Crop circles - eyewitness evidence in!

[Explorer]

You are presupposing that they are not man made.
Not a scientific approach to hypothesising.

Looking through Paul Vigay's crop circle database (www.ccdb.co.uk) there are only 3 instances of circle reports being just wind damage - out of 1795 reports. NONE of these report that the marking in the crop created by wind are circular. The SPECULATE about vortices etc creating crop circles but there is no evidence anywhere that supports the hypothesis, whereas there is a great deal of evidence supporting the fact that crop circles are man made.

The fact is that practically every country's agricultural department has reports on wind damage to crops, but this damage is always quite irregular and does not resemble circles in the least, even croppies acknowledge this. Unless you have evidence of circles created by downbursts of wind etc, it IS just fruitless speculation.

"You are presupposing that they are not man made."

...and you are presupposing that they are, which is a valid hypothesis too. The difference between us, is, that I am not ridiculing your hypothesis or calling it bad science.

I am not about to embark on a research programme to determine the efficacy of my theory. Are you?

So why not let us be content with our common position of different and unproven hypotheses.

 

[Explorer]

Do you have a cite for this? Paul Vigay's fairly comprehensive circle database (www.ccdb.co.uk) only has one circle in June for 1987 and it is described "It was unusual in being a perfect circle, which most are not."

I quote this merely because of your previous challenge to "do the research".


No, this is merely semantics.

Why are you derailing your own thread on the recent crop circle "formed in 90 minutes" with 20 year old examples.

I can give you some info on 1987, but lack of time this morning prevents me from doing so. However, I will get back asap.

regards

 

[EHocking]

"You are presupposing that they are not man made."

...and you are presupposing that they are, which is a valid hypothesis too. The difference between us, is, that I am not ridiculing your hypothesis or calling it bad science.

I am not about to embark on a research programme to determine the efficacy of my theory. Are you?

So why not let us be content with our common position of different and unproven hypotheses.

No, sorry, you don't get to be so dismissive of my "theory" merely because you can't be bothered to back yours up.

My stance *is* supported by evidence and yes, I *have* researched the phenomenon of belief that crop circles are something other than man made.

We have oral, written, video and photographic evidence that circles, from the most simple single circle to the more complex designs, can and have been made by people with quite simple tools.

We have agricultural departments the world over concerned about mitigating weather damage to crops. From that we have photographic evidence that weather damage patterns are quite random and does not produce symmetrical circles in crops.

Your "hypothesis" on the other hand is mere speculation that, by your own admission, you can't be bothered to back up with research or evidence.

 

[EHocking]

Nice work EHocking. You obviously know more about these types of cameras than I do so thanks for the analysis. Whatever they did, the only evidence the showed on the web site (the one with the "incredible" information) was a black photo that showed nothing.

Thanks, I'm only an enthusiastic amateur, but camera knowledge or not, their "report" is full of contradictions about the sequence of events and as has been pointed out, the "evidence" they present - well, isn't evidence. None of the points they raise is supported by any of the examples given in their report.

 

[Cuddles]

"perfect geometric patterns" are probably derived from hoaxes, and for me, these are beyond the scope of my interest in this subject. If you read my last post, you will read an example of a circle not in the middle of a field, but overlapping the hedge bank and ditch.

If you accept that a percentage of the single circles are naturally formed, then atmospherics is one likely candidate for the cause. If you don't accept this, and you feel that ALL circles are man-made, then we can only have a fruitless discussion.

The only thing I will accept is evidence. The vast majority of crop circles are known to be man-made. No other cause has ever been shown for any of the remainder. If you have anything more than speculation, feel free to present it.

 

[EHocking]

If you're interested, I just made a blog post about these new crop circles.

Richard - can I suggest you ignore the distorted photos that show oval instead of circles in this formation. It's merely that - perspective.

How about going after the "fact" that Terje states that it is physically impossible for humans to have create such large ovals. Having also studied civil engineering, he's talking out of his hat about oval tracing on the ground.

Here's your debunk evidence, a hoaxed crop "circle" that has 3 ovals - the largest measuring 87m.
http://bbc1000.tripod.com/sexsmith/

If any croppie claims that that one isn't man made....

 

[Locknar]

How about going after the "fact" that Terje states that it is physically impossible for humans to have create such large ovals. Having also studied civil engineering, he's talking out of his hat about oval tracing on the ground.

But it is impossible for humans to create large ovals; I read that on the Internet once, so it must be true

BTW - Great write up on the camera's; as I mentioned before, I found it really "odd" that the supposed EMP left everything working fine other then eliminating the ability to film at night - what are the odds of that I wonder *lol*

 

[EHocking]

But it is impossible for humans to create large ovals; I read that on the Internet once, so it must be true

BTW - Great write up on the camera's; as I mentioned before, I found it really "odd" that the supposed EMP left everything working fine other then eliminating the ability to film at night - what are the odds of that I wonder *lol*

I've just had another look at this report and am becoming more and more convinced that these people are not being completely honest with their evidence.

And I have data to back up that claim, you see, the two photos that were supposedly taken at about 3:20am have the EXIF information preserved in them. Briefly EXIF info gives you details of how the image was taken by the camera. The salient camera settings for both photos are at the end of this post.

I'm not going to try to get into technical discussions of whether the camera (a Sony Cybershot from the EXIF) could have taken the photos - 30sec exposure seems reasonable, I want to look at the date and time stamp on the photos. Note that EXIF data can be edited, but I don't believe it has, for the reasons I'll lay out below, but chiefly, they were edited in Adobe Photoshop CS2 on a Macintosh as again shown by the EXIF data:
Photo1
Software - Adobe Photoshop CS2 Macintosh
DateTime - 2007:07:19 00:03:55
Photo2
Software - Adobe Photoshop CS2 Macintosh
DateTime - 2007:07:19 00:05:16

Onto the photos themselves and what was claimed about them.

This is the URL to the first one and it's description in the report.
http://www.earthfiles.com/Images/news/U/UKEastField135DSC04195.jpg

Above: Terje Toftenes enhanced this digital image taken around 3:20 AM,

twelve minutes after the big flash of light. Shadow is near center of image.

The EXIF data shows that this photo was taken at :
DateTimeOriginal - 2007:07:07 00:23:50
DateTimeDigitized - 2007:07:07 00:23:50

Notice that Terje has enhanced the JPEG - thus all the noise. Since there was only a quarter moon that night - the illumination from it is about 0.01 lux. (Hey, remember that light-sensitive SOny video camera? Rated to 1 lux - no wonder the frames were black)

OK. So perhaps the clock was not set on the camera properly? I can accept that, but it is not that discrepancy that interests me. Let's consider the second photo and especially the comment that I have bolded.
http://www.earthfiles.com/Images/news/U/UKEastField320DSC04197.jpg

Below: Another non-enhanced frame taken a few minutes later that clearly shows the huge formation in the East Field, Alton Priors, Wiltshire, with the clump of trees atop Woodborough Hill near center of horizon.

The EXIF data shows that this photo was taken at :
DateTimeOriginal - 2007:07:07 02:51:30
DateTimeDigitized - 2007:07:07 02:51:30

The second photo was NOT taken a few minutes later, but 3 HOURS later.

Supposition. Let's assume that the first photo WAS taken at 3:20am.

Why is it that the next photo, supposedly taken minutes later is so much better exposed, shows more detail, shows much less noise from reciprocity and does not require enhancing?

Because if it was actually taken 3 hours after the first AND we accept that the first photo WAS taken at 3:20, the second photo was shot one hour after sunrise on that day.

So. Is this incompetence or misrepresentation of data?

I'll let you decide - but I have a definite opinion on the veracity of this report.

Oh, and my thought that none of the EXIF data has been manipulated?

1. Would YOU leave the times so different if you knew how to edit EXIF data and were using these photos as PROOF? I don't think so

2. The aerial photos by Lucy Pringle also have the EXIF data preserved. At least the date/time on her Canon EOS seems to be ballpark, and were resized for the report about 23 minutes after the others.

Here are the camera settings for both photos - they are identical.

ExposureTime - 30 seconds
FNumber - 2.50
ExposureProgram - Shutter priority
ISOSpeedRatings - 400
ExifVersion - 0220
ComponentsConfiguration - YCbCr
CompressedBitsPerPixel - 2 (bits/pixel)
ExposureBiasValue - 0.00
MaxApertureValue - F 2.04
Flash - Not fired
FocalLength - 9.70 mm
ExifImageWidth - 504
ExifImageHeight - 378
FileSource - DSC - Digital still camera
SceneType - A directly photographed image
CustomRendered - Normal process
ExposureMode - Auto
White Balance - Auto
SceneCaptureType - Standard

 

[RichardR]

Thanks, I'm only an enthusiastic amateur, but camera knowledge or not, their "report" is full of contradictions about the sequence of events and as has been pointed out, the "evidence" they present - well, isn't evidence. None of the points they raise is supported by any of the examples given in their report.

Agreed. Feel free to add your comments to the comments section of the blog if you wish. I think your observations about the cameras used etc would be of interest to general blog readers.

Edited to add:

Especially the new info about the EXIF data.

 

[RichardR]

Richard - can I suggest you ignore the distorted photos that show oval instead of circles in this formation. It's merely that - perspective.

Oh I know. I was pointing out that the person being quoted had no way of saying these were perfect circles when viewed from the air, as he had no photos to show anything like that. IOW he just made it up.

Interesting circle you linked to, though.

 

[Explorer]

No, sorry, you don't get to be so dismissive of my "theory" merely because you can't be bothered to back yours up.

My stance *is* supported by evidence and yes, I *have* researched the phenomenon of belief that crop circles are something other than man made.

We have oral, written, video and photographic evidence that circles, from the most simple single circle to the more complex designs, can and have been made by people with quite simple tools.

We have agricultural departments the world over concerned about mitigating weather damage to crops. From that we have photographic evidence that weather damage patterns are quite random and does not produce symmetrical circles in crops.

Your "hypothesis" on the other hand is mere speculation that, by your own admission, you can't be bothered to back up with research or evidence.

"No, sorry, you don't get to be so dismissive of my "theory" merely because you can't be bothered to back yours up."

No need to apologise, as I have never been dismissive of the likelyhood that the vast majority of circles are man-made, and I am surprised that you haven't understood that from my previous posts.

The effect of wind and indeed, rain damage to crops, is well known and understood, including by me, would you believe, as I live in a rural area and observe it on a daily basis first-hand.

As I have said repeatedly above, it is almost impossible to separate out hoaxes from possible genuine and naturally formed single circles. It is not a question of me or anyone else, not "bothering" to find evidence, it is a question of that evidence now being confused and distorted by mischief-makers intent on a self-indulgent massaging of their own frustrated artistic egos.

I posted a report of two witnesses claiming to have actually experienced a single circle being formed at close quarters. They could also be fraudsters, of course, and I fully accept that. However, the fact that fraud can take place, and most often does, does not negate the possibility that the original phenomena was natural occurring.

Your sources on 1987 UK circles do seem incomplete, so I will scan and post the picture of the "offset" single circle I referred to above, that was formed in a field of rape seed in that year. The circle overlaps into an old hedge bank and ditch. Now this again is not conclusive proof that this particular circle was naturally formed, but it does make it less likely to be faked, for the obvious reasons. Hopefully, I should have time tomorrow, so watch this space.

 

[EHocking]

"No, sorry, you don't get to be so dismissive of my "theory" merely because you can't be bothered to back yours up."

No need to apologise,

Don't be so disingenuous, you know full well that the "No, Sorry" was to interrupt you, not an apology from me. It was in response to your statement,

"So why not let us be content with our common position of different and unproven hypotheses."

So, no, let us NOT be content with our common position. I'm quite prepared to provide evidence to support my stance.
The point of my "No, sorry..." was that, just because you are unwilling or unable to support your stance, it does not automatically dismiss my point of view.

as I have never been dismissive of the likelyhood that the vast majority of circles are man-made, and I am surprised that you haven't understood that from my previous posts.

Ah, obfuscation now.

I assure you that I have no problem understanding your posts...

 

[EHocking]

Agreed. Feel free to add your comments to the comments section of the blog if you wish. I think your observations about the cameras used etc would be of interest to general blog readers.

Edited to add:

Especially the new info about the EXIF data.

Another interesting thing I found while trying to get more info on this report. A number of posters on other forums, bleevers by the look of their previous posts, are less than trustful of the author of the report at Earthfiles. Apparently the shine has gone off her star. Looks like the discrepancies spotted in her current report are not once offs.

Here's one profile of her: http://www.ufowatchdog.com/hall5.html

Note that the author of the report that is doing the rounds was NOT one of the witnesses, but *appears* to have interviewed them. The Norwegian expert distributed (sold?) DVDs of HIS presentation of the visuals at a "press conference" on the 19th in Alton Barnes.

 

[EHocking]

Agreed. Feel free to add your comments to the comments section of the blog if you wish. I think your observations about the cameras used etc would be of interest to general blog readers.

Edited to add:

Especially the new info about the EXIF data.

Some more contradictions to ponder.

http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/headlines/display.var.1559662.0.the_crop_circle_mystery.php
The strongest evidence so far that some crop circles are not man made was presented to a choice gathering at the Coronation Hall in Alton Barnes yesterday.

He was joined by Gary King and his partner Paul Presdee-Jones, who had also decided to climb to the top of Knap Hill, near Alton Barnes, on a spur-of-the-moment whim.

They had already met the previous evening at the "croppies" cafe at Cherhill, near Calne, when Mr Keech had become rather excited about a DVD that was being shown about lights that sometimes accompany the appearance of crop circles.

My bolding. According to this they all met the previous evening and talked exitedly about crop circles. Then "on a whim" met up with him the next night on Knapp Hill?

What does the earthfile report have to say about it?

http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1288&category=Environment

Gary told me in a July 11, 2007, phone interview.

On Friday, July 6, 2007, he woke up in his Wales home around 3:30 AM and could not go back to sleep. So, he got up, had some coffee and toast, watched the sunrise and decided he had to go to Wiltshire to see if any new crop formations had emerged. Traveling with him was his girlfriend, Paula Presdee-Jones.

So was he in Wales or in Cherhill that night?

WHY WAS MR. KEECH ARMED WITH SO MANY CAMERAS ON THE NIGHT OF JULY 6 TO JULY 7, 2007?

I met up with him for the first time at the Silent Circle Café during that day.

Recollections of this event certainly seem to be confused and contradictory.

Doesn't instill confidence in the facts as they have been recalled.

Apparently the videographer, King, has yet to present his side of it. One announcement mentioned March next year, but possibly, September this year.

Why is it that we are only getting second hand accounts of what croppies are claiming is the greatest evidence for a crop circle being formed in 90 minutes? Not only second hand, but, frankly, second rate if not downright dishonest.

 

[EHocking]

I have just sent this email to the earthfiles editor and author of the report we are discussing:

I'm writing to get some clarifications on an inconsistency in your report on the East Field crop circle.

The inconsistency is to do with the two photos supposedly taken at 3:20am:

http://www.earthfiles.com/Images/news/U/UKEastField135DSC04195.jpg
Above: Terje Toftenes enhanced this digital image taken around 3:20 AM,
twelve minutes after the big flash of light. Shadow is near center of image.
Below: Another non-enhanced frame taken a few minutes later that clearly shows
the huge formation in the East Field, Alton Priors, Wiltshire, with the clump
of trees atop Woodborough Hill near center of horizon.
http://www.earthfiles.com/Images/news/U/UKEastField320DSC04197.jpg

Examining the EXIF data of these photographs, we see that the first one was shot at:

DateTimeOriginal - 2007:07:07 00:23:50

Now I realise that the camera's date and time may not have been set properly, but this photo is certainly NOT evidence of the state of the field at 3:20am.

Also, the 2nd photo's EXIF data is:

DateTimeOriginal - 2007:07:07 02:51:30

The caption accompanying it states that it was taken "a few minutes later", but the EXIF data shows that:
1. if the Date/Time setting is correct, it was NOT taken a few minutes after 3.20
2. the 2nd photo was taken nearly 2 and a half HOURS after the first photo.

Could you explain these inconsistencies - especially the 2-1/2 hour difference in time that you claim was only minutes?

 

[EHocking]

And this one,

Further to my previous email, I have the following questions regarding your report.

It is claimed that at 1:35am that,
"He [Keech] picked up his image-enhancing camera and scanned around the East Field which we could see very clearly through his equipment. We could see the tramlines. He scanned across (the wheat) and we could see there was a field of rapeseed next to (the wheat) and we could see the road and everything very clearly. That was recorded and indexed at 1:35 AM, Saturday, July 7, 2007. "

As anyone with a camcorder would be aware, the CCD in the camera is of higher resolution than the LCD screen and the viewfinder. If you can see an image "through his equipment", an image should have been recorded.

Instead of presenting the image-enhancing photos, though, you present as evidence, the 3 black frames taken with the CCTV camera. Those frames,
1. contradict the statement that an image could be seen "very clearly through his equipment", since nothing is recorded
2. does not prove that there was no crop circle already in the field - as you have not shown one image of the field before the circle was supposedly formed.

Secondly, the IR camera evidence.

If we are to believe that the 2nd frame you present as evidence of post-emp trauma to the equipment is from this IR camera, it is evident that an image of the field *was* being recorded. At least up to 4 hours before the supposed flash.

Why have you not presented IR photos from 1:30am or earlier that shows that the field was empty of crop circles, when this camera seemed to have been capable of recording such evidence and WAS recording up to 4 hours before the 3:08am "pulse"?

I find that the whole claim of this crop circle being formed in 90 minutes to be quite unsubstantiated. None of the evidence in your report shows the state of East Field before 3:20am where the first digital still photo was taken.

What is the evidence for this circle being formed in 90 minutes?

 

[Locknar]

EHocknig - I'll be interested to hear what you get back. If anything, I'm sure it will be double talk, explaing how you are wrong.

 

[EHocking]

EHocknig - I'll be interested to hear what you get back. If anything, I'm sure it will be double talk, explaing how you are wrong.

Well, I don't wish to preempt any exchanges I might have with Linda Moulton Howe.

I'll keep the forum informed of anything I get back.

 

[Explorer]

Don't be so disingenuous, you know full well that the "No, Sorry" was to interrupt you, not an apology from me. It was in response to your statement,

"So why not let us be content with our common position of different and unproven hypotheses."

So, no, let us NOT be content with our common position. I'm quite prepared to provide evidence to support my stance.
The point of my "No, sorry..." was that, just because you are unwilling or unable to support your stance, it does not automatically dismiss my point of view.


Ah, obfuscation now.

I assure you that I have no problem understanding your posts...

I would probably agree with most, if not all of your evidence that supports the thesis that the vast majority of crop circles are man-made, so consequently, unlike you of mine, I do NOT dismiss your view out of hand. I don't know how more clearly I can say this.

If you belong to the school of thought that asserts that ALL circles are man-made, whether simple or complex, then that is the point when we divert from total agreement.

I will post the photograph as promised above, but it will not be conclusive proof that it was formed naturally, and therefore would not satisfy you, or me, of being irrefutable evidence. That I feel is beyond the realms of the possible due to the hoax element that distorts any meaningful research.

I took an interest back in the eighties in the subject before it was widely publicised and before complex circles that were most obviously fashioned by human hand, started appearing. Those that attempted serious research then (not me though, I merely read the work of others) were subsequently thwarted by the hoaxers, and ridiculed. Whenever that point is reached, whether a serious subject or not, science no longer can have useful role to play, and it has to move on.

 

[strathmeyer]

Are kerikiwi, Explorer, EHocking, and tbm all socks? What are the odds that four posters having a discussion will all concurrently make the same quoting mistake? Don't you people read your posts after posting? Or are we blaming the forums software?