What about this crop circle?

[23_Tauri]

I can now post full url's so don't have to delete my 'www'... this is the url I posted earlier, corrected:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tourists-300ft-design-appeared-overnight.html

 

[23_Tauri]

You mean the reconstruction of the crop circle that was done by a very talented graphic designer and then stolen without any credit to the artist by the Daily Mail and Earthfiles (though Linda Mutilated Cow did put the error right when he pointed it out to her.)

Could be
Fishing for compliments as opposed squid now?
A "very talented graphic designer" whose creativity is much appreciated, but possibly somewhat wasted, on internet forums, IMO.

 

[Stray Cat]

Just a general overview? What if you're wrong?

If I'm wrong about what Pope thinks, it doesn't matter, If Pope thinks that a non human agency is making crop circles, he's wrong.

But I see we're out of the psi hypothesis you propose and we're now back to the 'other entity' theory?

Have you read Open Skies, Closed Minds by Pope?

"As a career civil servant with Britain's Ministry of Defence, Pope served a three-year stint in the early 1990s as chief investigator of UFO sightings in the United Kingdom. He began as a skeptic and ended up a true believer. This book, a bestseller in Britain, attempts to explain his conversion but does a poor job of it."

"Probably the best known ‘inside’ proponent of the ETH is Nick Pope, who served as Higher Executive Officer with Sec (AS) 2a, as the MoD’s ‘UFO desk’ at Whitehall was known, from 1985 to 2000. Pope claims that he became an ETH ‘believer’ as a result of the cases he dealt with during his tour of duty from 1991–94. Having failed to persuade his superiors, on leaving the post Pope was persuaded to write a book, Open Skies, Closed Minds, billed as “the first time a Government UFO expert speaks out.” http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/164_govtxfiles.shtml

Or The Uninvited?

"Originally skeptical, he now believes that there is substance to many of the reported abduction cases and calls for national governments to investigate the matter actively."

Ex-UFO Researcher Details British Government X-Files

Britain's top UFO expert says there's no smoking gun that proves UFOs exist, but he's seen enough evidence to convert him from skeptic to believer.

In your view, are all these just examples of disinformation? After all, if he's really a skeptic as you say then these books are intentionally misleading, right?

No, they're not examples of disinformation, as they don't contain any actual information, at best they have a re-telling of some anecdotes aimed to satisfy the belief lead notions of his intended audience.

As I have tried to point out, Pope's PoV is deliberately quite ambiguous, I can only conclude that this is because he now makes an amount of his living from the world of UFOlogy and why shouldn't he? if people are willing to buy it.

 

[Stray Cat]

Could be
Fishing for compliments as opposed squid now?
A "very talented graphic designer" whose creativity is much appreciated, but possibly somewhat wasted, on internet forums, IMO.

If it's appreciated, it's not wasted.

 

[Limbo]

If I'm wrong about what Pope thinks, it doesn't matter...

To me it would matter. It would show that you are willing to make strong statements on a weak basis. It would weaken the many strong statements you've made in this thread.

If Pope thinks that a non human agency is making crop circles, he's wrong.

Would an archetype of the collective unconscious in symbolic form (for instance as an alien) count as a human agency (after all, they are our archetypes, our psyche) or as a non-human agency (after all, our ego can interact with them in a way) or as something else?

But I see we're out of the psi hypothesis you propose and we're now back to the 'other entity' theory?

I don't think that archetypes are other entities, but most people who encounter them do, because they symbolize an aspect of the psyche which is outside the ego. I think they are aspects of us, our psyche, in symbolic form that materialize and de-materialize. The same archetype could manifest as an alien or as a fairy or perhaps as an angel, depending on who is projecting it.

No, they're not examples of disinformation, as they don't contain any actual information, at best they have a re-telling of some anecdotes aimed to satisfy the belief lead notions of his intended audience.

As I have tried to point out, Pope's PoV is deliberately quite ambiguous, I can only conclude that this is because he now makes an amount of his living from the world of UFOlogy and why shouldn't he? if people are willing to buy it.

First, have you read them both then?

Second, if you are correct in that his POV is deliberately ambiguous, I don't see why it means that you can ONLY conclude that this is because he now makes an amount of his living from the world of UFOlogy.

 

[Stray Cat]

To me it would matter. It would show that you are willing to make strong statements on a weak basis. It would weaken the many strong statements you've made in this thread.

Well I'm glad my personal opinion means so much to you.
But we're talking about a "general overview" right? Not an indepth evidence based conclusion.

Would an archetype of the collective unconscious in symbolic form (for instance an alien) count as a human agency (after all, they are our archetypes) or as a non-human agency (after all, our ego can interact with them) or as something else?

Call it what you will... Describe it how you will.
There is no evidence for it as an entity, just an abstract concept.

I don't think that archetypes are other entities, but most people who encounter them do. I think they are aspects of us, our psyche, in symbolic form that materialize and de-materialize. The same archetype could manifest as an alien or as a fairy or perhaps as an angel, depending on who is projecting it.

Or even not at all.

First, have you read them both then?

No, but I do know that all the UFOlogists have is anecdote, Nick Pope even though he spent 3 years as the MoD's UFO head investigator has no more information than the anecdotes reported to his department.

Second, if you are correct in that his POV is deliberately ambiguous, I don't see why it means that you can ONLY conclude that this is because he now makes an amount of his living from the world of UFOlogy.

Yes, you're right, I'm sure there's loads of other reasons...

 

[Marduk]

Second, if you are correct in that his POV is deliberately ambiguous, I don't see why it means that you can ONLY conclude that this is because he now makes an amount of his living from the world of UFOlogy.

Limbo, are you ignoring the posts/evidence that you don't like now ?
thats hardly good practice
I told you earlier that Nick had told me personally that he plays both sides against the middle as his income is now based on woo

have you asked him yourself ?

 

[JimBenArm]

Limbo, are you ignoring the posts/evidence that you don't like now ?
thats hardly good practice
I told you earlier that Nick had told me personally that he plays both sides against the middle as his income is now based on woo

have you asked him yourself ?

He puts those people on ignore so he doesn't have to deal with the annoyance of the rabble.

 

[Beerina]

There was a young fellow named Fisk
whose fencing was extremely brisk.
So fast was his action
the Fitz-Gerald contraction
reduced his rapier to a disk.

I've always suspected this is a G-rated version of the original.

 

[Limbo]

Well I'm glad my personal opinion means so much to you.

I value the opinions of all cats, stray or otherwise.

There is no evidence for it as an entity, just an abstract concept.

"It" as an entity? I wouldn't use the word entity. Entity implies 'other' and autonomy, and I don't think an archetype of the collective unconscious in symbolic form (for instance an alien) would be autonomous. I think it would be semi-autonomous. It would "think" it's an alien, it would act according to its pattern and according to the mythology of the people unwittingly involved in the psychic mind-over-matter projection until it disappears back into the unus mundus or wherever.

No, but I do know that all the UFOlogists have is anecdote, Nick Pope even though he spent 3 years as the MoD's UFO head investigator has no more information than the anecdotes reported to his department.

Even if that's true, much can be gleamed from patterns in anecdotes. Also, it is pretty much what I would expect from the paranormal. Psi manifests through archetypes, and an archetype that fits here is the trickster. And the trickster is not about hard evidence, logic, reason, causality, categories, definitions, or any of the other noble and desirable things that skeptics think will save the day. It's like a psychic reflex.

And *I* don't need more than anecdote anymore. I've seen more than enough "UFOs" myself.

 

[EHocking]

You mean the reconstruction of the crop circle that was done by a very talented graphic designer and then stolen without any credit to the artist by the Daily Mail and Earthfiles (though Linda Mutilated Cow did put the error right when he pointed it out to her.)

Speaking of Ms.Howe. Do you know whatever became of the promised incontrovertible evidence for the East Field cropcircle that was supposedly in 90 minutes (07/07/2007)?

There was a thread on it here but it seems not to have been archived.
Certainly, after being contacted, she rewrote part of the article on the subject at Earthfiles (since been put behind a Members Section barrier).

 

[Stray Cat]

Speaking of Ms.Howe. Do you know whatever became of the promised incontrovertible evidence for the East Field cropcircle that was supposedly in 90 minutes (07/07/2007)?

There was a thread on it here but it seems not to have been archived.
Certainly, after being contacted, she rewrote part of the article on the subject at Earthfiles (since been put behind a Members Section barrier).

How long have you got?

After a mammoth investigation by a group of us dedicated crop circle followers (who have critical thinking skills), we concluded that Win was at best exaggerating his claims.
The incontrovertible evidence was simply the re release of the time lapse footage showing it getting light. Though I think they eventually released a non time lapse version, but basically, it just showed it getting light.

LMH did add the new stuff, but as it was inaccurately represented to her, that's what went on the Earthfiles page. Another crop circle myth that in years to come will be the new Stonehenge Juliaset story.

Luckily, on another forum I infest inhabit, we have a 276 page thread with all the accurate information and investigation on it.

And in a fit of blatant self promotion, I even wrote a song about it:
http://sites.google.com/site/thepsychoclown/home

 

[EHocking]

...Luckily, on another forum I infest inhabit, we have a 276 page thread with all the accurate information and investigation on it.

Got a link? I'm looking for closure! PM if you prefer.

 

[23_Tauri]

Another crop circle myth that in years to come will be the new Stonehenge Juliaset story.

7/7/7 has already passed into the chronicles of cc myth. Read the review of Irving et al's The Field Guide by one "H Drew" on the Amazon page below:

http://tinyurl.com/yb6dv69

 

[Stray Cat]

Do you know anything about this?

"In the interest of full disclosure, its important to start here by revealing that a second covert surveillance operation also took place at the same time as Blackbird. The Army themselves undertook surveillance around Silbury Hill, just 19 miles away from the Blackbird site. What they secured was a video film of a large bright orb over fields to the south of the Silbury hill and also they filmed with low light cameras a group of six men entering a field in the vicinity around mid-night. A link to this frame grab is coming shortly."
http://www.colinandrews.net/Biography-03.html

I wonder if that frame grab ever surfaced?

 

[Nosi]

I'll answer a little more seriously: crop circles are almost all "real" in that they are patterns of smashed over plants in fields (as opposed to photoshopped photos). They are all "fake" in that they were not made by ETs. It is unreasonable to think otherwise primarily due to the principle of parsimony. Also, we know exactly who and how many of them were done (by humans), so an explanation that raises more questions than it purports to answer is not necessary.

So, for a reasonable minded person, it is not necessary to debunk every example of crop circles to accept the conclusion that they were made by humans.

Some other answers to your specific questions: it was made in August of 2002 just west of Winchester. Some more details here.

I fear that I must correct you in that all crop circles are made by humans. They are not all made by humans. Some have been made by other beings, albeit of Earth origin.

 

[EHocking]

7/7/7 has already passed into the chronicles of cc myth. Read the review of Irving et al's The Field Guide by one "H Drew" on the Amazon page below:

http://tinyurl.com/yb6dv69

<shrugs>

They want to believe. Even after I (and others) pointed out the problems with story spun to Howe, her credulous reports remained for all the bleevers to "cite".

 

[Limbo]

Stray Cat, have you ever made a circle with circlemaker(s) like "Danny"? 23:18

 

[Stray Cat]

I've never made one with Danny.

And my internet connection is running a bit slow today, coupled with work getting in the way of fun, so I don't have time to stream it to the section you marked right now.

Give us a clue, what do you mean like Danny?

 

[Limbo]

I've never made one with Danny.

And my internet connection is running a bit slow today, coupled with work getting in the way of fun, so I don't have time to stream it to the section you marked right now.

Give us a clue, what do you mean like Danny?

I would prefer it if your clues came from Danny himself, so I can wait until tonight or tomorrow if you need time for your internet to get up to speed.