What about this crop circle?

[Moss]

And the usual answer to why these psi phenomena don't occur under experimental conditions is "disbelief kills it!". Why exactly is that explanation more probable than "it doesn't work"?

 

[Trent Wray]

And the usual answer to why these psi phenomena don't occur under experimental conditions is "disbelief kills it!". Why exactly is that explanation more probable than "it doesn't work"?

Yeah ... so is there any realistic way to get rid of that excuse as an answer for why a crop circle would be failed to be produced?

Suppose you have a group of crop-circlers situated around the globe, all projecting their energy or whatever at a given point in time, etc and so forth. Settup the experiment so that the point in time is randomly picked by a non-believer, at their disgression ... to limit the negative vibes or whatever. And then have the non-believers scan the globe for formations, etc and so forth.

Or if the believers think they can make one appear in a specific place, scan that area with satellite imaging instead of having a bunch of non-believers haning outside the farm sending all that negative energy

I'm just saying ...

 

[Limbo]

And I would say that humans project all these things onto what ever they wish to believe in, in the same way they have done since they first started to ask questions about the way stuff works and invented religions in order to explain what they didn't know or didn't understand.

That's your just-so story? Ha-ha-ha. No wonder you don't understand what's going on. You think it started with questions and inventions and understanding.

But I also see you're talking yourself round in circles (ironically).
Because the Wall O' Text you posted (and I assume you agree or accept in some way) seems to imply that as circlemakers, we can levitate enabling us to not leave footprints, we can knock over plants with the force of a stomping board and yet delicately bend (without breaking) the stems/nodes at the same as elongating them, whilst balls of light spin wildly around us... and yet at the start of this thread, we couldn't possibly do the work without needing to take a dump or go out in the rain... What gives?

Don't you remember the quote by Paul Randles? Maybe it's an important clue.

"It was purely for our own research purposes. We found on that one, the rapeseed...very brittle, and with rapeseed you would always more or less snap it. As soon as you start pressing it down to the ground. And we also remember removing some of the really damaged crop. Taken with us and disposed of it.

And we saw later that when we looked at photos of that same circle that the rapeseed oil was actually perfectly bent. And wasn't snapped. Like it was when we saw it and made it. This was very sort of intriguing to us.

Almost like something had come and tidied up behind us."

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Most of these so-called "anomalies"--how do they know they're anomalous? I see no statistical comparison to wheat buds or whatever in nearby crops that are not part of a crop circle.

And since they include squashed bugs as "anomalous" (as if you can't squash a bug by stomping on a board), I wonder how many of these "anomalies" are merely descriptions of what happens when you tramp down the crops to make a crop circle.

Earlier someone mentioned some sort of anomalous EMF readings, and I said if there are any, it's the result of using a measuring device with the gain cranked way up and trying to make something out of nothing significant. These "anomalies" Limbo cites are effectively the same thing. If you look extremely close and treat any observation you can make as an "anomaly" without comparing it to any sort of control observation, then you can make something out of nothing.

It's pretty much the same as ghost hunting.

 

[Stray Cat]

That's your just-so story? Ha-ha-ha. No wonder you don't understand what's going on. You think it started with questions and inventions and understanding.

Now that's funny, I seem to remember having to supply you with lots of information regarding the outlandish claims you are making about crop circles. I have been deeply involved with them and have a extensive knowledge of their history, design, construction and the belief mechanisms that drive them and that keep them alive, both as a believer and maker.... But I don't know what's going on?

Don't you remember the quote by Paul Randles? Maybe it's an important clue.

And maybe it's like I already said in my response to the post where you originally quoted Randles.

 

[Toke]

Stray Cat,
Will you forgive me for not believing you have any supernatural powers?

 

[I Ratant]

What does this mean?

What is "humanity's collective unconscious"?

.
I'd wager that the collective unconscious would be a massive jumble of noise, uninterpretable due to the content of ALL those thoughts of ALL those people contributing... There being (so far as known) no common language for us all.
(See Babel, Tower of. )

 

[Stray Cat]

Stray Cat,
Will you forgive me for not believing you have any supernatural powers?

Only if you'll forgive me for not sharing the MDC money when I cite Limbo as a witness to prove to Randi that I have

 

[Toke]

Only if you'll forgive me for not sharing the MDC money when I cite Limbo as a witness to prove to Randi that I have

Fine with me, Good luck you will need it.

 

[Limbo]

And maybe it's like I already said in my response to the post where you originally quoted Randles.

Your response rang hollow to my ears.

Now that's funny, I seem to remember having to supply you with lots of information regarding the outlandish claims you are making about crop circles. I have been deeply involved with them and have a extensive knowledge of their history, design, construction and the belief mechanisms that drive them and that keep them alive, both as a believer and maker.... But I don't know what's going on?

Forgive me, I should explain better. You made a statement about the invention of religion that bothered me. "...Since they first started to ask questions about the way stuff works and invented religions in order to explain what they didn't know or didn't understand." You are doing that right now. You are telling a myth about the way religion started long ago. And your myth is wrong. Religion wasn't invented to explain what they didn't know or understand.

It probably started with the spontaneous shamanic experience of a primitive humanoid, not with asking questions about the 'way stuff works'. It "started" with the first spontaneous shamanic crack-up, and the first psychological efforts to control the unleashed psi of the first shaman through ritual, symbol, taboo. Maybe the response to control psi was a sociological reflex. Psi aided survival - the shaman found food for the tribe, healed the tribe yet had to be controlled because psi can be used for evil. Over time, all mystical traditions evolved from the spontaneous core shamanic experience, and of course you know all religions have a mystical tradition at heart. The various mystical traditions are virtually identical, when you get deep enough, regardless of the exoteric features of a religion.

What does that have to do with crop circles? Maybe a lot. The archetypes of the collective unconscious are the same, whether they appear in a shamanic spirit journey or a crop circle or a fairy tale or in a modern religion like Christianity or whatever. Only the costume of the archetype changes from culture to culture, time to time.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Your response rang hollow to my ears.

As does anything that doesn't fit your predetermined notions.

Forgive me, I should explain better. You made a statement about the invention of religion that bothered me. "...Since they first started to ask questions about the way stuff works and invented religions in order to explain what they didn't know or didn't understand." You are doing that right now. You are telling a myth about the way religion started long ago. And your myth is wrong. Religion wasn't invented to explain what they didn't know or understand.

It probably started with the spontaneous shamanic experience of a primitive humanoid, not with asking questions about the 'way stuff works'. It started with the first shamanic crack-up, and the first psychological efforts to control the unleashed psi of the first shaman through ritual, symbol, taboo. Maybe the response to control psi was a reflex. Psi which aided survival - the shaman found food for the tribe, healed the tribe. Over time, all mystical traditions evolved from the spontaneous core shamanic experience, and of course you know all religions have a mystical tradition at heart. The various mystical traditions are virtually identical, when you get deep enough.

What does that have to do with crop circles? Maybe a lot. The archetypes of the collective unconscious are the same, whether they appear in a shamanic spirit journey or a crop circle or a fairy tale or in a modern religion like Christianity or whatever. Only the costume of the archetype changes from culture to culture, time to time.

There's only one possible response to this:

​

 

[Stray Cat]

Your response rang hollow to my ears.

No surprise there then.

So explain to me how you think we make crop circles without leaving footprints, become invisible, delicately bend individual nodes, go out in the rain without melting, etc?

Perhaps the crop circle researchers are misrepresenting what they find?

Forgive me, I should explain better. You made a statement about the invention of religion that bothered me. "...Since they first started to ask questions about the way stuff works and invented religions in order to explain what they didn't know or didn't understand." You are doing that right now. You are telling a myth about the way religion started long ago. And your myth is wrong. Religion wasn't invented to explain what they didn't know or understand.

It probably started with the spontaneous shamanic experience of a primitive humanoid, not with asking questions about the 'way stuff works'. It started with the first shamanic crack-up, and the first psychological efforts to control the unleashed psi of the first shaman through ritual, symbol, taboo. Maybe the response to control psi was a reflex. Psi which aided survival - the shaman found food for the tribe, healed the tribe. Over time, all mystical traditions evolved from the spontaneous core shamanic experience, and of course you know all religions have a mystical tradition at heart. The various mystical traditions are virtually identical, when you get deep enough.

What does that have to do with crop circles? Maybe a lot. The archetypes of the collective unconscious are the same, whether they appear in a shamanic spirit journey or a crop circle or a fairy tale or in a modern religion like Christianity or whatever. Only the costume of the archetype changes from culture to culture, time to time.

My spiritual belief is that Mad made God, not that God made man but It's a pointless discussion as no proof can be provided either way.

 

[Moss]

C. G. Jung would be proud. I guess.

 

[Limbo]

No surprise there then.

So explain to me how you think we make crop circles without leaving footprints, become invisible, delicately bend individual nodes, go out in the rain without melting, etc?

The collective mind-over-matter ability of humanity, acting through an archetype.

Perhaps the crop circle researchers are misrepresenting what they find?

Many or most researchers seem to interpret evidence in a way consistent with the ET hypothesis, right?

If so they are wrong, as are those who interpret evidence in a way consistent with the hoax hypothesis.

But misrepresent? I can't say. To say that I would need a before-and-after.

 

[Limbo]

And the usual answer to why these psi phenomena don't occur under experimental conditions is "disbelief kills it!". Why exactly is that explanation more probable than "it doesn't work"?

Why? Well for me there is my personal veridical spontaneous psi experiences and "UFO" experiences. And there is laboratory evidence that disbelief kills psi. IOW, the sheep-goat effect.

 

[Stray Cat]

The collective mind-over-matter ability of humanity, acting through an archetype.

And how would you falsify that hypothesis?

Many or most researchers seem to interpret evidence in a way consistent with the ET hypothesis, right? If so they are wrong, as are those who interpret evidence in a way consistent with the hoax hypothesis.

Researchers interpret evidence... let's just leave it at that.
You are doing the same, but you are in effect two steps removed from the evidence you are interpreting.
I wonder how that could make you right?
You are taking contrived, misrepresented evidence and weaving your belief around it.

 

[Limbo]

And how would you falsify that hypothesis?

I don't know. Maybe you could put together a group of circlemakers like Peter, Paul, and Matthew. Makers who report similar paranormal experiences in the field. See if their sheep-ness overcomes your goat-ness enough for you to experience a paranormal effect for yourself. Maybe you could document a season of circlemaking with such a group, and document any paranormal effects. You do have the contacts, after all.

 

[Limbo]

You are taking contrived, misrepresented evidence and weaving your belief around it.

You have made many accusations against various researchers. Do you have any evidence to support accusations of contrivance?

 

[Stray Cat]

I don't know. Maybe you could put together a group of circlemakers like Peter, Paul, and Matthew. Makers who report similar paranormal experiences in the field. See if their sheep-ness overcomes your goat-ness enough for you to experience a paranormal effect for yourself. Maybe you could document a season of circlemaking with such a group, and document any paranormal effects. You do have the contacts, after all.

I was asking how YOU would falsify it. It's your hypothesis.

 

[Limbo]

I was asking how YOU would falsify it. It's your hypothesis.

I would falsify it the same way, if I had the contacts you have. But since I can't do that I don't know how I would falsify it.