We've all heard of them, and sceptics using the age old say "They are easily man made". Thus people there are the few out there that wish to say that crop circles, ALL OF THEM, are fake.

There are some variables that people tend to forget about crop circles when being examined.

You can't prove that all crop circles are fake. Certain crop circles have evidence of actual abnormal crop growth, as well as lead inside of the crops. Evidence shows that objects such as flying triangles have been spotted in the skies 1000's of years ago, and it is ACTUAL RECORDS. U.F.O's are not just an invention as some would infer. It is ridiculous to think that so many people will succome to the insanity of actually putting fragments of lead in individual plants in a crop. Maybe a small perceptage, but really, will that many people go to such lengths, just to play some mean prank.

I find it hard to believe. Also for the fact that crop circles themselves have been around for 1000's of years, and the idea that people that many years ago would even bother to make crop circles with such inferior technology and no helacopters to see the design over head is simply ridiculous in my opinion.

There are too many variables, to simply infer that all crop circles MUST be fake.

As it is one form of comunication that can be easily seen from space, I would say the highest probability is they are messages to some inteligence off world.

No, I don't mean the ISS.

hmmmmmmm, then to whom?

Who really knows. One question would also arrive would be to the purpose of them using a planet to communicate with others like themselves, because these messages are not for us, otherwise they wouldn't be on the ground.

So the question is as you said, to whom, and also why this planet being used for it?

The message would be for near orbital viewing.
It would indicate no other means of comunicating was possible.

hmmmmm

True... and it would possibly infer that we have a few technological advancements that they don't have, seeing as they need crop circles to communicate. Thus they may be more advanced then us in certain ways only, one being space travel. Or I could be just going through some conspiracy with my tech theory on this, forgive me, I can sometimes jump to that.

did you see signs? i found his Nights idea that they are signs, particularly interesting...

anyways irrelevantly : Bucks county where signs was shot's where i am stayin for summers (boring place :-\)

Rick

Yeah I saw that movie, and enjoyed it very much. I forgot though, what were the crop circles signifying on the movie? Could you perhaps recap the theory to me?

DO DO DOH DOH... DO DO DOH DOH... DO DA DA DOH...... its that sign post up ahead... next stop..... the....

-MT

Evidence shows that objects such as flying triangles have been spotted in the skies 1000's of years ago, and it is ACTUAL RECORDS
Actually triangles are a fairly recent shape in the sky - usually ascribed to Aurora.
As it is one form of comunication that can be easily seen from space/ The message would be for near orbital viewing.
So any aliens that come into our solar system will know exactly where to look for the circles at the right time (wouldn't want to look for a crop circle in the dark would we)?
And what makes you think a pattern in a cornfield is visible from orbit?

And what makes you think a pattern in a cornfield is visible from orbit?

Because of the superadvanced technology the aliens have, they can see everything, which is why they choose such a baroque method of communication, ....

... hold on, if they are superadvanced, why don't they just use radios? Or lasers? Or something that does't require a seasonal growth! ;-)

It is ridiculous to think that so many people will succome to the insanity of actually putting fragments of lead in individual plants in a crop. Maybe a small perceptage, but really, will that many people go to such lengths, just to play some mean prank.
What makes you think that each grain of lead must be individually inserted? Students from MIT replicated all aspects of crop fields, including the "strange electromagnetic field" effect. To do the metal spheres, they made a flamethrower-cum-microwave device which seeded the flames with iron filings. It exactly replicated the small spherical objects and the crop damage.

Perhaps Phlogistician aliens use corncircles to communicate because it's too difficult to hold a spraycan to a wall being 3 foot high with tenticles and their concern for being arrested for exercising their "freedom of expression" through the "defacement of public property".

Perhaps Phlogistician aliens use corncircles to communicate because it's too difficult to hold a spraycan to a wall being 3 foot high with tenticles and their concern for being arrested for exercising their "freedom of expression" through the "defacement of public property".

Yeah, that's it, imagine you have a tentacle wrapped around the spray can, holding it, you'd then have to operate the nozzle with the tip of another tentacle. This might require letting go of the ray gun, or transcommunication device.

Whereas walking round in circles, bending a few stalks with a spare tentacle must be a breeze. Thank you, you've solved the mystery!

I bet they aren't too bothered about being arrested though, I bet those tentacles slip out of handcuffs real easy!

Back up your first logical explanation with a conspiracy theory... that's reasonable.

Though what you are saying about aurora's in the sky is true, that does not rule out their sightings in the sky because as recorded most were seen as individual balls of light in a triangular formation, not one big light. Though it was 1000's of years ago these people weren't stupid, they could tell the difference between one big triangular light and many lights forming a triangle.
It was also recorded that triangles were seen close enough to actual seen the design of the ship, not just lights.

So all crop circles, even 1000's of years ago were being faked.

Please, do explain to me, the significance to all to all of this. The motive, if you will? Care to explain why some surf in old England thousands of years ago would waste his time faking a crop circle out, when back then it was so much harder to replicate?

yep, all of them. Each and every crop circle. Also the idea of extraterrestrials were wild back then too. It was like the 50's, everyone was talking about it, it was just one big huge conspiracy for 1000's of years to come.

Also the crop circles have had evidence of irregular growth and radiation burn.

So it's merely coincidence that certain crop circles, (a hell of a lot of em)just so happens to be the victim of sun spots. Only crop circles, and the fact that it's on circle crop circles, many of em, is just a coincidence. And after it's made too, in that one area. all coincidince.

If you want to talk about conspiracy that is conspiracy my friend. This is too coincidential. Your ruling out too many variables.

And as for your theory on the SuperNatural, here's somehting you may want to look into. They aren't humans thus their advancements aren't replicated like humans, so you can't just saying they are more advanced then us in EVERY way.

It's possible they don't have the technology of implicating radiowaves, but they can implicate space travel. You don't know if we advanced beyond them in certain ways. And if your going to use logic in the sense that they are more advanced then us in every way because they know space travel, that's still not good enough, there must be a reason behind it.

Also the motive behind the crop circles is still unknown. So even if it does sound ridiculous that they are using crop circles as a call card it's quite possible it has another purpose.

Before you once again call me insane, how about actual looking into these records. Keep an open mind.

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/ufos/phenomenon.html

I ask you, look into this before judging it. Look into more records before judgement.

Regulus
Evidence shows that objects such as flying triangles have been spotted in the skies 1000's of years ago
Regulus
because as recorded most were seen as individual balls of light in a
triangular formation, not one big light
Borrowing from Visitor's book now? a flying triangle does not equal "indicidual balls of light in a triangular formation.
If you're going to give us rubbish "theories" at least try to keep them self-consistent.
Check out the other crop circle threads - there weren't any thousands of years ago (IIRC ToR tried this and couldn't even get away with dating them back a couple of hundred).
And PS, it's "serf" not "surf".
Why were they hard to replicate back then? Piece of rope, flat boards etc. They didn't have to bother inserting any chemicals since no-one would bother checking for them.
They aren't humans thus their advancements aren't replicated like humans
Agreed 100%. I have proof humans exist. ETs are pure speculation...
And, the idea of extraterrestrials were wild back then too. is not true either, since it would have been put down to angels and the like. A woo-woo is a woo-woo, only the terms change...

And as for your theory on the SuperNatural, here's somehting you may want to look into. They aren't humans thus their advancements aren't replicated like humans, so you can't just saying they are more advanced then us in EVERY way.

It's possible they don't have the technology of implicating radiowaves, but they can implicate space travel. You don't know if we advanced beyond them in certain ways. And if your going to use logic in the sense that they are more advanced then us in every way because they know space travel, that's still not good enough, there must be a reason behind it.

Also the motive behind the crop circles is still unknown. So even if it does sound ridiculous that they are using crop circles as a call card it's quite possible it has another purpose.

Obviously, you dont' have a really good grasp of physics. If the "aliens" here have mastered interspace travel, they have to have a fundamental understanding of em waves/fields, which is how communication happens in radio frequencies. To say that a race (or conglomeration of races) that have space travel, and not some intership communication is rediculous notion.

Then his information was incorrect Oli.

King David saw these in the sky, and even if you call them Angels, whatever you like to call them what they saw was still what they saw in the sky, name changes don't change the object.

And as I see it King David did not merely live hundreds of years ago now did he?

You can say what you like but the object doesn't change with the name.

And its not a rubbish theory as you so harshy put it. A board and a piece of rope, it can be replicated, but again you fail to show logic of why it would be replicated.

Don't beat around the bush, answer my question. Otherwise I have nothing more to say to you.

And ET's, as you so put it, do exist, there's no proof of them to have visited here, but for us to be the only organisms in this Universe other then bacteria is a wild assumption, as the probability of that is low.

And I am borrowing this from nowhere. As such, I have not used this forum for anything, I've found my information elsewhere.

And yes, you are correct, I am not very good in physics Squeak, point well taken.

But there could be anothe implication of this purpose of a crop circle. I don't rule that out. If not for communication, then it could possibly have anothe purpose.

It is pretty strange. The "mainstream" resorts to worldwide conspiracy theories to explain crop circles away.

Well what I don't like is when people rule out these variables, and just consider them ALL coincidences. Also when they beat around the bush and don't even care to explain was some man 100's of years ago or 1000's of years ago would just out of the blue decide to fake out a crop circle, with no motive.

As of now we can reasonably infer this, because the idea of U.F.O's were recently endorced after the 1950's. Of course there's obviously going to be fakers out there.

But that many years ago the idea of a U.F.O never existed. Thus the motive of crop circles is something to be questioned, if one is to reasonably infer all should be fake even when dating back to that long ago.

but again you fail to show logic of why it would be replicated.
Don't beat around the bush, answer my question. Otherwise I have nothing more to say to you.
Why do people do anything strange? I don't even know why someone climbs mountains, takes up boxing, watches football etc. Individuals' choices are not up to me to explain. I suppose they were done "for a giggle" or a bet. And then someone else decided it would be "cool" to follow up with some of their own. Logic has nothing to with it - there may be personal reasons JUSTIFYING to themselves why they do it, but that's not my purview.
You can say what you like but the object doesn't change with the name.
You haven't proved their were any "objects" - all that can truly be said is that something was probably seen and interpreted as angels (long ago) or flying saucers (more recently).
Until it can be proved they physically exist then any speculation as to what they are is never going to anything more than speculation.
And ET's, as you so put it, do exist, there's no proof of them to have visited here, but for us to be the only organisms in this Universe other then bacteria is a wild assumption, as the probability of that is low.
Really? Show us, convince us that they do exist.
You can't assign a probability, low or otherwise, since you have no hard data on which to base the calculations. My personal feeling (and hope) is that there is life out there, but I have nothing to back up what is only a gut-based desire.

Ok, but until you show me that personal reason, can anything really be said?

Think about it. "Well it's personal raesons", what reasons would they be? "I don't know, I just know they are personal raesons".

I don't call that hard evidence. I call that asserations based on common skepticism. You tell me I need proof, well then I say you need proof of their reasons.

Show me proof of their reasons and I will show you apsolute proof of an ET's visit here.

Can't? Of course you can't, nor can I. If individuals choices are not up to you to explain, why should I explain an ET's motivation for making a crop circle?

As for the probability, I'm not exactly a scientists so you have me there. But with the life giving properies of our Earth, and how it came to be (asteroids hitting the earth, vabor creaing organisms), these asteroids and a proper planet to give this kind of life isn't something rare to come by Oli.

I may not have a true probability, but it's a wild assumption that there's only ONE set of these kind of life giving properties. The Earth didn't just come to be on it's own.

You tell me I need proof, well then I say you need proof of their reasons.
Then interview them. ALL of them, including the dead ones. I was pointing out that you can't ascribe motive to individuals that you don't know. As I said, I can't even understand why someone would waste time watching football...
why should I explain an ET's motivation for making a crop circle?
But you cannot pove that ETs exist or that if they did that they created crop circles - that's worse than me assigning "reasons" for humans making crop circles it's pure speculation. But at least we know for certain that humans do irrational things for their own amusement or whatever other reason they want. You're arguing backwards from "I don't believe all crop circles were created by humans" to "therefore someone else must have" to "therefore there are ETs that visit us".
Simply put:
fact: humans do weird things for one reason or another
fact: humans have proved that one of the weird things they do is make crop circles
speculation: aliens exist
speculation aliens (that speculatively exist) make crop circles
The Earth didn't just come to be on it's own.
Correct and how it came to be is largely known. But:
it's a wild assumption that there's only ONE set of these kind of life giving properties
and it's an equally wild assumption to say (without hard evidence) that there's other sets. We can, and do, speculate, but we have NO evidence whatsoever that there are intelligent ETs.

Indeed, speculation.... but I do not however deny the logic behind them. Though there is no proof, I do not ignore the logic behind those speculations, and logic is important.

So I suppose it ends with this Oli.

But, I do not, however change my view on Crop Circles, I do happen to think that some are real, and some are fake, though no hard evidence, the logic behind it seems clear enough.

Though not proven, I still stick to that logic. But my question to you is this... what are your thoughts Oli? Do you believe that there is NO such thing as an ET, or do you believen it, even if the evidence is not shown but on the basis of the logic itself, as well as crop circles.

I was argueing with you before, on the grounds that I thought that you thought all crop circles were fake. If I am incorrect about that then I apologize for debating with for no reason at all.

I agree, I don't doubt I have no hard evidence or proof, though I don't doubt the logic.

Hmmm.
Okay. I believe most crop circles are fake, I vaguely remember reading about microburst weather patterns or something. I am utterly convinced that NONE are made by aliens because there is no evidence for aliens of any sort, let alone ones who come here merely to cause farmers grief.
The bit that I have "problems" with is I do happen to think that some are real, and some are fake, though no hard evidence, the logic behind it seems clear enough Yup, the logic is clear enough, but the premise behind that logic is flawed...
And don't apologise, a good argument/ debate can be fun and if nothing else improve skills and neither of us (well I know you haven't and I hope I haven't either) have descended to the level that some posters here achieve (names withheld :D ) In fact I recently took a new look at a previous "opponent" and he's stepped up a notch or two in my estimation for one of his remarks - I think it takes a while to see the other party as rounded human rather than a point of view (or is that just me?)

I agree, all logic is flawed in one form or another, yours and mine when it comes to these... we've both have that wall that we have not overcome. That one wall that stops logic from breaking thru. something not completely proven. Our logic in a sense on both sides of the arguement have a flaw... and that would be due to an axom that hasn't been uncovered yet, that axom being quantity of crop circles, and the mystery behind the developement.

And I have heard of these microstorms before, though they've happend to crop circles before in the field and nothing else effected, a good quantity, which also leaves a variable I can't deny. That's one thing I also consider, I don't doubt the microstorms either, but I also don't doubt that some are an eventuality of an unknown cause... whatever that cause may be. I am convinced that there are some real.

I have given this some thought of why such a circle would be made... maybe a landing pad or something for the ET to remember where that spot is for whatever reason... still searching for a rational explanation. Maybe it's doing it out if it's own amusement.

I can't be sure.

I suppose you and I have come to some agreement... in our own way. Or maybe agree to disagree.

Or the agression has left.

"And don't apologise, a good argument/ debate can be fun and if nothing else improve skills and neither of us (well I know you haven't and I hope I haven't either) have descended to the level that some posters here achieve (names withheld ) In fact I recently took a new look at a previous "opponent" and he's stepped up a notch or two in my estimation for one of his remarks - I think it takes a while to see the other party as rounded human rather than a point of view (or is that just me?)"

As for debates, sorry, but I don't enjoy them becuz I am always afraid they lead to agression, I don't like rocking the boat, as one would say.... but... if I have to then do.

As for what you said after that, I can confused... what were you saying? :confused:

I have a real ligitimate question to ask:

Can testimonies regarding UFO activity by highly credible people be considered evidence?

And also, what about mass UFO sightings -- sightings in which MANY, even thousands of individuals see something in the sky nobody can reasonably explain. Can that be considered evidence?

You bring up a good point...

becuz... what is evidence but an ascertation on an observation considered credible enough.

Where does one draw the line between, assumption, and proof?

I myself happen to think that quantity is proof, but... technically I cannot use that as proof. Proof is by definition, something you aspolutely KNOW is true.

Logically speaking that is credible, because of the quantity of it sighting around the world... but, technically, it cannot by standards of proof be considered proof because we don't know who these people are and cannot know their motives.

The only real thing we can do is use probability and logic on these sightings. I myself am a believer though, I can agree on somethings quantity and logic and believen it.

Can testimonies regarding UFO activity by highly credible people be considered evidence?
Define "credible" - we've already been through the (non) reliability of pilots, trained observers etc.
If it's eye-witness testimony only then no, it can't be treated as hard evidence. Eye witness accounts need corroboration and other eye witnesses aren't it.

Regulus
As for debates, sorry, but I don't enjoy them becuz I am always afraid they lead to agression, I don't like rocking the boat, as one would say.... but... if I have to then do.
Aggression on the net is not permanently damaging :D Go ahead, rock the boat - lots here do, persistently and violently. It's half the fun.
As for what you said after that, I can confused... what were you saying? Check your PMs.

Oli no, what are you doing lol?! *The boat tips over*

Great, now we're in the water. Heh, actually, that describes it quite well. As it's not damaging, we can always climb back onto the boat.

So... where does this leave my topic? To the dust?

What else is there to descuss? We've pretty much descussed it out Oli. The topic is dried out.

The topic is dried out.
Only this time round. We've had crop circles before, and no doubt they'll come back. (Topic that is).
If you're seriously stumped on this then pick something else and start rocking :D

HA HA HA!

I know a topic that would... but I am afraid I'll be eaten alive lol. It's in my head, but releasing it would probably have people tearing me apart.

but releasing it would probably have people tearing me apart.
You think so? I'm still formulating my "cats and quantum theory" post...

well, it has something to do with Religion, primarily Christianity, and a fundemental flaw in the belief system.

Can you perhaps tell me where your topic is if you have made it. Though I am not good at quantum physics, though I contemplate such things as time and Universal causality, I might be of some help to you Oli.

So all crop circles, even 1000's of years ago were being faked.

They didn't need to be faked 1000 years ago, imagine all you would need is an old burrow thats ploughed over or an old structure that had long since been brought down to ruins.

Due to those sorts of things being under the soil it would cause poor irrigation and would be seen to be created. What I thinks funny though is that people will declare there is more evidence of crop circles 1000 years ago in comparison to literature, makes you wonder who was actually keeping records and why a crop circle ranks higher than the history of the day.

Truthfully you can't even prove history unless you live it. As the old saying goes "what is history but a fable agreed upon"?

But anyway,

There's still the motive variable your missing Stryder.

And I suppose I am wrong to say that all aren't fake indefinately, becuz your right, there is no definite proof.

I apologize for that, but.... what I will say is I don't agree on the fact that all crop circles should be fake, because of the variables still present. No proof, but still variables present.

But, what about this?

They didn't need to be faked 1000 years ago, imagine all you would need is an old burrow thats ploughed over or an old structure that had long since been brought down to ruins.

Due to those sorts of things being under the soil it would cause poor irrigation and would be seen to be created. What I thinks funny though is that people will declare there is more evidence of crop circles 1000 years ago in comparison to literature, makes you wonder who was actually keeping records and why a crop circle ranks higher than the history of the day.

Yup. Ever see that documentary "Digging from the Air'? A team of archaeologists used aerial photography to look for shapes in crops. Just like you said, some crops grow less well where they are over walls, etc, and grow shorter, whereas some grow better over disturbed earth, where channels had been cut to divert water etc. This type of research yielded very positive results, and artefacts were found where such disturbances in crops were seen.

Of course, one of the more popular styles of ancient building was the 'Round House' so older disturbances in crops due to earthwork will be round.

ooops forgot this part.

(Quote)
Show me proof of their reasons and I will show you apsolute proof of an ET's visit here.

Can't? Of course you can't, nor can I. If individuals choices are not up to you to explain, why should I explain an ET's motivation for making a crop circle? (Unquote)


The following can be readily deduced by normal human logic. Huminoids would of course have a problem with this.

1. It is being comunicated to someone over head. (Duh?)
2. The applied known technologies being used to produce the "real" ones, we don't have.
3. Obviously it is an attempt in a form of signal to comunicate something.
4. The technology is present to do this, but not to comunicate in forms such as we do.
5. Beyond any doubt, the makers do not want to be discovered by humans.
6. Aparently the messages are being "ignored" by those above ment to see them.

Just a few thoughts.

1. It is being comunicated to someone over head. (Duh?)
Okay, let's grant for the sake of argument, this is true :D
2. The applied known technologies being used to produce the "real" ones, we don't have.
Define a "real one", presumably you mean one not admitted or proven to be a hoax? PS the term "applied technologies" is a tautology - technology is applied science, therefore if it's a technology it's, by definition, applied. And why use the word "known"? If they're using it then it's obviously known and since you said we don't have it then it's not known to us...
3. Obviously it is an attempt in a form of signal to comunicate something.
Or it could be the equivalent of graffiti... or caused by a backfire from a faulty drive system, or a concomitant of the propulsion method. Or anything else.
4. The technology is present to do this, but not to comunicate in forms such as we do.
Why "obviously"? If they're made by aliens then there's nothing obvious about it? You can't impute human logic to aliens.
5. Beyond any doubt, the makers do not want to be discovered by humans.
Which is why they stick indications of their existence in random cornfields - so we won't see or suspect them.
6. Aparently the messages are being "ignored" by those above ment to see them.
Why is this apparent? If you get a letter is the fact that it still exists at a later date proof you've ignored it?
Whatever logic you operate on isn't normal.

Lateral thought still eludes "them". FOCLMFAO

Lateral thought still eludes "them". FOCLMFAO
And thought in any form eludes you. Or do you claim that jumping to conclusions based on your personal prejudices (or making decisions based on data not available) is "logical thought"?

Do you ever post anything particular, or just specialise in snide non-sequiturs?

That would of course depend on "what" I am responding to now wouldnt it.

That would explain it. Here I am reading the posts in this thread and you're responding to posts somewhere in a completely different forum. Point taken.

does anyone have a good link to see pictures of some crop circles?

http://images.google.co.uk/images?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&q=crop+circle&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images

3. Obviously it is an attempt in a form of signal to comunicate something.


Just a few thoughts.

I wonder if the ones creating these circles are on an ignore list from those looking down?

I remember reading an article about the guys who originally started faking crop circles. In an interview with them, they proposed that this specific one (http://www.brainstrain.cropcircle.iwarp.com/crop%20circle%201.gif) would not have been able to be done by a team of several members in one night, due to the number of circles that it is comprised of.

Hey DJ Erock,

Are those crop circles for real!!! if so when were they sighted and where?

I'd have thought that it depended upon the number of people in the team. It's a concurrent process rather than sequential, so you could have an initial marking out and then let sub-teams go off and do a circle each. So long as they stick to the markers then no problem.

Looks like a fake in certain respects. Looks like a photoshoped stencil ontop of a picture of a field edge. If you look at some of the smaller circles they reflect too much light for their size, and if you look at the actual tractor wheel tracks you can't see any folds where the circles appear.

Damn you could be right. Those sneaky aliens are now faking photos of crop circles.

Looks like a fake in certain respects. Looks like a photoshoped stencil ontop of a picture of a field edge. If you look at some of the smaller circles they reflect too much light for their size, and if you look at the actual tractor wheel tracks you can't see any folds where the circles appear.
One would need a higher resolution picture to make certain. If there isn't a higher-res picture available, that would be suspicious although it would be only circumstantial evidence.

Since it's crop circles we're discussing shouldn't we be looking at the circumferential evidence?

foclmfao, , ,

Yep, make a few phonie ones and muddy the waters of truth known about them.

STDD Same Tactics, Different Day