Crop circles - eyewitness evidence in!

[Explorer]

Are kerikiwi, Explorer, EHocking, and tbm all socks? What are the odds that four posters having a discussion will all concurrently make the same quoting mistake? Don't you people read your posts after posting? Or are we blaming the forums software?

The odds are fairly high when an issue is charged with a degree of passion.

Please elaborate though!

 

[Explorer]

The following image is the circle formed in a field of rape seed. Please note the fact that the perimeter overlaps into an old farm track (this is not the usual tram line that we often see). It was reported that the photo was taken 15 days after the farmer had noticed the circle, hence the additional weed growth in the flattened area.

This shot was taken in Corhampton on June 15th 1987 by Colin Hall.

The circle was in a remote location on the brow of an incline, and could only be seen from the air or at close quarters on the ground. Measurements confirmed that it was a "perfect circle" unlike most others the author had observed.

There are two other shots available which are in my view interesting(not yet posted), one showing three simple circles but with unusual "flutterings" on the compressed crop, again only obviously visible from the air. It is difficult to see how this effect was created by simple manual flattening using planks and rope.

A second shot shows the centre of a corn circle with very tight twirls with bunches of stems seemingly twisted into bundles. Again, unless a bit of deliberate hand working of the stems in this area took place, this effect is unlikely to have been created by simple manual flattening.

Anyway here is the first shot for your perusal:

 

[EHocking]

Are kerikiwi, Explorer, EHocking, and tbm all socks? What are the odds that four posters having a discussion will all concurrently make the same quoting mistake? Don't you people read your posts after posting? Or are we blaming the forums software?

You forgot FramerDave and Locknar in your accusations. So that's SIX socks in this thread!!

It's fairly easy to see where it started - kerikiwi's error with post 19 - most of the rest are replies to that post.

I am rather tickled that you think I'm a sock, though.

really, I am

(anyway - my avatar proves that I don't got socks)

 

[EHocking]

Your posting of the evidence for your naturally made circle is a lesson in the mistakes and contradiction circle bleevers make - as well as showing how fallible memory can be.

The following image is the circle formed in a field of rape seed. Please note the fact that the perimeter overlaps into an old farm track (this is not the usual tram line that we often see). It was reported that the photo was taken 15 days after the farmer had noticed the circle, hence the additional weed growth in the flattened area.

Twice you made the point that your example overlapped a hedge and a ditch.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2803019&postcount=71
Your sources on 1987 UK circles do seem incomplete, so I will scan and post the picture of the "offset" single circle I referred to above, that was formed in a field of rape seed in that year. The circle overlaps into an old hedge bank and ditch.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2799439&postcount=60
If you read my last post, you will read an example of a circle not in the middle of a field, but overlapping the hedge bank and ditch.

Yet the evidence you provide is

This shot was taken in Corhampton on June 15th 1987 by Colin Hall.

The circle was in a remote location on the brow of an incline, and could only be seen from the air or at close quarters on the ground.

This is not evidence of your claim. No hedge bank or ditch. You seem to have misrembered the details of that circle.

Measurements confirmed that it was a "perfect circle" unlike most others the author had observed.

First - who is this author and where are these measurements? Without these details this is another baseless claim.

Second, and this is the contradictory part I alluded to earlier.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2799439&postcount=60
"perfect geometric patterns" are probably derived from hoaxes, and for me, these are beyond the scope of my interest in this subject.

So. Your earlier post states that perfect patterns are probably hoaxes, but the proof that this 1987 circle is real is that it is perfect?

Are you seeing the inconsistency I'm seeing here?

There are two other shots available which are in my view interesting(not yet posted), one showing three simple circles but with unusual "flutterings" on the compressed crop, again only obviously visible from the air. It is difficult to see how this effect was created by simple manual flattening using planks and rope.

To save you some scanning, read this newsletter outlining some hoaxers confessions:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt....=st&q=corhampton+1987&rnum=1#b5e7cd94c6ba116a>

A second shot shows the centre of a corn circle with very tight twirls with bunches of stems seemingly twisted into bundles. Again, unless a bit of deliberate hand working of the stems in this area took place, this effect is unlikely to have been created by simple manual flattening.

You have given yourself an explanation - deliberate work by hand.

Anyway here is the first shot for your perusal:

What is the source of this photo? Who's that standing by the circle - is it the farmer?

As for claims that the circle is perfect - the photograph was taken weeks after the circle was made (who calculated that?) and is quite overgrown. What criteria was used to determine it's "perfection"?

At least you got one thing right,

I will post the photograph as promised above, but it will not be conclusive proof that it was formed naturally, and therefore would not satisfy you, or me, of being irrefutable evidence.

 

[steenkh]

Measurements confirmed that it was a "perfect circle" unlike most others the author had observed.

Considering that any child can make a perfect circle with a stick and a piece of string, why should this be evidence that this crop circle is non-human in origin?

 

[Explorer]

Your posting of the evidence for your naturally made circle is a lesson in the mistakes and contradiction circle bleevers make - as well as showing how fallible memory can be.
Twice you made the point that your example overlapped a hedge and a ditch.


Yet the evidence you provide is



This is not evidence of your claim. No hedge bank or ditch. You seem to have misrembered the details of that circle.

First - who is this author and where are these measurements? Without these details this is another baseless claim.

Second, and this is the contradictory part I alluded to earlier.
So. Your earlier post states that perfect patterns are probably hoaxes, but the proof that this 1987 circle is real is that it is perfect?

Are you seeing the inconsistency I'm seeing here?


To save you some scanning, read this newsletter outlining some hoaxers confessions:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt....=st&q=corhampton+1987&rnum=1#b5e7cd94c6ba116a>

You have given yourself an explanation - deliberate work by hand.


What is the source of this photo? Who's that standing by the circle - is it the farmer?

As for claims that the circle is perfect - the photograph was taken weeks after the circle was made (who calculated that?) and is quite overgrown. What criteria was used to determine it's "perfection"?

At least you got one thing right,

"Your posting of the evidence for your naturally made circle is a lesson..."

I never said that this would be conclusive evidence of a naturally formed circle. Why do you continue to misquote and mis-represent my intent? It is at best, a different aspect of the usual, in a different crop in an unusual position.

Let me address your first point, which is entirely accurate. I did say it was a hedge and ditch originally, but on reading the text again and finding the reference to the farm track, and in the interests of accuracy and my own conscience, changed it, which is what I would expect anyone to do. The strong point to be made is that this is in a remote position and only visible from the air or at close quarters, so less likely to be an ego-massaging or mischievous hoax.

Secondly, the author is Colin Andrews, the taker of the picture. The measurements are to be found in his book "Circular Evidence", and are direct personal comparative measurements. Nowhere in his book does he attempt to cite causes for his observations, by the way, and my previous comments on causes are entirely my own speculations.

The farmer stated that he first noticed the circle on the 1st of June, the photo was taken on the 15th of June, hence the conclusion on the age.

As for the person in the shot, if I said he was the local bullock castrator, would it have any material difference to your view? He probably was the farmer, Colin Hall, but it didn't say! No doubt he was included for visual scale purposes.

Now you are being disingenuous. The "perfect" circle quote was a reference to the author's own observation. My comment suggesting hoaxes earlier, was relating to the more complex multi-faceted examples that we often see today.

I am aware of plenty of hoax confessions, and the devastation that one serious researcher had when told that his "genuine" circles, of which he was absolutely certain were natural, were faked. I don't need to read anymore thank you, and again, I thought that would have been implicit in my previous views on the subject of hoaxers.

I did say prior to posting this that this photo wasn't conclusive evidence of a naturally formed circle, so I am not entirely surprised with your response. This is secondary source material of course, and as your own arguments in your previous posts seem to be based on secondary sources and are not your own original hands on work (apart from your debunking of obvious hoaxes and correspondence, which seem to me rather self-evident anyway), you haven't really proved anything either way, anymore than I have. That circle in the photo above, no longer exists to investigate first hand by you or I, so we have to rely on the photo alone, and the author's credibility.

You admitted that you could not find anymore 1987 examples in your link, so at least you can add this one to your database, as another example of one of your hoaxes if you like. I can give you at least another dozen in 1987 if you want, complete with photos, but you can read the book and see for yourself I quoted above. It was first published by Bloomsbury in 1989. ISBN 0-7475-0357-5. Authors: Pat Delgado and Colin Andrews.

Good Luck!

 

[Explorer]

Considering that any child can make a perfect circle with a stick and a piece of string, why should this be evidence that this crop circle is non-human in origin?

Why should it indeed?

It isn't, and nowhere does it say or imply that it is.

 

[Cuddles]

Why should it indeed?

It isn't, and nowhere does it say or imply that it is.

So you agree that this picture isn't any evidence of anything. We have a circle that could easily have been made by humans in a place easily accessible by humans. What exactly was the point in posting it?

 

[EHocking]

"Your posting of the evidence for your naturally made circle is a lesson..."

I never said that this would be conclusive evidence of a naturally formed circle. Why do you continue to misquote and mis-represent my intent? It is at best, a different aspect of the usual, in a different crop in an unusual position.

Where have I misquoted you? I've been very careful to cut and paste your *exact* words and I have never stated that your posts were intended to present conclusive evidence. Whereas, you certainly misquote me in your very first line. Here is the part of my post that *you* misquote "Your posting of the evidence for your naturally made circle is a lesson in the mistakes and contradiction circle bleevers make - as well as showing how fallible memory can be."

Let me address your first point, which is entirely accurate. I did say it was a hedge and ditch originally, but on reading the text again and finding the reference to the farm track, and in the interests of accuracy and my own conscience, changed it, which is what I would expect anyone to do.

Please quote the post *before* posting the photo, where you changed your assertion. In posts 49, 60, 71 and 79 you maintain your hedge/ditch evidence. I can see no retraction of that assertion in post 82 that has the photo.

However, the qualitative value of the change still holds good. In other words, this is a case where an existing feature that could interfere, or mar the forming and appearance of a circle has nevertheless overlapped, when it could have been formed, if a hoax, well clear of any permanent ground feature, particularly in the context of only being visible from the air or close quarters.

There are plenty of man made circles that cross permanent ground features such as tramlines or tracks. Here is on I chose specifically because the bleevers declare it to be a hoax:
http://www.lucypringle.co.uk/photos/1996/uk1996aa.shtml . The fact that it DID cross features in the field is not evidence that it was not man made.

Secondly, the author is Colin Hall, the taker of the picture. The measurements are to be found in his book "Circular Evidence", and are direct personal comparative measurements. Nowhere in his book does he attempt to cite causes for his observations, by the way, and my previous comments on causes are entirely my own speculations.

Here is a clear example of misquoting known facts. I'm not saying deliberately, merely incorrectly.

The *farmer's* name is Colin Hall.
The author's name is Colin Andrews. You make this mistake later, even though you quote the ISBN of the book.

The farmer stated that he first noticed the circle on the 1st of June, the photo was taken on the 15th of June, hence the conclusion on the age.

This site here: http://www.world-destiny.org/Crop Circles/1987/1987-1.htm claims the photo was taken 6 weeks after discovery. Another example of the inaccuracy of the details in crop circle "research" it seems.

As for the person in the shot, if I said he was the local bullock castrator, would it have any material difference to your view? He probably was the farmer, but it didn't say! No doubt he was included for visual scale purposes.

What was the caption to the photo in the book?

Now you are being disingenuous. The "perfect" circle quote was a reference to the author's own observation. My comment suggesting hoaxes earlier, was relating to the more complex multi-faceted examples that we often see today.

You were not clear. What is a circle if not a geometric pattern? Whatever, you still do not have any verifiable evidence that this circle *was* perfect, even though there is a claim measurements were taken. Yet another unsupported claim.

I am aware of plenty of hoax confessions, and the devastation that one serious researcher had when told that his "genuine" circles, of which he was absolutely certain were natural, were faked. I don't need to read anymore thank you, and again, I thought that would have been implicit in my previous views on the subject of hoaxers.

I did say prior to posting this that this photo wasn't conclusive evidence of a naturally formed circle, so I am not entirely surprised with your response. This is secondary source material of course, and as your own arguments in your previous posts seem to be based on secondary sources and are not your own original hands on work (apart from your debunking of obvious hoaxes and correspondence, which seem to me rather self-evident anyway), you haven't really proved anything either way, anymore than I have. That circle in the photo above, no longer exists to investigate first hand by you or I, so we have to rely on the photo alone, and the author's credibility.

No, we also can rely upon applying rigour to the evidence (though 2nd hand) that is being presented on the subject. At the moment there are holes so large in the evidence that these cannot be man made, that you could drive a pantechnicon through them. That is my only point here - analysing the veracity of the evidence presented and the accuracy of the reports derived from that "evidence".

So far the report brought to our attention by the OP is fraught with errors and misrepresentation of data.

You admitted that you could not find anymore 1987 examples in your link, so at least you can add this one to your database, as another example of one of your hoaxes if you like. I can give you at least another dozen in 1987 if you want, complete with photos, but you can read the book and see for yourself I quoted above. It was first published by Bloomsbury in 1989. ISBN 0-7475-0357-5. Authors: Pat Delgado and Colin Hall.

Good Luck!

I'll need it given the sources I have to rely upon.

The authors were Pat Delgado and Colin Andrews.
Colin Hall was the farmer who found the circle.

Again, a perfect example of confused and conflicting evidence such as that presented in the Earthfiles report.

 

[Locknar]

Explorer – To cut to the chase; there are basically 4 possible explanations wrt crop circles: 1) aliens visiting Earth; 2) natural vortex occurrences (ie. tornadoes, dust devils, etc.); 3) man; 4) cows with guns.

Ok….there are really only 3; I just liked #4 and wanted to work it in someplace

There is plenty of credible, scientific evidence that can eliminate #2 (ie. natural vortex occurrences).

This leaves us with either #1 (space aliens) or#3 (man).

Call me a sock, but of the two remaining options I’d have to say there is ZERO credible evidence that supports #1, and ample credible evidence that supports #3.

If there is credible scientific evidence that supports #1, or say #4 – bring it on, we’d love to see it.

 

[Explorer]

"This site here: http://www.world-destiny.org/Crop ...987/1987-1.htm claims the photo was taken 6 weeks after discovery. Another example of the inaccuracy of the details in crop circle "research" it seems."

Apparently, a second circle was found by the farmer at Corhampton, which he judged to be six weeks old, but this is not the one in the photograph. The text clearly says that the farmer first saw this photographed circle on 1st of June and the first visit date of the author was on 15th July when the photo was shot.

Your link seems to have confused one with the other.

"There are plenty of man made circles that cross permanent ground features such as tramlines or tracks. Here is on I chose specifically because the bleevers declare it to be a hoax:
http://www.lucypringle.co.uk/photos/1996/uk1996aa.shtml . The fact that it DID cross features in the field is not evidence that it was not man made."

Hoaxers like to use tram lines caused by tractors when spraying as it hides their access points and footprints to their choice of location, that is well known. My follow up point was that the remote location and lack of visibility from roads or hills etc, made it less likely to be a hoax, not impossible. I had voluntarily corrected my previous error in my last post, and that should be good enough for you.

"The authors were Pat Delgado and Colin Andrews.
Colin Hall was the farmer who found the circle."

Yes a typo, which I corrected within seconds of making it. However, you must have read the post simultaneously before the edited correction worked! You are the hardest of task masters, and I am a mere amateur, obviously!

"What was the caption to the photo in the book?"

"Plate 25", I hope that helps!

"You were not clear. What is a circle if not a geometric pattern? Whatever, you still do not have any verifiable evidence that this circle *was* perfect, even though there is a claim measurements were taken. Yet another unsupported claim."

A single circle is geometric, but not a pattern. If a single circle is repeated or complimented by other features such as secondary perimeters or seen in close association with one or more other circles or features, then you can argue that it is a pattern. Good grief man, you are a nit-picker!

In any case, "perfection" as stated in the author's eyes is merely his observation and comment., it does not indicate man-made origins or indeed natural either, so why is everyone seemingly obsessed by it.

"So far the report brought to our attention by the OP is fraught with errors and misrepresentation of data."

...and has been duly corrected.

"Again, a perfect example of confused and conflicting evidence such as that presented in the Earthfiles report."

There is no conflict and confusion, only your nit-picking irrelevancies to the main points that you have chosen to focus upon. Those main points are that this particular circle in the photograph is not formed from corn, but more unusually, rape seed, which by virtue of its less yielding nature does not provide the excellent definition that corn crop can provide, and is therefore less useful and satisfying visually to a potential hoaxer's audience. Secondly, the location of this particular circle was obscured from a potential hoaxer's audience. As I have said ad nauseum, this in itself does not prove natural origins, but does affect the balance of probability in its favour.

Finally, I ask the question of you, if you think that this circle is made by human hand as you seem to assert, can you now present your positive evidence to me in support? If you say to me "No", because there is a lack of information, then please furnish me with the information that you would require for you to be conclusive in your assertion. Thanks in advance.

 

[Explorer]

Explorer – To cut to the chase; there are basically 4 possible explanations wrt crop circles: 1) aliens visiting Earth; 2) natural vortex occurrences (ie. tornadoes, dust devils, etc.); 3) man; 4) cows with guns.

Ok….there are really only 3; I just liked #4 and wanted to work it in someplace

There is plenty of credible, scientific evidence that can eliminate #2 (ie. natural vortex occurrences).

This leaves us with either #1 (space aliens) or#3 (man).

Call me a sock, but of the two remaining options I’d have to say there is ZERO credible evidence that supports #1, and ample credible evidence that supports #3.

If there is credible scientific evidence that supports #1, or say #4 – bring it on, we’d love to see it.

Can't help you on 1. or 4 I'm afraid.

Look, at the end of the day, Mr Hocking and others on this thread may be totally right, and that ALL circles are man-made, but I feel the case for that, at least for some of the circles discovered in ancient history and prior to 1990's after which hoaxes went rampant, has not been proven. That leaves me with just item 2, which is atmospheric phenomena. I have not seen any particular scientific evidence that conclusively rules out vortexes, but I did suggest that mini tornado induced funnel clouds lightly touching down could be an answer for the simple perfect circle, or slightly ovoid circle.

Alternatively, there could be other very rare natural atmospheric phenomena hitherto unseen. After all, despite all the hoaxes, simple circles seen today are extremely rare in themselves. Air vortexes by definition have to be relatively invisible unless they touchdown hard into the soil and dust when they are coloured dirty, bottom up from particles sucked in by the updraft in the middle. In the case of crops this probably doesn't happen as the crop is an overlying feature of the soil, and if indeed it is a light touch, this could explain the difficulty in live observation. If the process is very rapid, say a few seconds, then that reduces the possibility of real time observation even more.

Whether crop circle study is the best way to determine the existence of my "vortexes" behaving and existing in the way that I suggest, is open to question against the background of hoaxes, so really not much chance of any serious research taking place in the current climate of ridicule.

 

[Locknar]

Explorer - There is plenty of credible, scientific evidence that shows crop circles to be man made and NOT the work of space aliens.

Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" is a good one to read; while perhaps not a hard core scientific essay, it presents a good debate as to crop circles being man made.

Overall...why would a race, capabable of traveling the expance of space in terms of technology and resources, come here to simply draw figures into field crops?

I'd think a "simple message, such as "Hi!", or landing in a populated area such as "The Day The Earth Stood Still" more effective then anal probes, monitoring implants, cow dissections, or all the other silly things folks claim "aliens" do.

 

[LTC8K6]

"corn" varies quite a bit between the USA, England, Scotland, etc.

Corn in England is what we would call grain in the USA. Thus the British term "corn circles", which often baffles Americans as there is no "corn" in sight.

 

[Cuddles]

Overall...why would a race, capabable of traveling the expance of space in terms of technology and resources, come here to simply draw figures into field crops?

In all fairness, I would love to do something like that. Just think, you're an alien from an incredibly advanced species that can hop between stars as easily as going down the road shopping. What could be more fun than drawing funny pictures on the ground and seeing the look on their primitive little faces when they find them?

"corn" varies quite a bit between the USA, England, Scotland, etc.

Corn in England is what we would call grain in the USA. Thus the British term "corn circles", which often baffles Americans as there is no "corn" in sight.

This one always confuses me. I'm entirely British, always have been and so is pretty much everyone I know. I have never used "corn" to mean anything other than "maize", and neither has anyone I know or anything I read. Yet for some reason I am constantly being told that the British confuse Americans by using it to mean any kind of cereal, even though we very clearly have "corn flour" and "corn syrup" and various other things that are most definately corn and not any other cereal. Incidentally, I have read plenty about crop circles, but I've never seen the term "corn circles" until this post.

 

[Locknar]

Explorer – Umm…no, #2 (natural vortex occurrences; ie. atmospheric phenomena) causing crop circles/patterns is simply not possible.

#4 (cows with guns) would be far more plausible then claiming wind, ball lightning, “plasma vortices” or even “negative energy.

 

[Explorer]

Explorer - There is plenty of credible, scientific evidence that shows crop circles to be man made and NOT the work of space aliens.

Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" is a good one to read; while perhaps not a hard core scientific essay, it presents a good debate as to crop circles being man made.

Overall...why would a race, capabable of traveling the expance of space in terms of technology and resources, come here to simply draw figures into field crops?

I'd think a "simple message, such as "Hi!", or landing in a populated area such as "The Day The Earth Stood Still" more effective then anal probes, monitoring implants, cow dissections, or all the other silly things folks claim "aliens" do.

I do not even consider the "alien" question, when there are plenty more plausible natural possibilities available.

 

[Locknar]

In all fairness, I would love to do something like that. Just think, you're an alien from an incredibly advanced species that can hop between stars as easily as going down the road shopping. What could be more fun than drawing funny pictures on the ground and seeing the look on their primitive little faces when they find them?

Interstellar practical jokes...it's all fun and games until someone looses an eye *lol*

 

[Explorer]

Explorer – Umm…no, #2 (natural vortex occurrences; ie. atmospheric phenomena) causing crop circles/patterns is simply not possible.

#4 (cows with guns) would be far more plausible then claiming wind, ball lightning, “plasma vortices” or even “negative energy.

I simply ask why?

 

[LTC8K6]

This one always confuses me. I'm entirely British, always have been and so is pretty much everyone I know. I have never used "corn" to mean anything other than "maize", and neither has anyone I know or anything I read. Yet for some reason I am constantly being told that the British confuse Americans by using it to mean any kind of cereal, even though we very clearly have "corn flour" and "corn syrup" and various other things that are most definately corn and not any other cereal. Incidentally, I have read plenty about crop circles, but I've never seen the term "corn circles" until this post.

As far as I know, it's usually "corn circles" over there, and they are never in "corn".

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=corn+circles