• 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 said:
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!
Click to expand...
I have met, talked to, disagreed with and had some good discussions with crop circle researchers. But I have never worked with or along side them. That would put me in a strange place I wouldn't want to be in, so the majority of the time, I avoid engaging with them unless it's online.
I have been in circles during the day when researchers have been photographing and examining them and have also heard them proclaim a circle genuine just by looking at it from the side of the road, before they've even stepped foot in it. There are others who I have encountered online that profess to be able to tell merely from an aerial photo which are man made and which are not.
But to satisfy yourself about the veracity of any circle researchers opinion all you have to do is to read some the reports from different researchers to note that there are differing viewpoints on certain circles and depending upon which researcher thinks which circle is genuine, they push the part which confirms their view. Take for instance the Alien and Disc (Crabwood) that is the Thread Title here. It's complexity and it's message is touted by some researchers to state it is 'genuine' and yet other researchers point out it's messy lay to show how it's man made. Reading each PoV in isolation would support that particular PoV but not until you've read the counter opinion can you say that you have anything like a balanced view.

The bent nodes are usually touted as being a sign of the genuine, but apparently not a necessity as many other circles which are thought to be genuine don't have these indicators of genuineness. If footprint are found in a circle which otherwise would be thought of as genuine, it is usually hand waved away by speculating that some other croppy got there to view it before hand. Similarly where litter, personal effects and even circlemaking equipment is found in new circles, it has been claimed that HOAXERS have got there first and planted stuff in a genuine circle as part of some grand cover-up/misinformation scheme (example would be the Silbury Mayan calendar made over two nights where circlemaking marker plates were found).

Limbo said:
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!
Click to expand...
Of course, the easiest way to test the testers is to make a circle and see what the researchers say about it. If they can really tell any diference between man made and 'genuine', then they're not going to call the one you made 'genuine' are they?

Limbo said:
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?
Click to expand...

Take these indicators which have been cited as distinctive in 'genuine' circles:
Geometric accuracy
Very short time scale for construction
Visible balls of light in the field
Bent nodes

This list is not a full list, just a few examples.

And yet the Barbury Castle triangle cited earlier in the thread has a mis-marked line and plenty of other circles have shown up over the years that have had obvious mistakes and inaccuracy and have still been declared genuine.

The Stonehenge Julia Set and Eastfield 07/07/07 are just 2 circles which apparently must be genuine because they were made in a very short timescale (allegedly), but then the Alien & Disc and Crabwood and the Mayan Calendar at Silbury (plus the one mentioned by 23_Tauri under Milk Hill last year and many others) were made over 2 or even 3 nights.

Visible balls of light are often reported in connection to crop circles appearing and are variously reported as an indicator of genuineness, examples would be the flash of light reported by Win Keech in the 07/07/07 Eastfield circle, the Oliver's Castle BoLs making the crop circle video (that some people are still claiming to be genuine despite all the evidence including a filmed confession by John Wabe). But in direct contradiction of the BoLs, it is also claimed that because no one say anything, the crop cricel must be genuine.

Bent nodes have already been covered, but it is worth repeating that they are sometimes found in the crop circles and sometimes not, they have been found in circles KNOWN to have been made and documented by circlemakers and so are not a sign of anything except the researchers determination to make a deal out of them if they are found and hand wave their absence away if they are not.
 
23_Tauri said:
3rd post down: Akhenaten posted them for me as I couldn't post images at the time:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5620643#post5620643

It's this one. Formed in 3 parts, on 3 separate nights:
http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2009/milkhill3/milkhill2009c.html
Click to expand...


Ah yes now I remember. Have you read everything about this circle at the crop circle connector website? If so, did you notice any discrepancies or errors or anything noteworthy?
 
Limbo said:
Ah yes now I remember. Have you read everything about this circle at the crop circle connector website? If so, did you notice any discrepancies or errors or anything noteworthy?
Click to expand...
The ccc website carries field reports from a wide variety of spectators, each of whom have their own take on the phenomenon, which will invariably mould whatever experience they have in a circle, and how they interpret what they see. Stray Cat has touched on this aspect in his post above.

The comments and field reports on ccc reflect this colourful motley crew of folk who descend on Wiltshire each summer (myself included).

I liked the design of the first two stages, some thought went into creating something different. Phase 3 was just ragged on the ground, a real rush job if you ask me. Perhaps a spur of the moment decision, after closing time? ;)
Sorry I can't come up with anything more enlightening right now. It's late here (sleepy yawn)
 
Last edited:
Stray Cat what I really want is a link to a circle report by a researcher that you have met or talked to, a circle which that researcher has declared genuine for a reason that you can, through your own personal circlemaking experience, guarantee is faulty. Ideally the researcher will have posted photos of 'those bits' supporting his or her case.
 
Last edited:
Limbo,
I don't get it.
There are proof of people making crop circles, they tend to be secretive about it.

Postulating that any circle not easily ascribed to some people in particular must be made by aliens/psi/gods/whatever is rather silly.

Why don't you start with trying to find some positive evidence of aliens/psi/goods/whatever, before touting it as an explanation for crop circles.
 
Limbo said:
Stray Cat what I really want is a link to a circle report by a researcher that you have met or talked to, a circle which that researcher has declared genuine for a reason that you can, through your own personal circlemaking experience, guarantee is faulty. Ideally the researcher will have posted photos of 'those bits' supporting his or her case.
Click to expand...

This man made circle was written about as some sort of CT stating that Peter couldn't possibly have made it. And towards the end of the artilce, it kind of sums up the scene and more importantly, reflects what seems to be happening on this thread.
 
Toke said:
Limbo,
I don't get it.
There are proof of people making crop circles, they tend to be secretive about it.

Postulating that any circle not easily ascribed to some people in particular must be made by aliens/psi/gods/whatever is rather silly.

Why don't you start with trying to find some positive evidence of aliens/psi/goods/whatever, before touting it as an explanation for crop circles.
Click to expand...


I guess maybe I've been rather selfish. Maybe I've been taking advantage of the opportunity to talk to a self-professed circlemaker in the UK, shotgunning him with questions and looking for patterns and whatnot.

Really I would rather pick his brain while I can, than try to find positive evidence that CAN'T be interpreted any other way. That's what it always boils down to, isn't it. Interpretation. The gap between the signifier and the signified belongs to the trickster archetype.

I think that the exploration of my explanation stalled here at post #846. Stray Cat misunderstands Jung, I think. To talk about my ideas, it helps to read a lot of Jung and a lot of Joseph Campbell and a lot of Karen Armstrong and a lot of Huston Smith. Other things too, like Robert Anton Wilson, Aldous Huxley, etc. I can't go deeply into my explanations without using their terminology. But Stray Cat couldn't answer my questions in post #846, so he just dodged them and demonstrated his misunderstanding of Jung. No shame, he is hard to understand. I've read many of his books and I still have a looong ways to go.
 
Last edited:
Limbo said:
I think that the exploration of my explanation stalled here at post #846. Stray Cat misunderstands Jung, I think. To talk about my ideas, it helps to read a lot of Jung and a lot of Joseph Campbell and a lot of Karen Armstrong and a lot of Huston Smith. Other things too, like Robert Anton Wilson, Aldous Huxley, etc. I can't go deeply into my explanations without using their terminology. But Stray Cat couldn't answer my questions in post #846, so he just dodged them and demonstrated his misunderstanding of Jung. No shame, he is hard to understand. I've read many of his books and I still have a looong ways to go.
Click to expand...

It's all good Limbo, but where crop circles are directly concerned, the answer isn't found in books... or indeed in my posts.

Anything perceived as paranormal on top of the actual artwork is arrived at only because people prefer to read other people's thoughts than actually have any of their own. Accept other people's opinons instead of developing one of their own and buy into other people's personal blind faith beliefs because they already fit quite nicely into their own.
 
Unless there is compelling evidence otherwise I tend to write off supernatural explanations as so much bull.

To me crop circles is just another piece of woo along with spiritualist, ufo's, homoeopathy, etc.

You have not so far presented anything to indicate otherwise.
 
Stray Cat do you have a regular team you make circles with? Or do you experiment with different groups and different people? Have you made circles with people who are like "Danny", philosophically speaking?
 
Last edited:
Toke said:
Unless there is compelling evidence otherwise I tend to write off supernatural explanations as so much bull.
Click to expand...


I can't sympathize with that. I've experienced too much of that which you would probably call supernatural to write it off.

To me crop circles is just another piece of woo along with spiritualist, ufo's, homoeopathy, etc.

You have not so far presented anything to indicate otherwise.
Click to expand...


Anything I can give you can be interpreted in more ways than one, and you and I obviously have different ideas about what constitutes an 'indication otherwise'.
 
Limbo said:
Anything I can give you can be interpreted in more ways than one, and you and I obviously have different ideas about what constitutes an 'indication otherwise'.
Click to expand...

In other words, you can present no extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claims. Of course no extraordinary evidence is needed, as in your opinion your claims are not extraordinary. Is that right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom