Crop circles - eyewitness evidence in!

[Yoink]

Yoink - I never said, claimed or otherwise implied that Explorer claimed anything; I suggest you re-read if your impression is otherwise. I simply pointed to the link in "his" post which started this thread and referenced pictures tied to that link.

"His" post did not start the thread. I don't know how to make it clearer than that. You are once again demonstrating that you have been operating under--and continue to operate under--a delusion about the nature of Explorer's argument, He did not post the OP. Get it?

That said, obviously I’m in error as it was RichardR who started this post; scratch “Explorer” and replace with “RichardR” from my last note.

Oh, finally you've realized. I don't know why you left the assertion above, however.

In any event, far as I know I was discussing with Explorer wrt his comments about the patterns in RichardR’s link, or crop circles in general, having natural causes…in what I thought was a civil discussion. That is, until SOMEONE jumped in, started spouting off, guns a'blazing (to coin a phrase), and a leveling a host of snarky, and unwarranted, comments.

No, you were telling him he was a moron on the basis of an utterly unwarranted assumption that he was the OP (as your initial comment shows) and that he was defending the viewpoints asserted in the OP. As it was clear to me from the outset in reading this thread that you were wrong on both points I jumped in to point that out. You never bothered (until now) to go back and check.

Anyway...I assume you have evidence, pic's, etc. that shows a "naturally occuring crop circle"? I know of none, though that does not mean it does not exist.

Why would you assume that? Where have I suggested anything of that nature? I have, in fact, repeatedly said that Explorer's point was simply that this was possible--not probable, not proven, simply possible. If you can't be bothered trying to understand my argument (frequently repeated) why are you bothering to engage with it at all?

As to the more complex patters, such as found in the link from RichardR's initial post - those are to perfect to be anything but man made.

Yes, as we have all agreed from the outset. So?

 

[Yoink]

Give me a break. As I said, there is no argument its impossible. Its simply an implausible conjecture. For example, vortices necessarily by "laws" of mathematics) have singularities, which lead to pressure differentials (yes, by laws of physics if you insist), and crop circles don't reflect these. Other examples of how actual physical vortices (as opposed to the imagined swirling cookie-cutters) behave have already been proferred.

Again, this is a circular argument: you say that "cookie cutter" crop circles are too perfect to be produced by natural forces. Explorer (and I) have, from the start, accepted that crop circles "too perfect" to be the work of natural forces are "too perfect to be the work of natural forces." Well, duh! That doesn't mean that there couldn't be less-than-perfect crop circles that are the result of natural forces, does it?

Wow, you really are worked up into a lather of triviality. As I said, and I'll say it again to keep you happy: Your profound hypothesis has no evidence to support it, but it cannot be ruled out. The contrary hypothesis has plenty to support it (but of course it cannot be *proven*).

So, great, you agree with me. It remains possible, if unlikely--even though in any particular case the probability of human hoaxers causing it is enormously higher than natural causes. This was Explorer's initial point--that the proliferation of hoaxers has made it impossible to determine if there is in fact any kind of natural phenomenon that produces these effects. So he, at the outset, agreed that in any individual case you're far more likely to be dealing with hoaxers than natural forces. So what's your beef, exactly?

If you want to argue without something concrete to support your hypothesis other than "its not impossible" then go find someone stupid enough to talk to you.

Um, apparently I did.

 

[Locknar]

Yoink - You are being intellectually dishonest; I never once, said or implied Explorer (or anyone else) was a "moron"; if so, provide the quote/reference.

 

[Yoink]

Yoink - You are being intellectually dishonest; I never once, said or implied Explorer (or anyone else) was a "moron"; if so, provide the quote/reference.

Fair enough--that was an overstrong characterization of your position. You did, however, persistently misrepresent his argument (simply because you had him confused with the OP and thought his intent was to suggest that crop circles such as those in the OP could be produced by natural causes)--this misunderstanding lead you to treat him condescendingly and to make dismissive arguments which--as I have pretty comprehensively shown--did not in fact have any bearing on his position.

But I do retract the "moron" claim. It would be truer of EHocking's position in relation to Explorer--I was tarring you with a collective brush, which is--as you say--unfair.

 

[Locknar]

I was addressing Explorers comments (ref posts #7, #48 or say #71) wrt crop circles, starting with post #90.

There was no intent to be condescending or dismissive, other then in a “light-hearted” joking sort of way…hence things such as the “Cows with Guns” reference (though I’m guessing not many fans of the “Dr Demento Show” here eh?) Comedy, or attempted comedy in my case, being subjective…perhaps my “light-hearted” intent did not carry through….there is a reason I’m not a professional comedy writer.

Anyway, no problem Yoink wrt the "moron" comment..no harm, no foul.

 

[tbm]

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.

"Facts" that are to bolster events that, to some, are "proof" of one or another REALLY IMPORTANT (non)scientific discovery, seem to be something that woo supporters have no problem in adding later or modifying to their advantage.

tbm

 

[Explorer]

My thanks to Yoinks for the "Dunstable" tornado link and picture.

Although this is a far distant air shot, when compared to Locknar's tornado shots, also taken from the air, there is a distinct difference. There is certainly more definition to the edge of the track and no sign of collateral damage. This perhaps could be due to a lower energy intensity, however, a ground shot would be needed to confirm this conclusively.

As for the comments about me being a "moron" implied or otherwise, as has been stated, this was most certainly not from Locknar, who in my view has responded with intelligent comment and good links that were relevant to my specific case. It was Mr Hocking's constant mis-representations of my case that I found rather insulting and frustrating. Those misrepresentations have been described accurately by Yoink, and again for that I am grateful, and somewhat relieved that I was not the only one who thought that.

I believe that the differences between the pro and the anti-weatherists are not that great. It seems that there is a lot more existing evidence out there than I realised, that could assist in throwing further light on some of the detail of the two arguments in this debate.

 

[Locknar]

Explorer - All righty, now that we've finished the kodak group hug moment

WRT to the air shot from Yoinks link, I maintain it is to distant and not enough detail to draw any real conclusion. If the shot from the link I initially provided were from the same altitude, I'd think the results would look similar (to some extent).

The shot does have some merit though, in that while it shows a path, that path is not perfect; that is to say it not a straight line, not that perfect curve; ie. imperfections.

Overall, there is no denying that vortex's (and from this point, lets make that an all inclusive term to include tornado's, dust devils, etc.) do not leave ground damage, such as paths and other touch down signs; I don't think that was even in question.

Are the complex patterns, such as the one in RichardR's post, the result of such vortex's? I think we are all in agreement in saying "no"? That leaves space aliens (which I think we all agree in saying "no"), man, or say the "cows with guns".

Could a vortex leave a simple circle or oval type shape? If the conditions were right, the storm strong enough, touch were brief enough, etc. I'd consider this plausable, but maintain it would not be a perfect shape. Adjacent stalks would show signs of the event (ie. the collateral damage), the shape would show sings of such things as varying wind intensity and updraft, etc. as well as other imperfections in shap and construction.

Additionally, you'd have observable signs that a weather event in the region occured (even if the event were not observed). Vortex's do not simply spontaneously magically occur; there are observable precursors such as temperature, pressure systems, etc.

 

[Explorer]

Locknar said:

"Overall, there is no denying that vortex's (and from this point, lets make that an all inclusive term to include tornado's, dust devils, etc.) do not leave ground damage, such as paths and other touch down signs; I don't think that was even in question."

I am a little confused now. I thought you have been arguing that tornadoes did leave paths and ground damage What were your linked photographs all about then?. Dust devils leave a trail in the dust too.

It's OK by me to use the one common term vortex for this type of weather phenomena, with one important proviso, that it is fully recognised that there is more than one way that vortexes can be formed.

"Additionally, you'd have observable signs that a weather event in the region occured (even if the event were not observed). Vortex's do not simply spontaneously magically occur; there are observable precursors such as temperature, pressure systems, etc."

Not necessarily! Dust devils (as an example) need only hot temperatures and flat surfaces. Of course they do not need magic (has anyone ever mentioned that unmentionable before?), but as the extract I posted stated, if they form over grassy areas, you would not see them as they would not pick up dust. This would also be true of any vortex forming over a wheat crop, and could explain why only their "imprint" is observed.

 

[steenkh]

Overall, there is no denying that vortex's (and from this point, lets make that an all inclusive term to include tornado's, dust devils, etc.) do not leave ground damage, such as paths and other touch down signs; I don't think that was even in question.

There is a "not" too much in that sentence, right?

 

[Cuddles]

Einstein postulated his theories without evidence. The evidence came much later when astronomical events were favourable enough to conduct experiments for final proof.

No he didn't. There were at least two very important observations that couldn't be explained by classical Newtonian physics that Einstein explained - Mercury's orbit and the photo-electric effect. In addition there was a huge body of theoretical and experimental work that lead to Eistein's relativity as a pretty much inevitable conclusion.

If you feel that a mere hypothesis is not good sport for this board, then that also is an entirely different matter. I may take it elsewhere where it is more appreciated, in future.

Hypotheses are fine. However, expecting us to accept it as a valid hypothesis without any evidence is not. The burden of proof is not on us to disprove it, it is on you to support it. You have not shown any evidence that any atmospheric phenomenon has ever prodcued a crop circle, and according to people knowledgeable in the field this is almost certainly impossible. I therefore think your hypothesis is unsupported nonsense and do not accept it. If you want to convince anyone there is no point just going somewhere where they'll believe anything you say, you just need to get some evidence, and preferably some support from people qualified in the field.

 

[Locknar]

There is a "not" too much in that sentence, right?

Doh! Quite right....below is corrected, removing the offending "not":

Overall, there is no denying that vortex's (and from this point, lets make that an all inclusive term to include tornado's, dust devils, etc.) do leave ground damage, such as paths and other touch down signs; I don't think that was even in question.

Sorry about that....

 

[Locknar]

[snip]Not necessarily! Dust devils (as an example) need only hot temperatures and flat surfaces. [snip]

Almost right…

Along with barren (ie. desert, asphalt) flat surfaces, dust devils result form extreme hot surface air, which quickly rises though a small pocket of cooler low pressure; in the right conditions will begin to rotate.

Additionally, things like clear (or lightly cloudy) conditions…which allow the surface to absorb enough heat to create the extreme surface temperature needed. Also, wind conditions will destabilize the rotation/spinning effect.

While dust devils are fairly localized events, all of these mentioned conditions are observable, to some extent…and necessary for rotation formation.

As barren surfaces are necessary for “dust devil” creation, forming above a grassy area seems rather unlikely; the high/low (ie. hot/cold) pressure areas would be unable to form in the extremes necessary for rotation to begin.

As to my 4 AUG @ 1053am post...how did that "not" sneak in there eh?

 

[TjW]

Overall, there is no denying that vortex's (and from this point, lets make that an all inclusive term to include tornado's, dust devils, etc.) do not leave ground damage, such as paths and other touch down signs; I don't think that was even in question.
<snippage by TjW>

The plural of vortex is vortices.

 

[Locknar]

The plural of vortex is vortices.

Or vortexes (2006 Random House Unabridged Dictionary); either way, "vortex's" is wrong and I stand corrected.

 

[EHocking]

"Facts" that are to bolster events that, to some, are "proof" of one or another REALLY IMPORTANT (non)scientific discovery, seem to be something that woo supporters have no problem in adding later or modifying to their advantage.

tbm

And not acknowledging *what* they are reinterpreting and/or rewriting quotes and sources seems to be quite acceptable in reporting this subject, it would appear.

And, I don't expect any response to any of the points raised here. The owner of Earthfiles has moved on to stories about weird creatures being run down in Texas. Interestingly, when she referred photos of the animal in question for identification by Forestry experts, and they replied with "It's a coyote", she prefers to ignore their opinion and speculate "Is it a hybrid? Is it a new species?".

Ignoring expert opinion that doesn't support your opinion and preference for wild speculation appears to be grist for the mill in articles on these subjects, it seems.

 

[Explorer]

No he didn't. There were at least two very important observations that couldn't be explained by classical Newtonian physics that Einstein explained - Mercury's orbit and the photo-electric effect. In addition there was a huge body of theoretical and experimental work that lead to Eistein's relativity as a pretty much inevitable conclusion.



Hypotheses are fine. However, expecting us to accept it as a valid hypothesis without any evidence is not. The burden of proof is not on us to disprove it, it is on you to support it. You have not shown any evidence that any atmospheric phenomenon has ever prodcued a crop circle, and according to people knowledgeable in the field this is almost certainly impossible. I therefore think your hypothesis is unsupported nonsense and do not accept it. If you want to convince anyone there is no point just going somewhere where they'll believe anything you say, you just need to get some evidence, and preferably some support from people qualified in the field.

Einsteins theories covered a multitude of elements, some were based on previous research and discovery, some were not. Gravity bending light and time dilation to name but two examples of the latter, were proven by practical experiment much later. I can be just as selective as you can.

I wasn't asking you to prove or disprove anything, or convince you in any particular direction. I was merely putting it forward for a debate. I am simply seeking feedback and comment, and intelligent discussion, not out of hand dogmatic rejection and insults, which to date, have mainly characterised the responses to me on this thread.

 

[Cuddles]

Einsteins theories covered a multitude of elements, some were based on previous research and discovery, some were not. Gravity bending light and time dilation to name but two examples of the latter, were proven by practical experiment much later. I can be just as selective as you can.

Wrong again. Time dilation and Lorentz transformations existed well before Eistein. I am not being selective, I suggest that if you try to be you should at least select things that support you.

I wasn't asking you to prove or disprove anything, or convince you in any particular direction. I was merely putting it forward for a debate. I am simply seeking feedback and comment, and intelligent discussion, not out of hand dogmatic rejection and insults, which to date, have mainly characterised the responses to me on this thread.

So give us a reason not to reject it out of hand. So far you have nothing except speculation. Speculation that is disagreed with by people who actually work in the relevant field. There is no debate. You say "Crop circles could be made in this way", we say "Great, let's see some evidence", you say "Rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb". Give us something to debate and we will debate it.

 

[Explorer]

Wrong again. Time dilation and Lorentz transformations existed well before Eistein. I am not being selective, I suggest that if you try to be you should at least select things that support you.



So give us a reason not to reject it out of hand. So far you have nothing except speculation. Speculation that is disagreed with by people who actually work in the relevant field. There is no debate. You say "Crop circles could be made in this way", we say "Great, let's see some evidence", you say "Rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb". Give us something to debate and we will debate it.

Astronomical observations demonstrating that light was bent by a gravitational field, and newly invented atomic clocks sufficiently accurate to discern the time differences between one clock on the ground and one clock flying in an aircraft, came much later to provide that specific proof. It is a matter of record, not conjecture.

Speculation is hypothesising, how many more times does that have to stated before you accept that? Frankly, I give up on you!

I ask nothing more of you than Locknar has provided willingly, and that is intelligent comment and links. If you choose not to do that, then it would have been far more polite for you to have abstained from any comment. It is not anyone's fault but your own that you seem incapable of doing that.

 

[EHocking]

It's SO amazing, you have to BUY the video to see the footage! Nice marketing scam.

Thanks to YouTube, you don't need to pay.

Here is the Terje presentation of the East Field 7th July "evidence". Note that in 1/2 an hour's of video all we get is interviews with the believers and less tha a minute's worth of video evidence (all that in pt 1).

Here are the YouTube URLs, I'm trawling through them to see if there is any evidence worth reporting on. At least there is an IR pan that purports to show the empty field at 1:30am odd.

Parts 1 thru 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOlwyXkick4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gn7xmw6n4I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udw3mF8XHTs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJiHikYSZjU
And here's an interview with a circle maker called matthew williams who claims to have dropped of the guys who made this circle at about 10:30 on the 6th July.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh4yiGDDgCg