LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
OED:
Webster:
Webster:
Crop circles - eyewitness evidence in!
- Thread starter RichardR
- Start date
-
- Tags
- crop circles
If by "over there" you mean Britain, then as I said before, I have never heard anyone use the term "corn circle", and corn is almost exclusively used to mean maize, as evidenced by the large number of food products listing corn as a specific ingredient.
If you're going for argument by googlefight I should point out that a search for crop circles provides far more hits. Even Wikipedia acknowledges the use of corn to mean the predominant local crop as an archaic usage.
As for them never being in corn - evidence? There is less corn in Britain because the main cereal crop is wheat, but I have never heard that corn is immune from circles.
Locknar
Sum of all evils tm
Explorer - Well…the ”cop out” answer to the simple question of “why” is to say because weather simply does not work that way. Generally speaking, atmospheric events are just not that localized in terms of circles, oval, or other shapes.
You’d really have to read up/study meteorology, or say atmospheric physics for a more definitive answer to the “why” question.
That said, here (as in example) is what a crop field looks like after a atmospheric vortex has passed through.
You’d really have to read up/study meteorology, or say atmospheric physics for a more definitive answer to the “why” question.
That said, here (as in example) is what a crop field looks like after a atmospheric vortex has passed through.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
All I can tell you is what I hear and see from circle promoters.
I believe it was on this board that I questioned the term "corn circles" since I didn't see any corn, and had it explained to me what "corn" was across the pond.
Corn circles is the most common term I hear, in fact, because it's usually someone from across the pond talking about them.
I have no idea why the term would be unfamiliar to you.
I believe it was on this board that I questioned the term "corn circles" since I didn't see any corn, and had it explained to me what "corn" was across the pond.
Corn circles is the most common term I hear, in fact, because it's usually someone from across the pond talking about them.
I have no idea why the term would be unfamiliar to you.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
The British "Corn Laws" were about wheat, weren't they?
Because, as I said, the term is very rarely used. In fact, your own Google search shows that out of the first page, three of them are specifically talking about circles in corn (which makes it even more odd that you would claim that they are never in corn), one is a song lyric, one is a poem and the others all very clearly say crop circles.
I don't deny that the term exists, or that corn can sometimes be used to mean other types of grain. What I do deny is the claim often made, and which you repeated, that the word corn "often baffles Americans". It doesn't. We almost always use it exactly the same as you. I also deny that there is "no corn in sight", since your own evidence shows that the use of corn circles is often exclusively used to mean circles in corn.
You mean the ones passed between 1804 and 1819? Yeah, that's not archaic useage at all.
Explorer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,516
Thank you very much for that link, it was most intriguing. Great pictures.
This was a significant and powerful tornado, much more so than we get in England. The width of the vortex was pretty wide, tens of metres perhaps? The touchdown was extended along a very long track, evidenced by the damage path shown in the shots. When it hit the crop fields, the directions of air flow can just about be seen, even without the help of the arrows.
Now imagine a much less ferocious vortex of the type we have in the UK. Essentially a funnel cloud of diameter of say 12 metres when it lightly touches down briefly for a few seconds, before lifting again. No track visible because it doesn't hit the ground and travel along it. Now I can assure you that there are records of this happening in the UK. In fact on the BBC local weather news only last week, the presenter showed a photo of a funnel cloud that appeared to just touch down, but in fact never made it. It was photographed behind a hill that gave the impression that it had touched down, but witnesses on the other side said that it didn't. If it had touched briefly and on a field with long stemmed crop, who knows what would have been seen. I venture something not too dissimilar to our subject matter, but certainly a mark that would have been worthy of examination and study.
Your link and that weather report has given me renewed hope that we may yet witness something in real time over here. Thanks!
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
Did you actually look at the photo?
<http://www.world-destiny.org/Crop Circles/1987/corhampton.jpg>
It is IDENTICAL to your example.
The caption is:
Corhampton Down Farm, nr Southampton, Hampshire.
Formed June 1
Single circle, in rape, approximately 40 feet in diameter, CW. Reported six weeks after formation, with weed growth during the interval. Circle was in a remote location on the brow of an incline so not visible except from the air, or very close to the formation.
Note the very last sentence - it is ALSO identical to your caption from your post (no.82).
Compare them side by side. They are identical photographs, I am have not confused them at all.
