• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What about this crop circle?

Limbo, what's the point of your previous post?

To paraphrase, you asked something along the lines of "ever work with this guy? <video link>" and Stray Cat replied "I haven't time to watch half an hour of video - what do you want to know?" and your response looks for all the world like "This isn't going anywhere, I'm just on a fishing trip and want you to dance to my tune for a while".

If I've misunderstood, I'm sure you can explain why you need Stray Cat to watch a half hour video to see some guy called Danny.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Limbo, what's the point of your previous post?

To paraphrase, you asked something along the lines of "ever work with this guy? <video link>" and Stray Cat replied "I haven't time to watch half an hour of video - what do you want to know?" and your response looks for all the world like "This isn't going anywhere, I'm just on a fishing trip and want you to dance to my tune for a while".

If I've misunderstood, I'm sure you can explain why you need Stray Cat to watch a half hour video to see some guy called Danny.
Click to expand...


Jack, he can skip to the point in the video where the interview with Danny begins. 23:18. He need not watch the whole thing. He's seen it before. Maybe all he needs is a quick refresher regarding what Danny is like philosophically, spiritually.

Oh, and I didn't ask if he had worked with Danny specifically. I asked if he had worked with circlemakers like him, in terms of beliefs, viewpoint, philosophy, etc. Sheesh. If you're going to try to bust my balls, get your paraphrasing right.
 
Last edited:
Stray Cat said:
If the circlemakers would just stfu and let the circles do what they were always intended to do there would be no need for this.
Click to expand...


Stray cat says
ambiguous this, ambiguous that.

Circlemakers, stfu about woo!
Researchers, stfu about woo!

Stray Cat says let the circles do. Not you.

It's for the audience to say,
If there be woo either way.

Circles are for woo too
But not from you!
Get a real job, or

Be ambiguous, see?
Like Stray Cat be. :blush:
 
Last edited:
Stray Cat said:
I don't know what Randles motives or intention behind his statement you quoted were, but from my own experience, crop circle researchers only photograph those bits which fit with their perception of how the 'genuine' phenomenon should look.
Click to expand...


What exactly is your own experience with crop circle researchers? Have you worked with any on particular circles? If so how many have you worked with and can you name names? Have you stood side by side with one as he or she took photos in a crop circle and then thought to yourself, a-ha! They are only photographing those bits!

Or perhaps you have looked at a report on a crop circle you made and thought to yourself, if only they photographed more than those bits they would realize it is not 'genuine' because I made it myself! Ha!

So on the one hand, we have 'those bits' which fit with woo preconceptions. On the other hand, we have 'those bits' which do not fit with their perception of how the 'genuine' phenomenon should look.

Could you give us some examples of those bits which do not fit? Maybe some photos?
 
Last edited:
Limbo said:
What exactly is your experience with researchers? Have you worked with any? If so how many have you worked with and can you name names? Have you stood side by side with one as he or she took photos in a crop circle and then thought to yourself, a-ha! They are only photographing those bits!

Or perhaps you have looked at a report on a crop circle you made and thought to yourself, if only they photographed more bits they would realize it is not 'genuine' because I made it myself! Ha!
Click to expand...

I've been in plenty of crop circles with crop circle researchers over the last few years limbo. Your post above suggests a tendency to simplify the process, IMO, the process by which individuals (whether croppies or 'researchers') allow themselves to see only that which supports their PoV. I know this well having lived this experience through many summers in Wiltshire.

Whether it be searching out for extended nodes and deciding - with no knowledge of plant biology - that they could not be created by phototropism because "they were pointing the wrong way" or that the lay is too fluid to be mechanically laid - without knowledge of how circlemakers lay their lay (ooh err), I was indulging in confirmation bias of the highest order whilst refusing to acknowledge my ignorance.

I still am ignorant of many things regarding how crop circles are made and the human skill and artistry involved. But now at least I do not jump to extraordinary conclusions (because the requisite extraordinary evidence does not exist).
 
23_Tauri said:
I still am ignorant of many things regarding how crop circles are made and the human skill and artistry involved. But now at least I do not jump to extraordinary conclusions (because the requisite extraordinary evidence does not exist).
Click to expand...


I hear you. But when people form ideas of what is extraordinary and what isn't, personal experience is included. For the majority of people, psi is not such an extraordinary claim. Most believe in it, and a significant percentage of people have experienced it for themselves at least once. The claim that psi is real is not so far-fetched. Neither is Jungs model of the psyche. Put the two together, and the explanatory power for bizarre paranormal things like UFOs and crop circles is great. Everything fits like a glove.

To me, a claim that psi is not real and therefore can't be involved in crop circles in any way, shape, or form is extraordinary.
 
Last edited:
Limbo said:
For the majority of people, psi is not such an extraordinary claim. Most believe in it, and a significant percentage of people have experienced it for themselves at least once.
Click to expand...

The fact that people may believe a particular claim does not in any way mean that therefore it is not extraordinary, if there is no or very scant and unreliable scientific evidence for it.

Many millions of people believe Jesus performed actual miracles, yet to argue that therefore it is not an extraordinary claim to say he actually did makes no sense.
 
Limbo said:
I hear you. But when people form an idea of what is extraordinary and what isn't, personal experience is included.
Click to expand...

But opinion isn't evidence.
And anecdotal evidence is of not useful evidence.

For the majority of people, psi is not such an extraordinary claim.
Click to expand...

So what?
At one point just about everyone on the planet thought the sun went round the earth.
The majority of people can often be completely wrong.

Most believe in it, and a significant percentage of people have experienced it for themselves.
Click to expand...

They claim to have. Big difference.

The claim that psi is real is not so far-fetched.
Click to expand...

Yes it is.
If it's so darn common, how come it can never be replicated under any useful conditions whatsoever?

Neither are Jungs ideas about the nature of the psyche. Put the two together, and the explanatory power for bizarre things like UFOs and crop circles is great.
Click to expand...

So if you combine something with no evidence towards it with something else with towards evidence for it you somehow conclude this is useful?

That, for reference, is called 'wishful thinking'.
 
Limbo said:
I hear you. But when people form ideas of what is extraordinary and what isn't, personal experience is included. For the majority of people, psi is not such an extraordinary claim. Most believe in it, and a significant percentage of people have experienced it for themselves at least once. The claim that psi is real is not so far-fetched. Neither is Jungs model of the psyche. Put the two together, and the explanatory power for bizarre paranormal things like UFOs and crop circles is great. Everything fits like a glove.
Click to expand...

You are not talking about explanatory power, but rather descriptive ability. An explanation is different from a description. Descriptions are usually perfect, because there isn't anything which constrains the description, that is, there isn't any way to make it wrong.

For hundreds of years, people 'experienced' the healing effects of blood-letting, and now millions of people 'experience' the healing effects of water and sugar pills. It is foolish to pretend that we are inerrant judges of the veracity of our experiences.

Linda
 
Limbo said:
I hear you. But when people form ideas of what is extraordinary and what isn't, personal experience is included. For the majority of people, psi is not such an extraordinary claim. Most believe in it, and a significant percentage of people have experienced it for themselves at least once. The claim that psi is real is not so far-fetched. Neither is Jungs model of the psyche. Put the two together, and the explanatory power for bizarre paranormal things like UFOs and crop circles is great. Everything fits like a glove.

To me, a claim that psi is not real and therefore can't be involved in crop circles in any way, shape, or form is extraordinary.
Click to expand...
I never made that claim. Be that as it may, that psi might be reality doesn't mean it has to be involved in crop circle creation. That's an argument from ignorance IMO because you are making that assumption about the existence of psi without providing evidence.*

Also, even if "a majority" of people believe in something that doesn't make it true. In a CNN/Time poll carried out in 1997 half of respondents said the believed that aliens had abducted humans.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/15/ufo.poll/

A 1991 Roper poll of 5,947 adults indicated that as many as 3.7 million individuals may believe they have been abducted by aliens in the United States, alone. Does this mean alien abduction is real? I don't think so.

*footnote: and I'm betting that you won't find any evidence, because if you could, someone, somewhere, would be $1 million richer.
 
Last edited:
23_Tauri said:
I never made that claim. Be that as it may, that psi might be reality doesn't mean it has to be involved in crop circle creation. That's an argument from ignorance IMO because you are making that assumption about the existence of psi without providing evidence.*
Click to expand...


I'm not making an assumption when I claim psi is real. I'm following the evidence of my personal experiences and parapsychological evidence.

Also, even if "a majority" of people believe in something that doesn't make it true. In a CNN/Time poll carried out in 1997 half of respondents said the believed that aliens had abducted humans.
Click to expand...


It makes it a normal enough thing to believe in. And so claiming to experience it is a normal enough claim.
 
Last edited:
Limbo said:
I want to read the report about a crop circle you have been to, and ask you some questions about it.
Click to expand...
which one's are you interested in?:) You know I've been to the alien navigation device below the Alton Barnes white horse, because I posted some ground shots.
 
Last edited:
23_Tauri said:
which one's are you interested in?:) You know I've been to the alien navigation device below the Alton Barnes white horse, because I posted some ground shots.
Click to expand...


Which one is that? Can you link me to your photos?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom