Crop circles - eyewitness evidence in!

[Normal Dude]

EHocking,

I'd love to know the response you get on those time stamps. Interesting stuff.

 

[EHocking]

EHocking,

I'd love to know the response you get on those time stamps. Interesting stuff.

Well, the Earthfiles homepage has been updated since I emailed (Thursday), so at least we could assume that Linda Howe has her Mac on and can only presume is checking her email.

I'll give it a week.

 

[Explorer]

"I have no intention of getting into philosophical debates about belief systems."

I am not asking you to get into a philosophical debate, so stop moving the goalposts. I was asking you a perfectly reasonable scientific objective question, as to what would constitute a proof or a truth for you personally, of a specific claim.

You have chosen to answer this question in the following ways:

1. You have cited third party "croppies". They have nothing to do with my question.
2. You have brought in philosophy, which is irrelevant.
3. You have said "I really couldn't care about it"
4. You have evaded the question by throwing it back at me - "It's your theory - provide the facts to support it." Back your comfort attack zone.
5. You then started rambling on about your childhood. Not interested, just simply answer the question, please.
6. You concluded by saying "I have no intention of "defending my position" to you." I am not asking you to defend any position, I am asking you a question, no less than our mentor Mr Randi asks of his challengers.

For someone who claims not to be interested in this subject, you have given an extraordinary amount of time and text to it, at least up to this point.

Now it seems that interest is waning in the face of a basic and fundamental question.

It is my intention to have a debate on this question, and if you won't be honest and answer it, I shall put it up as a topic as a main thread for others on this board to respond if they choose to do so.

 

[EHocking]

Don't you accuse me of dishonesty just because you don't care for my answers.

I've given you honest answers - it's interesting how selective you are on quoting them though. You left out one that was the crux of my stance on most things paranormal.

"I don't want to hear your theory - show me what you can do."

Debate here - start a new thread, I've already stated I have no interest in it and gave exact reasons for that - Hell, you even quoted my point that I have no interest in the debate. That was further explained in my childhood "ramblings".

Point is, been there done that. Speculative navel gazing is just not my thing.

Call me an empiricist if you want - but don't call me dishonest.

Your reaction to my position on things paranormal reminds me of Rick from the Young Ones,

"The reason you don't understand my music, is because you don't like it."

 

[Explorer]

Don't you accuse me of dishonesty just because you don't care for my answers.

I've given you honest answers - it's interesting how selective you are on quoting them though. You left out one that was the crux of my stance on most things paranormal.

"I don't want to hear your theory - show me what you can do."

Debate here - start a new thread, I've already stated I have no interest in it and gave exact reasons for that - Hell, you even quoted my point that I have no interest in the debate. That was further explained in my childhood "ramblings".

Point is, been there done that. Speculative navel gazing is just not my thing.

Call me an empiricist if you want - but don't call me dishonest.

Your reaction to my position on things paranormal reminds me of Rick from the Young Ones,

"The reason you don't understand my music, is because you don't like it."

I wasn't aware that we were discussing the paranormal. Since when did meteorology and atmospherics drift into the realms of the paranormal?

"Speculative navel gazing is just not my thing."

If that was what I was asking you to do with my question, then I could understand that comment. But it wasn't!

It is not your music I dislike either. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't be bothering with you, quite frankly!

OK, I can accept that you were being honest with me and yourself, but I had to press you to find that out, and make no apologies for it. As for me being "selective", just go back and take a look at the points that I have made and you have chosen to ignore.

This has turned into a boring tit for tat, so I think we can mutually agree to end our discussion now for the sanity of our fellow members.

 

[RichardR]

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...

And I can also explain what I see as the kernel of the problem. It's this: the croppies have no theory or hypothesis to even pull apart - just the negative belief that humans couldn't have done it. When they have a positive belief - an actual testable theory or hypothesis that is an alternative explanation of how these circles were produced - we'll see if it can be pulled apart or not. So far they haven't even reached that stage.

 

[EHocking]

EHocking,

I'd love to know the response you get on those time stamps. Interesting stuff.

No response to my emails - but the web page was updated on the 27th July - a day after my emails.

I've not reread the pages, but the "edit note" states that photos in the crop circle were taken at 4am.
Still clear even though taken 1-1/2 hours before dawn on a Samsung phone (video?)

I'll compare the two versions tomorrow if I have time. Anyone else - feel free.

 

[Locknar]

Explorer - You never responded to my last post, so I assume we've discussed "weather" events enough to eliminate it as a source for crop circles.

You said you don't buy into the "alien" theory, or the cows with guns (ok....nobody ever listened to the Dr Demento show here?)...so that leaves man.

That said - what do YOU think is the cause of crop circles?

 

[Explorer]

Explorer - You never responded to my last post, so I assume we've discussed "weather" events enough to eliminate it as a source for crop circles.

You said you don't buy into the "alien" theory, or the cows with guns (ok....nobody ever listened to the Dr Demento show here?)...so that leaves man.

That said - what do YOU think is the cause of crop circles?

Apologies, you are quite right, I was diverted by my little spat with Mr Hocking.

What do I think IS the cause?

It seems that I suffer from the the cardinal sin of speculation, or hypothesising to give it a scientific label. In this arena, it is given scant respect. Oh well, if you don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

I have to accept your technical knowledge on the characteristics of tornadoes, however, I would still like to know what shape would be made from a light and brief touchdown of a funnel cloud in a wheat crop. Is there any physical evidence that supports your "leading edge" effect, in this particular case? I ask this not to be provocative, but this is the stock question, isn't it?

I found this link on the subject of the supposed phenomena of plasma vortex.

Some of the "pros" for this theory have been aired and de-bunked on this site before, but it is quite detailed, and on the surface at least, balanced, and I would be interested in your comments:

http://www.controversial-science.com/current/cc-hypothesis-comparison.htm

 

[Locknar]

Explorer - The "leading edge" of a tornado, hurricane, or any other weather event is always the strongest; the back side always the weakest. There is lots-o-physical and scientific evidence out there that explains how tornados, hurrican's, etc. work.

As to a "brief" touchdown of such a weather event; that is pretty evident in the news link I sent. The duration of the touch down is not relivant....you'll notice in those pictures all the "collateral" damage to the field...outside of the actual path the tornado followed. A "cookie cutter" (ie. a touch down for say a fraction of second) would still have such "collateral" damage....crop circles never do.

A "plasma vortex" by definition would be a super heated event...crops would be burned, not bent.

 

[EHocking]

So, no reply to either of my emails. Let's see what the changes to the report at Earthfiles are.

Most are farily innocuous, such as refining the estimate of the number of circles from "at least 100" to "150".

There are 2 new photos from Gary King that seem to have been taken on a phone's camera. No date stamp on the photo, but they seem to have been modified by the author around midday on the 28th (webpage update says 27th).

Significant change is the title photo's caption. Changed from "created some time in the previous 90 minutes" to "created some time in the previous 90 minutes to 1 hour 45 minutes."

Some additional comment on the determination of the time of the "EMP" flash being at 3:08AM, with this qualification, " (first report was 3:13 AM for flash and then refined in analysis to 3:08 AM);"

Interestingly, the caption for the 2nd photo has changed from
"Another non-enhanced frame taken a few minutes later that clearly shows the huge formation in the East Field, " to
"Another non-enhanced frame taken around 3:45 AM, July 7, 2007, that clearly shows the huge formation in the East Field,"

But not as interesting as the "extra" dialogue that seems to have been found by the author in her interview with the video expert.

Under the webpage heading,
"3:20 AM - First Shadow of Crop Formation Seen and Photographed", the dialogue has been added to. The original read,
"And this was approximately 12 to 13 minutes after the light pulse. We are now talking about 3:20 AM. That’s when they saw the first shadow and then some light came as clouds began to drift away from the moon. After that, they could also see with their naked eyes that there was a shadow there and took a picture with the digital still camera. Then they could see that the formation was there. From that point, the (light-sensitive) Sony video camera was also able to pick it out as well. So, from 3:20 AM (July 7, 2007), you’ve got the crop formation there."

Additional text bolded below,

"And this was approximately 12 to 13 minutes after the light pulse. We are now talking about 3:20 AM. That’s when they saw the first shadow and then some light came as clouds began to drift away from the moon.
After that, they could also see with their naked eyes that there was a shadow there and took a picture with the digital still camera. Then they could see that the formation was there. From that point, the (light-sensitive) Sony video camera was also able to pick it out as well. So, from 3:20 AM (July 7, 2007), you’ve got the crop formation there. And about a half hour later (about 3:45 AM), they could see with their eyes. "

The author seems to be quite happy to put words into the mouths of her interviewees, later under the heading "East Field Is Not Flat".

Original text was,
"All the circles that are lying on a hill more than flat surface, they are ovals."

Seems that Terje's grammar wasn't up to the author's (2nd go at ) grammar, as it now reads,

"All the circles that are lying on a hilly surface more than a flat surface, they are ovals.

And then,
"...and also within that limited time frame they regard it as absolutely impossible for humans to do."
"...and also within that limited time frame the regard that as absolutely impossible for humans to do."

I guess all of the above in isolation is pretty innocuous, but it does show that the author of the report at Earthfiles is quite happy to change/edit the words of the "quotes" from her interviewees.

That makes me wonder about the accuracy of the other information that we have read in this report as it is all based on the author's interviews with witnesses or quotes from the expert's DVD.

 

[Yoink]

This is a frustrating thread to read. Explorer gets jumped on at the outset simply because people carelessly and erroneously assume that he's a) suggesting that the report in the OP is both correct and significant (he actually made no claims about it whatsoever) and b) that he is advancing some sort of wooish theory about the formation of crop circles.

In fact, he stipulates at the outset that all the complex geometrical crop circles are clearly fake and the most of the simple circles probably are as well. He simply proposes the minimal (and hardly radical) hypothesis that it is possible (not probable, just possible) that from time to time some hitherto unrecognized natural phenomenon may be responsible for some few examples of crop circles.

For this he gets pilloried? But wait a second--who is the skeptic here? The person who says "there may be natural phenomena of which we are not yet aware, or which we do not fully understand" or the person (several of them in this thread) who make the gross logical error of saying "we have proven that most crop circles are man-made, therefore all crop circles must be man-made"? The latter statement is not skepticism, it's dogma, pure and simple.

To say that we don't know of any meteorological phenomenon that could cause something like a crop circle is not (and one would think that one would not have to spell this out to soi-disant skeptics) the same thing as saying that it is impossible for there to be such a phenomenon. Or are you actually claiming that science has come to an end and has no new discoveries of any kind left to make?

(ETA: And the argument that some random tornado in America happens not to have left a circle behind it, so therefore no tornado in England could possibly have done so is risible. This is the same kind of argument the troofers make all the time: "look at the debris field from this [utterly dissimilar] plane crash--it doesn't look exactly like that from Flight 93, therefore the Flight 93 crash site is obviously a fake!")

 

[Locknar]

Yoink - I'm not sure who you are addressing your comments to; in any event, as far as my comments....

Given the 1000's of years "man" has kept written records of events, there is no, ZERO, nada, none record of any meteorological phenomenon that would account for crop circles. For that matter, there is no recorded event of a crop circle occurring the day. Does that completely discount meteorological phenomenon alone....no, but I'd say the odds are REAL REAL REAL small.

All tornado's work the same in so far as leading edge, collateral damage, landing drag, etc. - that is to say they all work basically the same.

Tornado's (and other similar vortex events) are not perfectly contained wind patterns; there is varying wind intensity along the edges and outward from there...they are not a "cookie cutter", as in high wind and then suddenly none at all.

Given how tornado's (et all) work, and the lack of ANY scientific evidence that would otherwise support natural formation of crop circles...you are left with Man, Aliens from space, or Cows with guns.

I for one have not said "some crop circles are man-man, thus all are"; what I HAVE said is there is no credible evidence that supports anything other then Man. That said...what do YOU think forms crop circles, what is YOUR evidence/discussion on the topic?

As to Flight 93; the debris field does in fact have properties to other similar crashes to the trained observer....those that claim otherwise simply do not, or otherwise refuse to, accept facts.

 

[Explorer]

My thanks to Yoink, who has accurately described my position on this subject.

A few posts ago I suggested that other wind phenomena such as dust devils (as opposed to the more violent tornadoes) are also known to exist.

From the films that I have seen on this phenomenon (including those wonderfully filmed on the surface of Mars recently), they appear not exhibit the edge characteristics that Locknar describes above (from his obvious good knowledge of tornadoes) due to the much lower and more localised intensity.

These have some of the characteristics of tornadoes, but form in a totally different way. Here is a statement from a site on the subject:

"It should be noted that dust and debris do not necessarily have to get drawn into and up a dust devil. For instance, dust devils can form over a clean grassy area and can be almost impossible to see."

..and here is a link to the site:

http://futurecam.com/dustDevils.html

Now hot conditions and flat surfaces seem to be a pre-requisite for dust devils, and perhaps those conditions are not common say for the UK (and certainly not in a wheat field), but the fact that a combination of atmospheric conditions can produce a different type of natural vortex ,as opposed to a tornado, for me is significant.

It would be useful to postulate other conditions that could form a natural vortex. It would also be necessary to provide an explanation for Locknar's cookie cutter effect that would be essential for a good and clean circle. I have already suggested that a light and brief "touchdown" or subsequent rapid dissipation of any low energy vortex (the latter does happen in the case of dust devils) is one possibility.

Agreed, I may be shooting in the dark, but I say that the hypothesis comes first, and the critical thought comes second. The latter is the basis for scientific research and subsequent proof, or otherwise, of course. So I make no apologies for firing the thought gun. If others want to dodge the bullet, then that is up to them!

 

[Tez]

This is a frustrating thread to read. Explorer gets jumped on at the outset simply because people carelessly and erroneously assume that he's a) suggesting that the report in the OP is both correct and significant (he actually made no claims about it whatsoever) and b) that he is advancing some sort of wooish theory about the formation of crop circles.

In fact, he stipulates at the outset that all the complex geometrical crop circles are clearly fake and the most of the simple circles probably are as well. He simply proposes the minimal (and hardly radical) hypothesis that it is possible (not probable, just possible) that from time to time some hitherto unrecognized natural phenomenon may be responsible for some few examples of crop circles.

For this he gets pilloried? But wait a second--who is the skeptic here? The person who says "there may be natural phenomena of which we are not yet aware, or which we do not fully understand" or the person (several of them in this thread) who make the gross logical error of saying "we have proven that most crop circles are man-made, therefore all crop circles must be man-made"? The latter statement is not skepticism, it's dogma, pure and simple.

To say that we don't know of any meteorological phenomenon that could cause something like a crop circle is not (and one would think that one would not have to spell this out to soi-disant skeptics) the same thing as saying that it is impossible for there to be such a phenomenon. Or are you actually claiming that science has come to an end and has no new discoveries of any kind left to make?

No one is disputing that the conjecture "Some crop circles are due to natural weather events" is orders of magnitude more plausible than "Some crop circles are made by aliens". They are simply claiming that "All crop circles are made by man" is orders of magnitude more plausible again.

Now, you can dispute that with evidence if you want. Which is what Explorer was claiming he could/would or did do. The evidence presented (thus far) has been analyzed and found wanting. If you and he are looking for someone to say "Vortex guys aren't as crazy as the Alien believers", well, I'll say it, you're not. Hope that makes you feel better.

 

[Cuddles]

Agreed, I may be shooting in the dark, but I say that the hypothesis comes first, and the critical thought comes second.

No. Hypothesis comes first, evidence comes second. You don't have any, therefore we don't accept the hypothesis. Simple as that.

 

[Locknar]

Explorer - Hummm….I’m not entirely sure how to respond.

Regardless of the vortex…and regardless of where (ie. Earth, Mars, etc.) they all operate the same in terms of how they are created. Atmospheric vortex’s (tornadoes, dust devils, gustnado’s, fire whirls, etc., etc.) are all caused due to localized differences in temperature and atmospheric pressures, which under the right conditions will cause rotation.

Exactly what edge characteristics, based on your observations, do you dispute?

Dust Devils are typically found in exceedingly hot, flat, barren areas…such as the US Southwest, or say portions of Australia. While not impossible, I’d say their occurrence in the UK is slim…I’d think something more along the lines of a sheer funnel.

Hurricane’s are excellent examples…they are not a 100% self contained storm system; that is to say wind gradually increases as the storm approaches. It is not, as a “cookie cutter” would suggest, a sudden 0 to +100mph difference in wind. Collateral damage, such as downed trees, occur well beyond the center of the storm.

Tornados, dust devils, etc. all work basically the same way, just on much smaller scale. Consider this; it is a dust devil as photographed by the Mars rover Spirit.

You’ll note that the center of the vortex is dense (from dust); that density dissipates over distance from the center. Why; because the rotation (ie. “wind”) is weaker on the further you move away from the center.…if it were a “cookie cutter”, the vortex would appear far more universal in terms of density over its span, and suddenly stop along its edge. It would be like watching a solid object simply move along.

Still using the example from Mars, you'll note the "updraft" effect...that is to say, where do you think all that dust came from to start with? The "updraft" of the vortex pulled the dust from the ground.

I submit for a crop circle to have been formed by a atmospheric event, there would HAVE to be signs of collateral damage in the field….but there never is; you are left with virtually perfect circles and elaborate designs. A wind so strong as to completely bend over a stalk, yet leave one next to it 100% untouched? No signs of the "updraft" effect?

All that said...along the lines of what Cuddles said....what do YOU think causes crop cricles, what is YOUR evidence?

 

[Yoink]

No one is disputing that the conjecture "Some crop circles are due to natural weather events" is orders of magnitude more plausible than "Some crop circles are made by aliens". They are simply claiming that "All crop circles are made by man" is orders of magnitude more plausible again.

Now, you can dispute that with evidence if you want. Which is what Explorer was claiming he could/would or did do. The evidence presented (thus far) has been analyzed and found wanting. If you and he are looking for someone to say "Vortex guys aren't as crazy as the Alien believers", well, I'll say it, you're not. Hope that makes you feel better.

Gee, thanks for the condescension. I hope it made you feel better. Personally I don't "believe" in vortexes any more than I "believe" that every single crop circle ever observed can only possibly have been made by pranksters. For some funny reason I believe that evidence is the important thing here, not "belief." I know absolutely nothing useful about meteorology with regard to this issue, so I have no hypothesis to suggest. I do know enough about logic, however, to recognize that the arguments advanced against the meteorological hypothesis thus far are not conclusive. They are simply versions of "well, we haven't yet observed such a thing, therefore it isn't possible."

ETA: Oh, I also wanted to address the point about Explorer's "evidence." To say it has been "analyzed and found wanting" is true enough, but hardly characterizes the actual nature of the discussion. Explorer presented evidence (an eye-witness account) which he himself acknowledged at the outset was not conclusive. The subsequent "analysis"--if one erases the huffing and puffing and rhetorical grandstanding--amounted to demonstrating at tedious length what Explorer had acknowledged at the outset--that it was not conclusive. But it remains "evidence." As useful as uncorroborated eye-witness accounts always are--which is to say, not very. But at least it wasn't two people claiming to have observed little green men in spaceships making the circles. They describe a strong wind and an electrically charged atmosphere and a resultant circle in the field. What is their motive for lying about this? Clearly this isn't "proof" of anything at all. It is, however, a suggestive piece of evidence that would warrant some further exploration--which is all that Explorer ever claimed.

 

[Locknar]

Yoink - There is LOTS-O scientific material out there wrt meteorology that explains, conclusively, why crop circles can not be formed by weather events.

Knowing “absolutely nothing useful about meteorology with regard to this issue….”, I’m surprised you’d leap to the conclusion of non-conclusive evidence. Lack of knowledge on an issue (meteorology in this case) does not invalidate the argument.

 

[Yoink]

I submit for a crop circle to have been formed by a atmospheric event, there would HAVE to be signs of collateral damage in the field….but there never is; you are left with virtually perfect circles and elaborate designs. A wind so strong as to completely bend over a stalk, yet leave one next to it 100% untouched? No signs of the "updraft" effect?

It fascinates me that people cling to the idea--in the teeth of a mountain of flatly contradictory evidence--that Explorer is trying to suggest that the "elaborate designs" seen in (clearly fraudulent) crop circles could have a natural explanation. From the very beginning he has been clear that 100% of the "elaborate" crop circles must be fakes. The reason his opponents keep dragging these back in (along with potential wooish origins) is, I assume, simply to bolster their own sense of superiority: "Look what a moron my opponent is!"

At least here--and for the first time--Locknar is actually offering a logically coherent argument. Not "well, these tornadoes don't leave damage that looks like crop circles, therefore no weather phenomenon ever could." Rather he is claiming that no atmospheric phenomenon could ever do such a thing without leaving "collateral damage" around the circle. S/he may be right, but so far this is an assertion utterly unsupported by argument or evidence. The whole point of Explorer's hypothesis is that some previously unknown meteorological phenomenon may perhaps be responsible for forming some very small proportion of simple, circular crop circles. Locknar says that it is physically impossible for wind to behave in this way--perhaps even Locknar might accept that that hardly counts as categorical disproof of the hypothesis.

All that said...along the lines of what Cuddles said....what do YOU think causes crop cricles, what is YOUR evidence?

Me? The only crop circles I've ever seen photos of look like they're made by hoaxers with rope and boards. Somehow, however, I'm capable of recognizing that that doesn't constitute evidence that no crop circle in the history of humankind was ever created by an ill-understood but entirely natural meteorological phenomenon.