GENIUS FORUMS

Nothing like the voice of authority. Has he seen *all* the circles? Has he measured their size and calculated the number of manhours needed to produce them?

I do not claim to know who, or what, is making the circles. [that's a period]
So, I dont claim that hominids made them either.

It would be nice to have the entire canon, including those known to be man made. But in any case, if it is an art form, it also is evolving, and apparently twards greater complexity. It is the *complexity* that suggests the assumed method of dudes with boards stomping grain is not an adequate method. Not that some dude may not have found another method.

Who, or whatever that artist is, demonstrates an increasing degree of craftsmanship and sophistication that goes way beyond what the usual tin foil hat crowd can do. http://www.greatdreams.com/crpcirc.htm, about 1/4 down the page shows some that are as complex as mandalas. And every one is absolutely perfect.

The fact that the webpage was made by some Kook with a buncha crazy rants does not explain how the patterns were crafted. Every image shows us the pairs of tractor tire tracks. If the European grain drills are the same as those I know about, the tracks are on 25 foot centers. Making the images 120 foot in diameter or larger. That is, 17,000 sq foot. Since a 4 foot long board only pushes over about 5sq feet per stomp, somebody was really fucking busy, and must have thunder thighs.

Cui bono? The landowners dont profit by it. There's lotsa books and video out, but whoever is behind it is not getting rich. There's too much competition from other fruitcakes. Frauds are perpetrated to draw tourists and religious pilgrams, But they do that to draw them to a particular place like Lordes or the Shroud at Turin. These damn things are scattered all over hellanback, so that motive is nul.

You are one step short of saying "these circles cannot be terrestrial in origin" or "they can only have been made by high-level wizards" or "because they are large they cannot be art" or a similar ludicrous claim.

If I were to make one of these things, I would absolutely love the fact that there were fruitcakes out there who claimed that I was some kind of non-human entity. It would cause me immense pride.

The vast majority of them are obviously hoaxes, and the rest are probaly hoaxes.

In a few cases, there might be some room for investigation, but I wouldn't get my "hopes" up (whatever one's hopes might be).

Not only that, people love to engage in utterly complex practical jokes and social experiments and have done that for ages. Some were entertaining, some educational, some downward sinister or political. Check out stuff like Ong's Hat to see how much people can put into something like that and how a story can grow beyond its initial bounds and just never die. Perhaps a case of hitting some arch typical jackpot.

The crop circles could be a bit different in that it's entirely possible that a few could really have some non-human origin, making the practical joke even more attractive. In a similar way some UFO's very well might be crafts of unknown origins. It makes it only more interesting to pretend one extra! Or a thousand. A bit like one true prophet versus a thousand fake ones before and after him. Any good story will be copy-catted to death after all.

Are you guys trying to tell me that a UFO swooped down from space, drew a little design in a corn field and then flew back home? And they do this on a regular basis?

Anyone who believes this is fucking high.

The esteemed scientist Matt Gregory weighs in with his carefully considered opinion.

Are you guys trying to tell me that a UFO swooped down from space, drew a little design in a corn field and then flew back home? And they do this on a regular basis?

Probably not. In fact, it seems extremely unlikely. Occam's Razor puts any number of explanations ahead of that one. However, anyone who believes that we know enough about the universe to say that such things simply could not happen is equally high.

I'm skeptical, but not reflexively dismissive.

Yeah, I'm sure there are huge galactic networks of planets set up for the sole purpose of funding these crop circle missions to Earth so they can make people sit around and wonder if it's a hoax or not.

Yes, and I'm sure that's the only possible reason crop circles might be connected with unknown phenomena.

Look, I'm not saying they are, but as skeptical methodologies go, yours so far is lousy. Mockery based on a single strawman is hardly a substantive argument. In fact, it's fallacious reasoning. I'm sure you can do better.

"Has he seen *all* the circles? Has he measured their size and calculated the number of manhours needed to produce them?" day

Whom else shall we consider as suspects?
Really inspired gorillas?
Enormous flocks of ingenious bowerbirds?

If we are to consider ETs as suspects, ought we not first at least establish a premise of plausibility for the existence of technologically capable ETs?

What has happened to Ockham's razor here?

Is it rational to assume it's not human pranksters, but is instead extraterrestrial pranksters? Is that really the more plausible explanation?

Merciful Heavens.

If we are to consider ETs as suspects, ought we not first at least establish a premise of plausibility for the existence of technologically capable ETs?

Hmm. I see no reason that should be implausible in and of itself. The existence of such "ET's" somewhere in this vast Universe seems a statistical near-certainty to me. In fact, I'm rather puzzled whenever someone seems unwilling to acknowledge this. However, whether any such beings are creating "crop circles" is a very different question with a decidedly different probability.

What has happened to Ockham's razor here?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm applying it. I consider the "ET hypothesis" for crop circles a very far-fetched one. Better explanations abound, although this says nothing about whether "ET" exists. It just says that he probably isn't making circles in the grass.

Is it rational to assume it's not human pranksters, but is instead extraterrestrial pranksters? Is that really the more plausible explanation?

Nope.

It's not entirely out of the question, though, in at least a few of the cases. Unlikely, yes. Very much so. However, I don't think all the existing cases can be closed with any finality just yet. While ET's involvement may be quite improbable, one thing that is very probable indeed is that we still have a lot to learn about this world.

I think people are more talking about forms of "harmonic" magnetic, light, electrical - what have you - anomalies. However, aliens seems more plausible to me, and that seems barely plausible at all.

I think we should default to Al Queada, personally.

Interestingly, I sometimes find that aliens, ghosts, or whatever else do seem more plausible than some of the half-baked things skeptics come up with. Some skeptics should stick to being skeptical and not attempt to create explanations of their own, because some of theirs are equally or more ridiculous than what they are trying to "debunk." While many crop circles are hoaxes, some skeptics would have all of them created overnight by two drunks with a plank and some rope. Ludicrous.

Well, sure, there's obviously something far more organised and sophisticated going on. But I think we can blame Dialectical Monism for this one.

Oh yeah. Me likey that one. Kudos to whichever little green men did it. I knew someone had to be paying attention. :p

Crop circles dont have to be made by a who, only a what, or even a human who has found a way to manipulate energy in ways you are not aware of. Inasmuch as Quantum Physics says there are 10 or 11 dimensions, and that energy patterns suggest they exist, then there will be ways to manipulate that energy.

The forms of energy you know about are not necessarily all that exist.

That's pretty far-fetched. Also, it's fallacious reasoning to bring in some unsubstantiated theory about "quantum energy" or the like in order to highlight the fact that we don't know everything. If we don't know, we simply don't know. There's no use in trying to yank things out of our arse at random.

"The existence of such "ET's" somewhere in this vast Universe seems a statistical near-certainty to me." Uni

Me too.

"In fact, I'm rather puzzled whenever someone seems unwilling to acknowledge this." Uni

About the most scientific attempt I know of to determine the probability of this is the [Frank] Drake equation (or variant). I regard that as a slightly sciencified guess.

"However, whether any such beings are creating "crop circles" is a very different question with a decidedly different probability." Uni

Bingo.

Before we start blaming them for acts of vandalism, it seems to me it would make more sense to establish that they've been here. So far, those that assert the have been or are have as much credibility as Christians that make their familiar supernatural claims. In either case, the sum of the evidence they've compiled so far to support their opinion is:
zero.

And if I may undertake a slight tangent on technological ETs:
I doubt technological ETs cruising the cosmos would be freelancers like Steve Fawcett. Possible, but I suspect unlikely.
Instead, I suspect, if they're there at all, they'll be the collaborative effort of nation-States, or planet States.

And just as NASA would not be likely to send teams to Earth's moon to make pretty geometric designs in the sand (which would be vastly more durable than crop circles), it's difficult to imagine why it would be more likely for ETs to do so on Earth.

Further, if they were going to go to all the trouble and expense to contact other worlds, I'd like to believe their interactions would be more substantive than ruining part of a farmer's harvest.
It is a compound extreme implausibility.

And finally, there may be some question about whether really advanced civilizations would send such explorers very far.
If they were civilized enough to do so, then I suspect they may be civilized enough not to do so.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." SETI slogan

"Or is it?" Homer Simpson

"... some skeptics would have all of them created overnight by two drunks with a plank and some rope. Ludicrous." Uni

Ludicrous indeed.
But you have persuasively refuted a claim I have not made. In fact, I wasn't aware anyone has made such an assertion in this thread.
Doug & Dave established the art-form.
It's obviously been taken to more elaborate lengths since then. I suspect Doug & Dave have more or less retired.

Sear,

I disagree that the evidence for UFO visitiation" is "zero." It is indeed very slim, but "zero" is a strong word. There is certainly more evidence for it than for something like God, which honest believers will readily admit there can be no evidence for in any case. While the vast majority of UFO reports are highly questionable, a good number of interesting photographs and seemingly credible accounts are available. I am not arguing for the reality of UFO visitation. That remains a difficult argument to make because of the shortage of convincing evidence and the prevalence of both hoaxers and crackpots. I do consider the sum of credible evidence to be non-zero, though. Some of the better photos, for example, are from before the time of Photoshop and they remain largely unexplained by conventional means.

I consider the case for UFO visitation as a whole much stronger than for UFO involvement in crop circles, which is much more implausible for the reasons you listed and others. However, and regardless of UFO considerations or whatever else, I would like to know why some of the circles show microwave residues. I find the idea that people are routinely taking apart microwave ovens and constructing mad scientist apparatus in order to irradiate crop circles for no apparent reason only slightly more plausible than the UFO hypothesis.

Nat, there are several ways of energy manipulation going on that were undreamed of 20 years ago. Reality is just not what its cracked up to be. The universe is no longer infinite, but 15 billion light years across. Space is not infinitely divisible either. nano technology reveals that a "pixel" of space is 10X -35 meters; that is, you cannot move an atom smoothly across the surface of a crystal matrix. It "jumps" like magnets do when brought close together. You can place 4 hydrogen atoms together on a crystal surface, and they will automatically form a *perfect* square.

Paired photons, sent down fiber optic cables 50km apart react the same way, even tho only one was exposed to EMF. And they somehow communicate the state of each *instantaneously*, higher than the speed of light.

There are curious anomalies that have to do with laminar flow as well. There's lots stuff now that dont fit in Einstein's box of tricks, much less Newton's. So, I am not ready to say what other forms of energy may not be out there.

What happens when you make an oscillator with a wavelength of 10X -35 meters? what frequency is that? They are already having problems with computer motherboard design cause some leads are too long, and take too many nanoseconds to get from the source to the gate.

This shit is getting spooky.

"I disagree that the evidence for UFO visitiation" is "zero." It is indeed very slim, but "zero" is a strong word. There is certainly more evidence for it than for something like God, which honest believers will readily admit there can be no evidence for in any case. While the vast majority of UFO reports are highly questionable, a good number of interesting photographs and seemingly credible accounts are available." Uni

I've looked into that.
Perhaps there's more persuasive "evidence" now.
But those I've seen appear to be hubcaps tethered on fishing line.
Perhaps your definition of "evidence" is a bit more lax than mine.

Religious believers can point to scripture, and count that as "evidence".

I've seen a feature film on the "sacred shroud of Turin". It was touted as Jesus' burial shroud (not necessarily proof of anything supernatural, even if it was Jesus' burial shroud. That was later debunked (carbon dating, if I recall).

How about a rusty muffler, having fallen off a flying saucer (with a lot of miles on it)?

Some have suggested an unusual alloy, perhaps aluminum & iron. Under terrestrial conditions & current Earth technology, that's an unlikely alloy to find.
Why?
Because when each is liquefied, the density differential tends to drive the melted iron to the bottom of the crucible.
So (despite semiconductor exception) a chunk of iron aluminum alloy might suggest either advanced technology, or that the alloy was created in micro-gravity.

But there doesn't seem to be any such evidence.

"I am not arguing for the reality of UFO visitation. That remains a difficult argument to make because of the shortage of convincing evidence and the prevalence of both hoaxers and crackpots. I do consider the sum of credible evidence to be non-zero, though. Some of the better photos, for example, are from before the time of Photoshop and they remain largely unexplained by conventional means." Uni

OK
Instead of "the sum of the evidence", if you'd prefer: "the sum of the persuasive or conclusive evidence, I'm OK with that.

"some of the circles show microwave residues." Uni

If they do, it would be something worth looking into.
I'm skeptical that they have any more or less than background mw energy.
Do we have any evidence from reputable scientific authority that they do?

"Paired photons, sent down fiber optic cables 50km apart react the same way, even tho only one was exposed to EMF. And they somehow communicate the state of each *instantaneously*, higher than the speed of light." day

day,
How do you suppose, when a snowflake is crystallizing, that the molecules on one point of the 6 pointed symmetrical crystal, know what the molecules on the other 5 points are doing, and mimic them?
Is it some miraculous form of deliberate molecular conspiracy?
Or is it a simple, predictable crystal growth process?
I don't dispute the photon thing.
I question how unusual it is. [I remember reading something about it 15 or 20 years ago. I don't remember the details now.]

The UFO/Extraterrestrial tangent on this thread is a red herring, and points up the lack of scientific method in thinking here. The issue is not what entity or methods could have done the circles if they are not physically human-made. The issue is what evidence exists on the ground for each circle to indicate physical human action, and what, if any evidence exists to indicate action other than physical human involvement.

Are there signs of human footprints? Has rain softened the ground or is it dry? Are there signs or witnesses to vehicles parked? Are there post holes or other markers in the centers of the various arcs and diameters? Does the lay of the grain (in some cases woven) (in some cases with elongated nodes where bent) show reproducible properties? Are there other natural phenomena that distinguish the circle from surrounding area (such as magnetic or radioactive)? Do the seeds from circles, when germinated, perform differently from the surrounding area?

At this stage is not necessary to provide alternative theories for how the circles could have been made. Stage one of the investigation is examining the evidence and comparing it to what is physically reproducible under extant case by case conditions.

carl,

At this stage is not necessary to provide alternative theories for how the circles could have been made. Stage one of the investigation is examining the evidence and comparing it to what is physically reproducible under extant case by case conditions.

No, Stage One is deciding if any research needs to be done in the first place.

Trevor, the fact that you have already made up your mind has no bearing on the issue.