But the author of that page, though apparently quoting the author on your book places the photo at 6 weeks after "creation". I am picking nits, merely in order to reiterate my point that the evidence being presented is contradictory and therefore potentially unreliable.
Neither you nor I know the exact location of the circle in question. *WE* do not know that it was in a remote location as we have no evidence for that.
So there is no accompanying description of this plate? Pretty poorly authored book then. And if that is the only description of the plate you have to be even less sure of it's veracity.
I'll grant you that was nit picking.
Because you raised it as an important and somehow significant feature...
I'm refering to the Earthfile report.
Your nit picking is my accuracy. But I have admitted to where it had gone too far.
OK, define your corn, I'm presuming grain rather than maize. (OK, OK, nit). From the CCR database of 1795 reported circles;
925 found in Wheat
507 - crops unidentified
205 found in Barley
114 found in oilseed rape.
On the face of it it may bear out your supposition that rape isn't a good crop for building circles in.
or is it?
Let's consider a quick google of Hampshires land use for the 3 main crops where circles are found. This is the land use for those crops for 1990 (as far as I could quickly go back).
Wheat - 54,611 ha
Barley - 39885 ha
Oilseed Rape - 6115 ha
A quick glance will show that there was much less rape fields in Hampshire, but that doesn't prove my point entirely.
Let's consider the NUMBER of circles per HA of crop;
Oilseed Rape - 18.64 circles/ha
Wheat - 16.94 circles/ha
Barley - 5.14 circles/ha
Sorry, I don't find that either of your suppositions hold water. There seems to be a PREFERENCE for using rape for crop circles. That's not at all conclusive of course, it's probably more to do with access to the field rather than it's make up - but now I'm speculating.
I disagree - you do not have the location of the crop in the field, therefore CANNOT conclude that it was obscured for a potential "audience". You only have the word of a crop circle proponent, and after reading my appraisal of the Earthfile "report", you should be able to admit that these reports need to be met with a grain of salt approach.
It is not my position to prove it is man made - it was YOUR assertion that this demonstrated a natural (or supernatural) source for it's creation. Neither you nor I will be able to provide verifiable information on this 20 year old circle.
But the discussion did demonstrate that your memory of it was faulty and you were determined to rely on that faulty memory to back up your claim, in three separate posts, that this was an example of a non-man made circle, since it intersected hedges and ditches.
Your stance and constant assertions were disproved by the fact that your evidence contradicted your memory.
Locknar has kindly provided a rule of thumb Occam's Razor that succinctly outlines my position on circle creation.
Locknar
Sum of all evils tm
Explorer - Intensity aspects aside, atmospheric vortexes in England would be the same, in that they are simply not perfectly contained walls of circling air.
That is to say, there is varying intensity/wind strength at different points along the edge/wall of the vortex; if anything this would result in irregular patterns, not perfect circles, ovals, hexagons, etc.
Atmospheric vortexes are not “cookie cutters”; even if one touches down briefly, there would be “drag” marks showing the weather pattern movement. There would also be collateral damage, ie. other crops, while not bent over, would tend to “bend”/lean at least slightly showing the storm weather pattern path.
Lastly…if crop circles were formed by weather, they would occur anytime during the day; odd how these crop circles/patterns only ever form at night.
That is to say, there is varying intensity/wind strength at different points along the edge/wall of the vortex; if anything this would result in irregular patterns, not perfect circles, ovals, hexagons, etc.
Atmospheric vortexes are not “cookie cutters”; even if one touches down briefly, there would be “drag” marks showing the weather pattern movement. There would also be collateral damage, ie. other crops, while not bent over, would tend to “bend”/lean at least slightly showing the storm weather pattern path.
Lastly…if crop circles were formed by weather, they would occur anytime during the day; odd how these crop circles/patterns only ever form at night.
Explorer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,516
"Compare them side by side. They are identical photographs, I am have not confused them at all."
I know YOU hadn't confused it, I said that the link had got it confused, for f**ks sake! The photograph and caption date is correct, but the six weeks reference to the photocapture date isn't. It was viewed for the FIRST time by the author who was personally reponsible for the original report, on the 15th of June.
"But the author of that page, though apparently quoting the author on your book places the photo at 6 weeks after "creation". I am picking nits, merely in order to reiterate my point that the evidence being presented is contradictory and therefore potentially unreliable."
Yes, again, it is confusing, but I am referring to my secondary source, i.e. the book itself, your link is tertiary, and they have made an error in their referencing. It is confusing, but if you read the actual page in the book, it is quite clear and unambiguous.
"Neither you nor I know the exact location of the circle in question. *WE* do not know that it was in a remote location as we have no evidence for that."
..and we never will from the photo alone, but you could ring up the farmer and ask him directly. But then again he will lie won't he?
"So there is no accompanying description of this plate? Pretty poorly authored book then. And if that is the only description of the plate you have to be even less sure of it's veracity."
Nit-picking again? The author refers to plate 25 in the text. Any problem with that?
"I'll grant you that was nit picking."
Wow, a chink in the armour!
"There seems to be a PREFERENCE for using rape for crop circles. That's not at all conclusive of course, it's probably more to do with access to the field rather than it's make up - but now I'm speculating."
Not at all conclusive, except that it could also mean that if rape crop circles are less attractive to hoaxers for the obvious reasons I cited, then there maybe a prevalence of naturally formed circles. That conclusion is no more far-fetched than your own. Anyway, I would ask that any statistics exclude the complex pictagrams or "patterns" from the figures. That may well push it more towards your argument admittedly, but I think it would help to exclude a large chunk of the hoaxes.
"It is not my position to prove it is man made"
I was waiting for that one, which is why I qualified it by asking the all important follow up question, which you could answer given your position. What would constitute positive proof to satisfy you? You have side stepped that bit, and that is the interesting soul searching bit. I await with baited breath.
I know YOU hadn't confused it, I said that the link had got it confused, for f**ks sake! The photograph and caption date is correct, but the six weeks reference to the photocapture date isn't. It was viewed for the FIRST time by the author who was personally reponsible for the original report, on the 15th of June.
"But the author of that page, though apparently quoting the author on your book places the photo at 6 weeks after "creation". I am picking nits, merely in order to reiterate my point that the evidence being presented is contradictory and therefore potentially unreliable."
Yes, again, it is confusing, but I am referring to my secondary source, i.e. the book itself, your link is tertiary, and they have made an error in their referencing. It is confusing, but if you read the actual page in the book, it is quite clear and unambiguous.
"Neither you nor I know the exact location of the circle in question. *WE* do not know that it was in a remote location as we have no evidence for that."
..and we never will from the photo alone, but you could ring up the farmer and ask him directly. But then again he will lie won't he?
"So there is no accompanying description of this plate? Pretty poorly authored book then. And if that is the only description of the plate you have to be even less sure of it's veracity."
Nit-picking again? The author refers to plate 25 in the text. Any problem with that?
"I'll grant you that was nit picking."
Wow, a chink in the armour!
"There seems to be a PREFERENCE for using rape for crop circles. That's not at all conclusive of course, it's probably more to do with access to the field rather than it's make up - but now I'm speculating."
Not at all conclusive, except that it could also mean that if rape crop circles are less attractive to hoaxers for the obvious reasons I cited, then there maybe a prevalence of naturally formed circles. That conclusion is no more far-fetched than your own. Anyway, I would ask that any statistics exclude the complex pictagrams or "patterns" from the figures. That may well push it more towards your argument admittedly, but I think it would help to exclude a large chunk of the hoaxes.
"It is not my position to prove it is man made"
I was waiting for that one, which is why I qualified it by asking the all important follow up question, which you could answer given your position. What would constitute positive proof to satisfy you? You have side stepped that bit, and that is the interesting soul searching bit. I await with baited breath.
Explorer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,516
The variations in intensity around the edges would surely be averaged out by the rotation moment acting on the crop. If it was a brief touchdown as I suggest, then a perfect circle could be formed, or perhaps an ovoid shape if it moved a little along the ground before lifting again. The theory still seems plausible to me.
The funnel clouds I mention, touch down in a vertical mode only very briefly to form a clear and distinct shape, so where does the drag come from in the circumstances that I describe? The intensity of the funnel is the key. If it is low intensity there may not be "collateral" damage to the surroundings
Who says crop circles do not form in the day? The croppies? I am not of their school.
I said above that it would be difficult to view this rare event, day or night come to that, but perhaps it is an event just waiting to happen, hopefully.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
As far as I can tell, corn is still officially and unofficially, wheat, oats, and barley, etc., in England and Scotland.
At any rate, I thought some of the problem here was with the term "corn", since many people and the government use the word for other grain crops over there.
That's clearly not what anyone here was referring to in regards to problems with these circles, so I'll bow out of this discussion.
At any rate, I thought some of the problem here was with the term "corn", since many people and the government use the word for other grain crops over there.
That's clearly not what anyone here was referring to in regards to problems with these circles, so I'll bow out of this discussion.
Locknar
Sum of all evils tm
There would be no averaging out of intensity due to rotation. The leading edge of the storm will always be more intense, the back side of the storm always the weakest. This has to do with atmospheric pressures, and how tornadoes/wind vortexes work in nature.
A gross analogy would be an aircraft wing, there the lift is created by causing a over/under pressure situation above and below the wing; when this over/under pressure fails, so does lift.
If crop cricles were created by atmospheric vortexes:
- You would have wind damage/indications both pre and post touchdown; ie. crops leaning, though not bent over, in a specific direction, but this never happens with crop circles.
- You would also have “collateral” indications, just as the crops do in the news story link I provided. That is to say, you would have wind damage/indication outside of the touchdown area itself. Again, this never happens with crop circles.
What you suggest is that atmospheric vortexes are “cookie cutter”, in that they are perfectly formed geometric shapes and touch down instantaneously and only for a instant in time…thus causing no “collateral” damage or other indicators?
WRT sightings; I’d suggest in the 1000’s of years man has been farming…someone, somewhere, would have seen and otherwise documented a crop circle pattern being formed during the day if it was due to atmospheric events.
A gross analogy would be an aircraft wing, there the lift is created by causing a over/under pressure situation above and below the wing; when this over/under pressure fails, so does lift.
If crop cricles were created by atmospheric vortexes:
- You would have wind damage/indications both pre and post touchdown; ie. crops leaning, though not bent over, in a specific direction, but this never happens with crop circles.
- You would also have “collateral” indications, just as the crops do in the news story link I provided. That is to say, you would have wind damage/indication outside of the touchdown area itself. Again, this never happens with crop circles.
What you suggest is that atmospheric vortexes are “cookie cutter”, in that they are perfectly formed geometric shapes and touch down instantaneously and only for a instant in time…thus causing no “collateral” damage or other indicators?
WRT sightings; I’d suggest in the 1000’s of years man has been farming…someone, somewhere, would have seen and otherwise documented a crop circle pattern being formed during the day if it was due to atmospheric events.
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
You do with practice on the quote function - might make it a little easier to read your responses.
My point is, and always has been, that recollection of the "evidence" you thought you had is confusing and contradictory.
You have given an example of this by asserting in 3 separate posts that you have evidence, in the form of a circle intersected by a hedge and a ditch, which you felt might make me(us) consider that other forces may be at work.
The evidence you subsequently provided contradicts your assertions and supports my claim that recollection of circle evidence is quite often erroneous.
Conjecture all you like - but at least address the numbers given if you intend to debunk my proposal.
199 in Barley, 110 in Rape and 858 in wheat. Not terribly significant changes in frequencies: 4.9, 17.99 and 15.71 respectively. I don't intend to review 1200 odd reports to meet your criteria - it's your argument to support, not mine
I'll reconsider my position when uncontradictory, verifiable, precise evidence is presented. As yet I have not seen ANY reports that give me any reason to consider that crop circles are anything but man made.
The Earthfile report is a case in point.
I'm not going to pick nits over your example any more - as we'll never get a resolution.
My point is, and always has been, that recollection of the "evidence" you thought you had is confusing and contradictory.
You have given an example of this by asserting in 3 separate posts that you have evidence, in the form of a circle intersected by a hedge and a ditch, which you felt might make me(us) consider that other forces may be at work.
The evidence you subsequently provided contradicts your assertions and supports my claim that recollection of circle evidence is quite often erroneous.
The frequency of circles in rape, wheat and barley that I gave don't seem to me to indicate that "rape crop circles are less attractive to hoaxers". Quite the opposite in fact. I have bolded my statement about the numbers that you seem to have misinterpretted in your post (also bolded).
Except that it contradicts the fact that crop circles are more frequently found in rape, considering the area that the crop is farmed over.
Conjecture all you like - but at least address the numbers given if you intend to debunk my proposal.
I removed the circles that the database owner considers to be hoaxes, result:
199 in Barley, 110 in Rape and 858 in wheat. Not terribly significant changes in frequencies: 4.9, 17.99 and 15.71 respectively. I don't intend to review 1200 odd reports to meet your criteria - it's your argument to support, not mine
I suggest you unbate your breath.
I'll reconsider my position when uncontradictory, verifiable, precise evidence is presented. As yet I have not seen ANY reports that give me any reason to consider that crop circles are anything but man made.
The Earthfile report is a case in point.
- Full of inconsistent recollections and contradictions of the sequence of events.
- Evidence presented that bears no relationship the the claims being made.
- "Experts" making basic errors in their analysis, clearly demonstrating their lack of knowledge of functionality of the equipment being used and usually exaggerating the working parameters of capability of the equipment.
- Exaggerations and omissions by the author, usually through credulousness, perhaps through disingenuity.
Explorer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,516
"I'll reconsider my position when uncontradictory, verifiable, precise evidence is presented."
Which is, for example...?
C'mon you know that above is a cop out!
You have to know what will convince you before you can recognise it in any given piece of "evidence"
Which is, for example...?
C'mon you know that above is a cop out!
You have to know what will convince you before you can recognise it in any given piece of "evidence"
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
(learn how to quote)
I'll reconsider my position when uncontradictory, verifiable, precise evidence is presented.
"Evidence" that doesn't resemble the Earthfile report, for example
Nope - it just doesn't suit your level of credulousness. On UFOs, I've read the Condon report - on that score, you'll also need better evidence than what has been presented for 60 odd years to get me to consider visiting little green men, as well.
I've already stated that.
I'll reconsider my position when uncontradictory, verifiable, precise evidence is presented.
Explorer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,516
I think we have finally arrived at the kernel of the what I see as a problem here.
It is relatively easy to look at a theory, hypothesis, claim, and pull it apart, but much more difficult admitting what one could accept as a "truth" and to define what specific data and evidence would finally convince, conclusively. To accept a "truth" is sticking one's head above a parapet, and instead of attack, a defence has to be constructed.
Constructing a defence is much more difficult than attack. The attacker does not have to prove anything as you have stated above.
Mr Randi has honestly attempted to be more objective by providing a monetary incentive and then deciding what parameters would be necessary for his payout, and at least he will set those parameters of evidence required before any test is applied.
So let us test your specific parameters for this specific case. What would they be for the claim that crop circles can be naturally formed by atmospherics. Remember we are not dealing with the paranormal here, so it would be possible to use conventional science to test the claim.
If you say that this has already been done, then that is fine, but please explain how and why. If it is beyond your technical knowledge, then that is fine too, but admit it, and we can then move on, but don't use a smoke screen of generalities to cover up any lack of knowledge.
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
Wrong. Croppies are the ones making the claims - they have to back it up. As we've seen in this thread, the 90 minute claim is unsupported, just as your repeated assertions that you had proof of evidence for naturally caused circles.
I have no intention of getting into philosophical debates about belief systems.
If you have evidence that you feel is so compelling, provide it, until then I reserve my right to dismiss any assertions that crop circles are anything but man made.
Again, it's not my claim. In fact I really couldn't care about it, because I find the whole belief system and pseudoscience surrounding crop circle "research" totally laughable.
It's your theory - provide the facts to support it. Until then it's mere speculative sky gazing on your part.
Don't presume to know what I know, or what I have read, the reports I have reviewed or the education I have. I've done the teenage angst thing, gazing at the stars and wondering "what if" and the endless "intellectual" philosophising in university on the meaning of life, the universe and everything and had my religious epiphany. Frankly, I'm past all that. I have little interest in regazing at my navel. If someone, such as the OP in this thread, puts forward something interesting, I'll have a look at it.
But if it is as contrived and uninteresting as the report in question, I have little difficulty dismissing it and moving on.
You mention JREF and the MDC. That's not dissimilar to my stance.
I don't want to hear your theory - show me what you can do.
I have no intention of "defending my position" to you.
I don't need to.
You were the one that shouldered your way in here with assertions and claiming you had examples that supported your theory of naturally formed circles.
It wasn't me that shot your evidence down - it was your own evidence that pointed the gun at your foot. So don't go projecting your lack of evidence onto me.
Last edited: