Crop circles - eyewitness evidence in!

[EHocking]

Dust devils(USA), Willy, Willies(Australia), tornadoes(USA & UK), are all forms of natural atmospheric vortexes. Other natural phenomena caused by charged particles are also quite common in certain conditions, a combination of the two therefore are not beyond credibility as your misplaced skepticism in this particular case, is concerned.

It was a windy night - their report stated as much. So What?

I just love the way these people add in trivialities like this, adding them in as though they were somehow significant to the "event". Equally, if there had been a lull in the gusting wind, they would have attached significance to THAT as well.

This report is just laughable.

NO evidence that it took 90 mins to create the crop circle. The evidence they do have is a totally black video showing nothing at all, let alone the "absence" of a crop circle.

NO evidence that it wasn't there the day before - we have to take their word for it.

NO evidence of this so called crystalisation.

Just laughable.

 

[Explorer]

It was a windy night - their report stated as much. So What?

I just love the way these people add in trivialities like this, adding them in as though they were somehow significant to the "event". Equally, if there had been a lull in the gusting wind, they would have attached significance to THAT as well.

This report is just laughable.

NO evidence that it took 90 mins to create the crop circle. The evidence they do have is a totally black video showing nothing at all, let alone the "absence" of a crop circle.

NO evidence that it wasn't there the day before - we have to take their word for it.

NO evidence of this so called crystalisation.

Just laughable.

I am confused, sorry! I think you are referring to original report at the start of this thread, not my Mail on Sunday report, which I was referencing my quote above.

 

[EHocking]

I am confused, sorry! I think you are referring to original report at the start of this thread, not my Mail on Sunday report, which I was referencing my quote above.

Ah. My mistake on conflating the two stories - but my amusement at croppies' wooism and exaggerations still stands.

 

[tbm]

Dust devils(USA), Willy, Willies(Australia), tornadoes(USA & UK), are all forms of natural atmospheric vortexes. Other natural phenomena caused by charged particles are also quite common in certain conditions, a combination of the two therefore are not beyond credibility as your misplaced skepticism in this particular case, is concerned.

I think the skepticism is justified in that a combination of the phenomena you mention are most likely not to cause crop formations, especially the complex, multifaceted ones. These are more like you would expect from some human trying to imagine what a "superior" intelligence may try to accoomplish.

In a field of grain. (Of course)

tom

 

[kerikiwi]

Dust devils(USA), Willy, Willies(Australia), tornadoes(USA & UK), are all forms of natural atmospheric vortexes. Other natural phenomena caused by charged particles are also quite common in certain conditions, a combination of the two therefore are not beyond credibility as your misplaced skepticism in this particular case, is concerned.

Misplaced skepticism? Are you seriously suggesting that these phenomena can be so strong a person can barely stand upright, yet his hair will stand on end?
Think about that for a second or two...

 

[Explorer]

I think the skepticism is justified in that a combination of the phenomena you mention are most likely not to cause crop formations, especially the complex, multifaceted ones. These are more like you would expect from some human trying to imagine what a "superior" intelligence may try to accoomplish.

In a field of grain. (Of course)

tom

You may or may not be right, Tom, but as I said, it is now virtually impossible to separate out hoaxes, multifaceted or otherwise, from possible genuine naturally formed circles.

 

[Explorer]

Misplaced skepticism? Are you seriously suggesting that these phenomena can be so strong a person can barely stand upright, yet his hair will stand on end?
Think about that for a second or two...

I agree from the way this has been reported, that the two forces involved here would appear to be acting in opposition. We tend to associate static charges as relatively weak forces, albeit the same force can create the sometimes devastating effects of lightning, but in this case we are dealing with something unusual and unmeasured.

One possible answer to this was that the husband reported the feeling of his hair being lifted by static as the downward force of the wind hit them. In other words, the forces were not necessarily synchronised together. This is often the problem with anecdotal recollections of events, the timing gets confused.

I am not an apologist for these two people, but this is the only report that I am aware of, where a circle in the act of forming has been witnessed as a close encounter, so in that respect it is interesting, although admittedly uncorroborated.

