" box? Yup. But I lean in the other direction; I think it's far-fetched to imagine that humans *could* do it, if we haven't been able to figure out how after all these years--again, not just creating the patterns, but doing so in such a way that these weird "invisible" effects are created along with them. I mean, the debunkers so far have focused only on the fact that reasonable facimiles of crop circles can be created by humans with ordinary equipment, assuming on that basis that they've *all* been created this way. But then you throw in the "invisible" effects as well, and you've got a *lot* more explaining to do. I think I am more convinced that it is humans who are really > into this kind of thing. > > But this topic always interests me in where you are drawing > your lines while challenging the simple explanations. It is > one of your best "raps" IMO. Thanks. Where I'm at right now is that there is a whole batch of *very* odd phenomena--crop circles and UFO abduction experiences among them--happening right under our noses that we can't begin to explain in terms of our conventional understanding of How It All Works, and which, in fact, appear to *contradict* that understanding. At this point, I can't see how to come to any conclusion other than that there's a very significant "slice" of How It All Works that we don't even suspect *exists*, much less have a clue about what's involved. In other words, I think the likelihood that conventional explanations of these phenomena are adequate is very, very remote--but I can't rule it out.
[FairfieldLife] Re: New Cropcircles in England
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > It strains credulity to think circle makers would have > > "planted" this kind of anomalous, virtually invisible > > evidence throughout circles that would have been > > difficult enough to create overnight without it. > > It reminds me of the Noahs Ark someone found on top > of mount Ararat in Turkey. They were convinced it > was the real thing as it was boat shaped and magnetic > imaging revealed it had metal nails set at regular > intervals all over it just like a boat would have. > > When someone independent got permission to examine > it they turned to be natural. It was case of someone > with an interest in it being what they wanted it to be > misinterpeting the evidence to suit their theory. > Just as the two circle experts did in the documentary > I mentioned. Yeah, that's not at all parallel to the test I quoted from Wikipedia.
[FairfieldLife] Re: New Cropcircles in England
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Cynics, vain amateur Buddhist's, egos out of control like > > > > > Barry and other fools firmly rooted in darkness are free > > > > > not to comment: > > > > > > > > That list obviously doesn't include me so: It's quite a pretty > > > > little design the only bit I couldn't work out is where they > > > > measured the outer "eye" shapes from, but if you look up close > > > > they aren't very well done, a bit wobbly in places. > > > > > > > > I'm starting to wonder if they design these using GPS or > > > > SatNav it would make it much easier in the dark. But then > > > > some really good ones arrived before computer aided > > > > navigation didn't they? > > > > > > Yes indeedy. > > > > > > > But I've always held a suspicion that the army is involved > > > > here, it would be a good way to test new technologies in > > > > the dark and the army testing range on Salisbury plain is > > > > right in the middle of all these circles. > > > > > > Trouble with that theory is that there are circles > > > all over the world. And Salisbury Plain is hardly > > > the only U.K. location for circles. > > > > And hardly the only UK location for army camps, you > > can't walk five miles round my way without seeing > > tanks patrolling the pine woods. It's just an idea > > it could be anyone. And I have to accept, anything. > > Until we know for sure. > > > > But I'm convinced it's people doing this, the one above > > is too irregular in places to be from the Space Brothers, > > and I know that sounds like a stupid thing to say but if > > they have the technology to get all the way over here then > > why don't why do a decent job? > > FWIW, I don't think it's the "Space Brothers." I don't > know what the hell it is. > > But this one is actually about as regular as they get. > I don't see how they could be made any more regular, > considering that they're made in natural materials. > I'm not even sure what you're referring to about > irregularities. There are plenty of wobbly lines and bits where one person (I'm going to make that assumption) trod one way and someone else trod the other and the radiating lines aren't very good either. To me they are hall- marks of humans having a go but not doing it perfectly, it's what I'd expect late at night in a field. > If you're at a loss to know how they create the > patterns overnight, you should be gobsmacked to > find that while they're doing that, they *also* are > using complicated technology to create effects (at > least one of which couldn't be replicated) that can > be discovered only by careful measurement with > advanced scientific instrumentation--and were doing > so well before the Discovery Channel project was > undertaken. If that's true I would indeed be gobsmacked but I'm not sure how much see my comments about the Ark after Curtis' bit.
