Crop circles - eyewitness evidence in!

[Tez]

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."

Yeah - like I was talking about "belief".

If you did educate yourself (or perhaps read the posts) you'd find there are good reasons of physics to doubt the vortex hypothesis, which is very different from "well, we haven't yet observed such a thing, therefore it isn't possible" isnt it?

I have read several supposed "scientific papers" on supposed differences between vortex and manmade circles and they were nonsense. If you would like to point me to some ones which are not I would be happy to look at them.

 

[Yoink]

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.

Locknar, if you could show me where I've "leaped" to any conclusion at all, I'd be grateful. You seem to have difficulty in letting go of your mistaken belief that you are confronting confirmed croppies and fighting the good fight against foolish superstition, so I'll try to spell this out very simply:

1/ Explorer has not claimed that any crop circle ever was formed by anything other than a hoaxer.

2/ I have not claimed that any crop circle ever was formed by anything other than a hoaxer.

3/ Explorer has suggested that it might be possible that some hitherto unknown meteorological phenomenon creates some small proportion of non-complex crop circles.

4/ You have asserted that this is impossible (which both I and Explorer readily concede may indeed be the case)--but so far you have provided no evidence or argument to support that claim.

 

[Yoink]

Yeah - like I was talking about "belief".

If you did educate yourself (or perhaps read the posts) you'd find there are good reasons of physics to doubt the vortex hypothesis, which is very different from "well, we haven't yet observed such a thing, therefore it isn't possible" isnt it?

If you don't want to talk about belief, don't use the word.

I've read the entire thread--I've seen not a single argument (based on "physics" or any other branch of science) that leads to the conclusion that some kind of meteorological phenomenon that would result in something like the formation of a crop circle is inherently impossible. The only arguments made have been that it would be very unlikely (based on historical comparison, not physical principles) for a tornado to be the cause.

I have read several supposed "scientific papers" on supposed differences between vortex and manmade circles and they were nonsense. If you would like to point me to some ones which are not I would be happy to look at them.

Oh, what a beautiful example of a complete non-sequitur. I may use this some day teaching logical argument to my students. I say "you haven't proven that X is impossible." Your response is "well, some people have made really bad arguments as to why X would be possible." Can you spot the problem? I do hope, for your sake, that you can.

Again, you are all committing the error of assuming that you're arguing with proponents of a belief-system. But both I, and--as is quite clear from his posts--Explorer are more than willing to concede that it could well be the case that no crop circle was ever formed naturally. All Explorer ever maintained was the utterly modest hypothesis that some crop circles might have been produced by natural processes that we do not currently understand.

 

[Locknar]

I’ve offered logically coherent arguments lots of times

Could there be a otherwise thus far unknown meteorological event causing crop circles…an analogy would be I’ve never seen a unicorn; granted, there is no evidence to support they ever existed other then in story and myth…but I mean, they COULD exist right? There could be heard of them right now, running around the rain forest, or in the UK for that matter….

The point is, lack of credible evidence (which “Bigfooters” are famous for) is not in itself a valid argument of support.

As to “unsupported by argument or evidence”; lack of knowledge/understanding in a subject area does not equate to “unsupported” evidence; that is a intellectually dishonest argument.

A valid argument would be to state based on your knowledge base of meteorology, you are unable to draw the same conclusion, and then explain why (ie. do not know enough about meteorology, are a expert and disagree, etc.).

Your last post, you mention the hypothesis that some crop circles may have been produced by natural processes that we do not currently understand; sounds a bit like my unicorn anaology on the surface....care to elaborate? What type of event might this be...what might its properties be...when might they occur/form...etc.?

 

[Yoink]

I’ve offered logically coherent arguments lots of times 

Could there be a otherwise thus far unknown meteorological event causing crop circles…an analogy would be I’ve never seen a unicorn; granted, there is no evidence to support they ever existed other then in story and myth…but I mean, they COULD exist right? There could be heard of them right now, running around the rain forest, or in the UK for that matter….

The point is, lack of credible evidence (which “Bigfooters” are famous for) is not in itself a valid argument of support.

As to “unsupported by argument or evidence”; lack of knowledge/understanding in a subject area does not equate to “unsupported” evidence; that is a intellectually dishonest argument.

A valid argument would be to state based on your knowledge base of meteorology, you are unable to draw the same conclusion, and then explain why (ie. do not know enough about meteorology, are a expert and disagree, etc.).

O.K.--none of the above sentences (if one could call any of them an actual complete sentence) makes sense. But if you think you've offered a single conclusive scientific argument that demonstrates that it is impossible for any meteorological phenomenon to create anything that looks like a crop circle I'd be grateful if you'd repeat it here, or tell me in which of your posts it appears. Please be advised, though, that "we haven't observed a tornado which has done this" would not qualify as such an argument.

 

[Locknar]

Yoink - Just because nobody has ever seen a unicorn, that does not mean they do not exist right now...roaming free in wild in the UK.

You are simply doing what the “Bigfooters” do; ie. “just because nobody has ever produced credible evidence they exist does not mean they don’t”. Talk about valid, or invalid inductive leaps….yikes!

 

[Yoink]

Could there be a otherwise thus far unknown meteorological event causing crop circles…an analogy would be I’ve never seen a unicorn; granted, there is no evidence to support they ever existed other then in story and myth…but I mean, they COULD exist right? There could be heard of them right now, running around the rain forest, or in the UK for that matter….

What would you make of a scientist in the early C20th who said "the giant squid cannot possibly exist. After all, we know that most sailors stories of giant sea creatures are simply tall tales. We know that whalers and other fishing boats have been out on the ocean for hundreds of years and have never brought back a specimen for scientific analysis. I have, therefore, proven the impossibility of such a creature's existence." That scientist would have made exactly the argument (in logical form) that you've made thus far with regard to Explorer's hypothesis.

The point is, lack of credible evidence (which “Bigfooters” are famous for) is not in itself a valid argument of support.

What the hell has that got to do with anything? Who ever said it did? Nobody here, on either side, is making an argument from "lack of evidence."

As to “unsupported by argument or evidence”; lack of knowledge/understanding in a subject area does not equate to “unsupported” evidence; that is a intellectually dishonest argument.

Again, this is gobbledegook. The only way to make sense of it would be that you're saying because you don't actually know much about meteorology, the fact that you haven't made a good argument to disprove Explorer's hypothesis doesn't actually mean that such an argument couldn't be made. That would be true enough, but as you're usually willing to make an argument from authority based solely on your own authority I find it hard to imagine that that is what you mean.

A valid argument would be to state based on your knowledge base of meteorology, you are unable to draw the same conclusion, and then explain why (ie. do not know enough about meteorology, are a expert and disagree, etc.).

And, again, gobbledegook. A valid argument would be a valid argument--based on its own internal coherence. I can't offer an argument against your "conclusion" that there can be no possible meteorological origin for any crop circles because all you have offered is the "conclusion"--you haven't actually made an argument in support of that conclusion.

Your last post, you mention the hypothesis that some crop circles may have been produced by natural processes that we do not currently understand; sounds a bit like my unicorn anaology on the surface....care to elaborate? What type of event might this be...what might its properties be...when might they occur/form...etc.?

Explorer's hypothesis (his, not mine--I'm simply an outside observer of an unfair argument) is the utterly modest one that some meteorological origin may be possible. You claim that it is impossible. He doesn't argue that it must be possible, merely that it may be possible. As such, there is no call upon him to say "what its properties might be" or "when they might occur" etc. That would be like the giant squid skeptic saying to another scientist who has an open mind on the question "well then, if there is such a thing as a giant squid, what does it feed on?" Obviously you can't know until you do catch one--just as you can't know what form this unknown meteorological phenomenon takes until it is observed.

On the other hand, you are advancing the far more sweeping and strong claim--that it is in fact impossible for any such phenomenon to occur. As such it is incumbent upon you to present evidence for that impossibility.

 

[Yoink]

Yoink - Just because nobody has ever seen a unicorn, that does not mean they do not exist right now...roaming free in wild in the UK.

You are simply doing what the “Bigfooters” do; ie. “just because nobody has ever produced credible evidence they exist does not mean they don’t”. Talk about valid, or invalid inductive leaps….yikes!

I take it that the fact that you've resorted to this (frankly wacky) argument means that you concede that you aren't actually able to advance a solid argument as to the impossibility of the phenomenon? I mean, if you did have an argument that proved that such a phenomenon was physically impossible it would surely be a lot easier to just put that forward than to strain after comparisons with Bigfoot wackjobs or (hitherto unsuspected) Unicorn believers.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

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

Just checked out your blog entry. Very nice. I had this to say about it.

I have serious doubts about the timing of the second photo. It is claimed to have been taken at 3:20 am in England just a couple weeks ago. I live near Philadelphia, which is further south than England. I leave for work at 4 in the morning, and it is still pitch black. That photo shows pre-dawn light, and I would estimate it was taken at about 5 am.

 

[Explorer]

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

Ahem Cuddles! Are you really cuddly by the way?

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

The evidence will come from research and experimentation there is no second stage, only the first and the last.

As for me, I am still in the hypothesis stage. Research would need to be carried out to test the efficacy of that hypothesis, then in tandem, experimentation and observation. The evidence then may or may not be forthcoming, or more damningly, send me back again to re-adjust the original hypothesis.

If you already have evidence from someone else's research that I have overlooked that more immediately sends me back to "drawing board", then by all means tell me where I can find it. If you have not, then you can still reject the hypothesis, but this would be out of hand and without justification.

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.

 

[Explorer]

"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?"

Actually in "Circular Evidence" there is a photograph that could be the result of uplift in the core of a vortex, causing a fluttering effect in the wheat crop, where it appears that some elements of the corn have been uplifted. I shall scan it and post it in due course for your comment.

 

[Explorer]

As for the unicorn, a horse with a single horn in the centre of its head and cloven feet? No but this unicorn certainly did exist:

" .....the "Giant Unicorn" known to scientists as Elasmotherium, a huge Eurasian rhinoceros native to the steppes, south of the range of the woolly rhinoceros of Ice Age Europe. Elasmotherium looked little like a horse, but it had a large single horn in its forehead. It seems to have become extinct about the same time as the rest of the glacial age megafauna.2

An Elasmortherium by any other name is still a unicorn.

 

[Yoink]

Here is a photograph showing tornado damage in an Oklahoma wheatfield. As you can see, there are sharp divisions between the upright wheat and the flattened wheat. So we can take Locknar's claim that it is impossible for wind to flatten some stalks while leaving adjacent stalks upright to be disproven.

At this URL: http://www.torro.org.uk/torro/php/photo.php?photo_id=244&start=0 you will find a photograph of a tornado track in a wheat field in Dunstable, Devon, UK. The track is extremely well-defined, with no sign of "collateral damage" beyond the confines of the track. Unless this photo is doctored, or unless the track itself is a hoax (I have no information about the "Tornado and Storm Research Organisation" where this photograph is hosted other than what they give themselves--they don't look like a bunch of kooks, but it is always possible) I think we can say that Locknar's claim that collateral damage makes it impossible for a tornado to make a well-defined shape in a wheatfield is also disproven. Now, would it have been impossible for that tornado to form, drop down, describe a tight circle, and then dissipate rather than moving directly across the field? I don't know--but nothing in Locknar's (or anyone else's) previous posts has offered a reason as to why that would be impossible.

 

[J. Arthur Hastur]

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

 

[Locknar]

Yoink - I dunno....from the posted photograph, looks like there are lots of stalks bent or otherwise leaning in a certain direction outside of the path of the event, so I am not sure what you have "disproven".

Ok...so this is what I have thus far, correct as needed:

1) Some crop circles are, or have been, found to be "man made"
2) Some crop circles have not been shown to be hoaxes
3) There may be some type of unknown/undocumented weather phenomena that would case #2

WRT the overhead photo...I don't see any people in that town, so it must be diserted, or otherwise abandoned? Or could it be the overhead photo lacks any meaningful detail?

I suggest that if the overhead photo showed any detail, that outside of the actual touch down path you would find "collateral damage"; ie. stalks that are bent, or otherwise leaning, in the direction of the tornados path.

Again, I'm not sure what you've disproven with a photo that lacks significant detail. However, under that sites FAQ section is a excellent discussion wrt tornadoes, how and why they form, and how the "operate".

 

[Yoink]

Yoink - I dunno....from the posted photograph, looks like there are lots of stalks bent or otherwise leaning in a certain direction outside of the path of the event, so I am not sure what you have "disproven".

You claimed in an earlier post that wind could not flatten some stalks while leaving adjacent stalks unflattened. This photo disproves that claim. I never said that this photo proves that wind can cause crop circles, or that this photo showed a crop circle.

Ok...so this is what I have thus far, correct as needed:

1) Some crop circles are, or have been, found to be "man made"
2) Some crop circles have not been shown to be hoaxes
3) There may be some type of unknown/undocumented weather phenomena that would case #2

1) Correct (we could happily agree, I'm sure, on changing that to "the vast majority of crop circles are, or have been found to be, "man made").
2) Well, presumptively--that is, having done no research whatsoever into the question I have no idea if there is an instance of a crop circle that has been examined and left examiners genuinely unsure as to its origin.
3) Yes--this is the hypothesis that is under discussion. All that is claimed for the hypothesis is that it is possible (i.e., potentially worthy of further examination), not that it is probable or that it has been in any way proven.

WRT the overhead photo...I don't see any people in that town, so it must be diserted, or otherwise abandoned? Or could it be the overhead photo lacks any meaningful detail?

Either the link isn't working for you, or you're misreading the photograph. There is a "town" in the photo, but only at the top edge of the photo far in the distance. What the photo shows is a series of fields with a very neatly traced tornado track running across it. The track is sharply drawn. This proves that it is possible for a tornado to draw sharp, not chaotic, patterns in a wheat field. It does not prove that they can draw circular patterns, but nor have you offered any evidence to suggest that this would be impossible.

I suggest that if the overhead photo showed any detail, that outside of the actual touch down path you would find "collateral damage"; ie. stalks that are bent, or otherwise leaning, in the direction of the tornados path.

So? Are you saying that a naturally occurring crop-circle that happened to have a few imperfections around its edges wouldn't qualify? If so, you've set the bar so high for what counts as a "crop circle" that I would have to agree with you that anything that would qualify in your view as a "crop circle" would have to be man-made. But that would also seem to be a question-begging maneuver: "All crop-circles that are so completely perfect that they could only be the product of human ingenuity are clearly the product of human ingenuity"--big whoop!

Again, I'm not sure what you've disproven with a photo that lacks significant detail.

I've disproven your claim that it is impossible for tornadoes to leave clearly legible (not chaotically random) paths of damage in a wheat field. That was what required to be demonstrated--or, to kick it old school: Q.E.D.

But, of course, you have irrefutable proof that it is physically impossible for any meteorological effect of any kind whatsoever, known or unknown, to trace clearly legible patterns in wheat. I'm sure you'll be getting around to posting that any minute now, won't you?

 

[Locknar]

The “claim” is that a vortex (ie. tornado, dust devil, etc.) would not flatten some stalks and leave others untouched, or otherwise unaltered; ie. adjacent stalks would be bent (though not flattened), or otherwise lean, in a given direction.

The photo you provided shows a tornado touchdown path, with stalks along the edge of that path “altered” (ie. bent, or otherwise leaning).

The overhead photo, while showing a tornado path, lacks sufficient detail wrt adjacent stalks. I would suggest it offers no “proof” either way if we are discussing adjacent stalks; the link I provided earlier in this thread, showing overheads of a tornado path, was taken at a lower altitude (or with higher magnification) in fact shows adjacent stalks bent, or otherwise leaning, in a given direction, outside of the tornado's path.

“…naturally occurring crop-circle that happened to have a few imperfections around its edges wouldn’t qualify”; just the opposite. A naturally occurring crop-circle (or path, from the overhead photo) would have a defined path as you suggest (and I don’t recall ever denying; again, the link I provided earlier in this thread shows that as well) – but there would also be “imperfections”; adjacent stalks would be bent, or otherwise lean, in a given direction.

As you suggest, perhaps there is a bit of grey area wrt how we define what is a “crop circle”? Certainly there are the complex geometric patterns, though I’d go with a much more basic definition – a simple circle, or oval, found in a field.

If we agree on the definition of “crop circle”, it is the lack of imperfection that eliminates natural occurrence. You’ll note in the pictures provided in the initial post that Explorer posted….the complex pattern aside, the two pictures under the “4AM – Gary King and Paula Presdee-Jones…” section show what I’d call a perfect pattern, a lack of any imperfection (ie. “collateral damage”, adjacent stalks showing effects of the event) along the edge of the circle.

A naturally occurring “crop circle” would have imperfections

 

[Yoink]

As you suggest, perhaps there is a bit of grey area wrt how we define what is a “crop circle”? Certainly there are the complex geometric patterns, though I’d go with a much more basic definition – a simple circle, or oval, found in a field.

Absolutely everyone in this discussion has agreed that complex geometric patterns can only be the product of human hoaxers.

If we agree on the definition of “crop circle”, it is the lack of imperfection that eliminates natural occurrence. You’ll note in the pictures provided in the initial post that Explorer posted….the complex pattern aside, the two pictures under the “4AM – Gary King and Paula Presdee-Jones…” section show what I’d call a perfect pattern, a lack of any imperfection (ie. “collateral damage”, adjacent stalks showing effects of the event) along the edge of the circle.

Wow, after all this time (and after my having pointed out over and over) you still don't realize that Explorer had nothing to do with posting the Gary King stuff and offered no opinion whatsoever as to the possibility of their being naturally produced. All this time you've been attacking a simple misconception! Amazing.

Explorer never suggested that a naturally occurring crop circle would necessarily have perfectly neat edges. Indeed, he has suggested that the ones he thinks more likely to be possibly natural would have a somewhat tousled appearance in the middle. For myself, I think a perfectly crisp border around 360 degrees would be very strong evidence, by itself, of human origin--but I have no way of proving that. In any case, the idea that in order to count as a crop circle it would have to be exactly like the ones the hoaxers produce is clearly irrelevant to Explorer's argument, or to my defense of it.

A naturally occurring “crop circle” would have imperfections

Well, that's nice--after all these pages it seems we come down to a mere quibble over terminology. You no longer appear to be claiming that "naturally occurring crop circles" are physically impossible, simply that they wouldn't be as tidy as the ones the hoaxers produce. Who said they would be?

 

[Locknar]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Tez]

If you don't want to talk about belief, don't use the word.

I didnt. I used the word conjecture.

I've read the entire thread--I've seen not a single argument (based on "physics" or any other branch of science) that leads to the conclusion that some kind of meteorological phenomenon that would result in something like the formation of a crop circle is inherently impossible. The only arguments made have been that it would be very unlikely (based on historical comparison, not physical principles) for a tornado to be the cause.

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.

Oh, what a beautiful example of a complete non-sequitur. I may use this some day teaching logical argument to my students. I say "you haven't proven that X is impossible." Your response is "well, some people have made really bad arguments as to why X would be possible." Can you spot the problem? I do hope, for your sake, that you can.

No, my argument is simply that I, a fallible human being, cannot see a plausible physical mechanism; I've discounted the speculative mechanisms others have proposed (so far) based on my understanding of how the universe operates, and I have yet to see any empirical evidence to suggest that was erroneous.

Again, you are all committing the error of assuming that you're arguing with proponents of a belief-system.

Riiiiiiiiight. Where exactly did I accuse you of holding this vortex hypothesis as a belief system? Oh yeah - thats right, I never did. Seriously matey, learn to read, then learn to comprehend, then learn to write. Its the only way intelligent conversation can ensue.

But both I, and--as is quite clear from his posts--Explorer are more than willing to concede that it could well be the case that no crop circle was ever formed naturally. All Explorer ever maintained was the utterly modest hypothesis that some crop circles might have been produced by natural processes that we do not currently understand.

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*). 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.