 

[EHocking]

...I am not an apologist for these two people, but this is the only report that I am aware of, where a circle in the act of forming has been witnessed as a close encounter, so in that respect it is interesting, although admittedly uncorroborated.

The creation of the circle was *not* witnessed by these people, and certainly not in the time scale that they are getting all hysterical about.

The only "proof" they have that the circle was formed in 90 minutes is a totally black frame from a video camera that only shows that they couldn't see the field, let alone the circle at 3am in the morning.

The only thing they witnessed was the sun coming up so that they could see the field and the circle. Everything else is typical circle-woo exaggeration. They create "facts" out of thin air in order to prop up their beliefs.

Irony is that Paul Vigay, one of the UK's main circle proponents is saying that this circle is an obvious, and poorly made, hoax.
He posts as hypermaths.

 

[Alice Shortcake]

Ah, Janet and Colin Bord, veteran High Priest and Priestess of English Woo! I read "Mysterious Britain" when I was 12 and fell for it hook, line and sinker. Fortunately I grew up and recognised if for the Age-of-Aquarius crackpottery it was, but I don't mind admitting that the book was instrumental in sparking a lifelong interest in (genuine) archaeology and folklore. Whenever I see a library or bookshop shelf groaning under a ton of New Age tripe I try to console myself with the thought that at least a few readers might follow my path.

Crop circles were indeed unheard of in the early 70s, and so far as I'm aware the first really ebaborate one didn't start turning up until the late 80s/early 90s. Of course all supernatural/pseudoscientific ideas have to start somewhere, and it's surprising just how recent some supposedly "time-honoured" theories are. Ley lines were first "discovered" (some would say "invented") in 1921.

 

[geni]

I have a book titled "Mysterious Britain" by Janet and Colin Bord. It covers many of the ancient mysteries of the United Kingdom and Ireland. It covers standing stones and stone circles, ancient sites, buildings and stone structures, hill figures, etc. There are also chapters on UFOs and ghosts. But what is telling is the complete lack of any mention of crop circles. Since the book was first published in 1972, does that mean that crop circles are a very recent occurance? Or were they discounted by the authors because they deemed them fraudulent?

We'll probably never know.

tbm

We do know. Shortly Post war the RAF photographed most of britian from the air includeing a lot of crops (allows you to see burried villages and stuff). Zero crop circles.

 

[kerikiwi]

One possible answer to this was that the husband reported the feeling of his hair being lifted by static as the downward force of the wind hit them. In other words, the forces were not necessarily synchronised together. This is often the problem with anecdotal recollections of events, the timing gets confused.

I am not an apologist for these two people, but this is the only report that I am aware of, where a circle in the act of forming has been witnessed as a close encounter, so in that respect it is interesting, although admittedly uncorroborated.

The 'possible 'explanation you offer is laughable.
The most likely explanation is that the description of being blown over and having hair standing on end is untrue, whether from deliberate lies or self-deception.

From my reading the circle formation was not witnessed (other than by the people in the field forming it)
The story is not interesting except for the gullibility of the enthusiasts.

 

[tbm]

We do know. Shortly Post war the RAF photographed most of britian from the air includeing a lot of crops (allows you to see burried villages and stuff). Zero crop circles.

Thank you. I should know this, but does anybody have any idea when crop circles first became evident? Perhaps around the time those two chaps started making them?

"Crop circles were indeed unheard of in the early 70s, and so far as I'm aware the first really ebaborate one didn't start turning up until the late 80s/early 90s. Of course all supernatural/pseudoscientific ideas have to start somewhere, and it's surprising just how recent some supposedly "time-honoured" theories are. Ley lines were first "discovered" (some would say "invented") in 1921."

Thanks Alice for the information quoted above.


tbm

 

[tbm]

You may or may not be right, Tom, but as I said, it is now virtually impossible to separate out hoaxes, multifaceted or otherwise, from possible genuine naturally formed circles.

I agree. There was one formed in Michigan a few years ago that created some interest until someone figured out it was in the shape of a swastika. Danged Nazi aliens!

tbm

 

[Explorer]

"The 'possible 'explanation you offer is laughable."

Quite frankly, I find that insulting. Why is it "laughable"?

"The most likely explanation is that the description of being blown over and having hair standing on end is untrue, whether from deliberate lies or self-deception." (They were not blown over incidently, you have misquoted the report)

Why is your explanation any more likely?

Why is the possible real experience of natural but extreme atmospheric phenomena any less likely than self-deception or telling lies(for no apparent reason or gain). Why is a possible inconsistency in any given report not attributable to an error in sense of time and sequence?

OK, you may very well be right, but no righter than I, or any less "laughable", until proven otherwise.

 

[Alice Shortcake]

tbm, if you're interested in the development of "earth mysteries" you might like to have a look at "Ley Lines in Question" by Tom Williamson and Liz Bellamy, which takes an in-depth look at the work of the Bords and other promoters of woo. The book has been out of print for years but you can pick up a copy very cheaply on Amazon.

 

[Cuddles]

Thank you. I should know this, but does anybody have any idea when crop circles first became evident? Perhaps around the time those two chaps started making them?

"Crop circles were indeed unheard of in the early 70s, and so far as I'm aware the first really ebaborate one didn't start turning up until the late 80s/early 90s. Of course all supernatural/pseudoscientific ideas have to start somewhere, and it's surprising just how recent some supposedly "time-honoured" theories are. Ley lines were first "discovered" (some would say "invented") in 1921."

Thanks Alice for the information quoted above.

tbm

The Wiki article is quite good. The modern phenomenon of crop circles did start at the same time as Doug and Dave, although believers claim that they were only copying and did not start it themselves. Crop circles have been reported in the past, the example in Wiki from the late 1600s for example. However, it has never been as continuous, widespread or as widely reported as the recent phenomenon. It seems that while there have always been occasional unexplained patterns in fields, there was never anything as systematic or artistic as modern crop circles. Given that many, if not most, are known to be of human origin it seems very odd to try to explain other circles as anything else when the whole phenomenon has only really existed since the hoaxes started.

Why is the possible real experience of natural but extreme atmospheric phenomena any less likely than self-deception or telling lies(for no apparent reason or gain). Why is a possible inconsistency in any given report not attributable to an error in sense of time and sequence?

Because there is no evidence of any such thing ever happening. OK, so there is a lot we still don't understand about the weather. However, we know enough to say that localised tornadoes making perfect geometric shapes in crops but are never observed happening anywhere other than the middle of fields at night are entirely laughable. Attributing crop circles to the weather is just as silly as claiming it was aliens.

 

[Tricky]

Given that many, if not most, are known to be of human origin it seems very odd to try to explain other circles as anything else when the whole phenomenon has only really existed since the hoaxes started.

Sort of like how there were no good reports of flying saucers until the rise of science fiction in the mid 20th century. It falls under that category of "If I didn't believe it, I never would have seen it."

 

[cloudshipsrule]

Dust devils(USA), Willy, Willies(Australia), tornadoes(USA & UK), are all forms of natural atmospheric vortexes. Other natural phenomena caused by charged particles are also quite common in certain conditions, a combination of the two therefore are not beyond credibility as your misplaced skepticism in this particular case, is concerned.

All three of the natural phenomena you mention above actually tend to move. They don't drop out of the sky in one spot, stay there for a second and then disappear. I would not state that it is impossible, but based on my experience in witnessing an actual tornado and an actual dust devil, I'd say it his highly unlikely either event could create a nicely shaped circle on any surface or in any medium (corn, wheat, etc).

Try to draw a circle on a piece of paper with someone moving your arm.

 

[Starthinker]

I would be much more impressed with Snow Circles. Exspecially snow circles with no footprints going up to it. I mean, if aliens or supernatural beings are trying to send a message, snow should be just as good, albeit a little less lasting.

Living in Iowa, in the middle of endless fields of corn mostly, I'm given to wonder why there are no crop circles around here.

 

[Explorer]

"OK, so there is a lot we still don't understand about the weather. However, we know enough to say that localised tornadoes making perfect geometric shapes in crops but are never observed happening anywhere other than the middle of fields at night are entirely laughable. Attributing crop circles to the weather is just as silly as claiming it was aliens."

Well, I agreed with all that, and then you went and spoiled it all by making that last ridiculous statement.

Equating the reporting of aliens with unusual weather phenomena is rather "silly", I hasten to add!.