[FairfieldLife] Re: New Cropcircles in England
> Yup. But I lean in the other direction; I think it's > far-fetched to imagine that humans *could* do it, if > we haven't been able to figure out how after all these > years--again, not just creating the patterns, but > doing so in such a way that these weird "invisible" > effects are created along with them. That is what interests me when this topic comes up, we seem to be on slightly different sides of the same line. I don't believe that the debunkers can match the intensity of the guys doing it. There are obviously quite a few different people and for all we know it may be a number of people's life's work. Throw in a person with a complete fixation, and I doubt that any part-timer is gunna figure it out. The ones that were done by the guys with boards made for an "aha" moment. It seemed amazing that a couple of yahoos with boards on their feet could do something so grand, (or would want to!) but they did some of them. Same thing with the ones that this explanation doesn't cover. I'll bet when the technique comes out we will smack out foreheads and say "brilliant, why didn't I think of that?" And also likely, "what a freak'n nutjob!" But I appreciate your pushing the mystery aspect which is not yet explained. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > But even more of a problem is why crop circle makers > > > would go to all the trouble of creating these effects > > > with advanced technology in the first place: > > > > > > > > 1. Elongated apical plant stem nodes > > > > > 2. Expulsion cavities in the plant stems > > > > > 3. The presence of 10-50 micrometer diameter magnetized > > > > >iron spheres in the soils, distributed linearly > > > > It may be an artifact of the unknown process that they use. > > Who uses? The guys with a couple of boards and a rope > who supposedly are creating all these circles? > > > Which also answers this point: > > > > > It strains credulity to think circle makers would have > > > "planted" this kind of anomalous, virtually invisible > > > evidence throughout circles that would have been > > > difficult enough to create overnight without it. > > > > It may be just a byproduct of how they are doing it. The > > extent of human ingenuity is fantastic. > > You would think that if this were the case, the > scientists who are intent on debunking a non-human > origin for the circles would be able to extrapolate > from these highly specific effects to how they are > doing it. > > > The jump you don't seem to make, which many people do who > > are into this is to claim, is that they know they are done > > my aliens. > > Right, I don't make that jump. > > > Same > > with UFOs, they are "unidentified." The jump to identifying > > them as alien crafts is an unnecessary jump. with crop circles > > all we can say is that we don't have all the answers to all ways > > they are done. But the suggestion that we need to imagine that > > humans couldn't do it seems far fetched to me. Is this one for > > your "don't rule it out" box? > > Yup. But I lean in the other direction; I think it's > far-fetched to imagine that humans *could* do it, if > we haven't been able to figure out how after all these > years--again, not just creating the patterns, but > doing so in such a way that these weird "invisible" > effects are created along with them. > > I mean, the debunkers so far have focused only on the > fact that reasonable facimiles of crop circles can be > created by humans with ordinary equipment, assuming > on that basis that they've *all* been created this way. > > But then you throw in the "invisible" effects as well, > and you've got a *lot* more explaining to do. > > I think I am more convinced that it is humans who are really > > into this kind of thing. > > > > But this topic always interests me in where you are drawing > > your lines while challenging the simple explanations. It is > > one of your best "raps" IMO. > > Thanks. > > Where I'm at right now is that there is a whole > batch of *very* odd phenomena--crop circles and UFO > abduction experiences among them--happening right > under our noses that we can't begin to explain in > terms of our conventional understanding of How It > All Works, and which, in fact, appear to > *contradict* that understanding. > > At this point, I can't see how to come to any > conclusion other than that there's a very > significant "slice" of How It All Works that we > don't even suspect *exists*, much less have a clue > about what's involved. > > In other words, I think the likelihood that > conventional explanations of these phenomena are > adequate is very, very remote--but I can't rule > it out. >
