It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Crop circle plant alterations

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

This "message" is based on I would be completely convinced by a video of people making it

That's the same nonsensical comment you made in the other thread. You would be convinced this was human made if you saw a video of it, but you don't need a video of aliens creating it to be convinced they did.


...you continue to insist that because two circles are slightly smaller than the others at that position - yet are similarly sized to other circles in the formation - it is some kind of imperfection that higher beings would not make - that is your right to think that - but I think it is a stretch.

These are consistent geometric patterns that are obviously meant to follow that pattern. These aren't random shapes placed throughout the field. Look at the circle you're pointing out. You have a center circle, 6 legs, 13 circles in each leg, the same number of smaller circles surrounding their related 13, and the same basic size of all related circles. You don't see the attempted symmetry and consistency in the creation and design of that pattern? This crop circle has two circles far smaller than the other 4 related circles. That points to human error not intelligent design.




posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 12:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
What's a more likely and logical scenario-
- It was created on the ground by humans that miscalculated the geometry of the circle and ran out of room and just went ahead and made them smaller to fit in?
- Or it was created from a view above by an intelligent alien species that *OOPS* made a couple of mistakes?

No matter your skewed way of thinking, the imperfections are a perfect example of human error.


And, IF those circles are smaller by design, so that they might contain data?

Yeah, you can come up with any imaginary answer if you're fine with no supporting evidence. But I can provide supporting evidence of crop circles being manmade and of human error. Both possibilities outweigh and take precedence over any imaginary alien involvement.

It's the claimants responsibility to prove, without doubt, these are alien messages. Not mine or anyone else to prove they aren't. By default they are human made until overwhelming evidence shows otherwise.

Also, crop circles started out simple and progressed to complicated designs. That shows yet another human trait- when something is repeatedly done, the better it becomes. I guess aliens coincidentally have the same learning curve as humans? And after decades, they continue to make these crop circle messages even when humans still can't decipher them? At what point does it dawn on them to maybe try a different pattern? Or why don't they simply show themselves making the circles if these messages are so important? They obviously want us to know they're here. What's the point of hiding in darkness? It becomes even more ridiculous the deeper you think about it. But I have a feeling not too many believers think too deeply about it.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 02:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

I think the complexity of the circles follows the timeline of the advance of computers and computer graphics.
I also think it may involve microwave technology exported from the military in Viet Nam, originally developed to flatten fields of tall plants to expose enemy positions. Marry the two and, well , the rest might be possible.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 03:55 AM
link   
really though talking about the not-exactingly-perfect geometry involved or the veracity of certain individuals involved is totally disingenuous - there are inexplicable, unreplicatable phenomena involved here [stem bending, i'm looking at you]
and i know it sounds so crazy that advanced beings could travel effectively infinite distances to tag up our crops but it's equally as absurd to say "well that guy has said some pretty silly stuff i bet he did it all himself". are we trying to figure this thing out or just apportion some blame so we can sleep better at night?



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: continuousThunder




and i know it sounds so crazy that advanced beings could travel effectively infinite distances to tag up our crops but it's equally as absurd to say "well that guy has said some pretty silly stuff i bet he did it all himself".

It sounds crazy because it is , why can't graffiti be painted by aliens too or is that too crazy.




edit on 5-10-2015 by gortex because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

look not to be rude or anything, but did you actually read my post??
especially the bit you actually quoted?
because it kinda really does not seem like it.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: continuousThunder




but did you actually read my post??

Yes I did , you repeated some old crop circle mantra's without providing anything to back them up and insinuated that those who (rightly) say crop circles have nothing to do with ET were trying to find reasons for crop circles not being ET to make themselves feel better .... standard stuff.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: continuousThunder




and i know it sounds so crazy that advanced beings could travel effectively infinite distances to tag up our crops but it's equally as absurd to say "well that guy has said some pretty silly stuff i bet he did it all himself".

It sounds crazy because it is , why can't graffiti be painted by aliens too or is that too crazy.




Exactly. Who is the gatekeeper of what is too crazy? Aliens can make crop circles, mutilate cattle and abduct people. Aliens dont steal my socks, hide my keys or spray paint buildings.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
Yeah, you can come up with any imaginary answer if you're fine with no supporting evidence. But I can provide supporting evidence of crop circles being manmade and of human error. Both possibilities outweigh and take precedence over any imaginary alien involvement.

It's the claimants responsibility to prove, without doubt, these are alien messages. Not mine or anyone else to prove they aren't. By default they are human made until overwhelming evidence shows otherwise.



You need to pay attention to context...I never said anything about "who" or "what" made the crop circles. Only that the reason the mentioned circles were smaller might be by design. You have not addressed that, only stated, without data, that they were an "error".

Whether or not they are an error is currently unknown. as is "who/what" made the crop circle...

You keep accusing others of jumping to conclusions when they say "alien", yet seem to have no qualms over jumping to your own equally as uninformed conclusions.

How about using science once in a while...or does that not provide the results you want?

By the way; your expectation of "without doubt" is wholly unreasonable, and unattainable...which can only work IF you are attempting to tailor the resulting dataset.



edit on 5-10-2015 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

You need to pay attention to context...I never said anything about "who" or "what" made the crop circles.

So you're saying when you comment in threads over the last couple of years, you don't favor alien involvement in general? Do you honestly believe anyone familiar with your postings believes that? You're hardly an "on the fence" completely unbiased eye when it comes to this subject. So yeah, I absolutely believe you respond in support of alien created crop circles from your past responses. Just as you would with me in regards to not believing it.


You have not addressed that, only stated, without data, that they were an "error".

I addressed it in my response to PlanetXisHERE. It was created to be a symmetrical design that when put into action, two of the outer circles had to be made smaller for it fit in and be completed. When you have multiple people creating the circles, which I'm sure this had, it becomes even more logical how they might not come together as planned.


You keep accusing others of jumping to conclusions when they say "alien", yet seem to have no qualms over jumping to your own equally as uninformed conclusions.

How is my conclusion "uninformed" when past circles have been proven to be man-made and human error is a fact of life? This circle would be a perfect example of a human made mistake. Where is the equally compelling evidence from the last 40+ years, that shows crop circles are made by an intelligent force other than humans? Where is your "data" that shows these two small circles were purposeful?


By the way; your expectation of "without doubt" is wholly unreasonable, and unattainable...which can only work IF you are attempting to tailor the resulting dataset.

You do understand that it's the believers and supporters that come out with claims of physical actions by these beings, right? No one is demanding physical evidence of an alien spacecraft in the sky. Once it crosses from visual sightings to many thousands of claimed physical interactions, it's not an unreasonable request any longer. Unreasonable and unattainable is only an attempted diversion and excuse created by people who know after 60+ years, there is no convincing physical evidence.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: tanka418
So you're saying when you comment in threads over the last couple of years, you don't favor alien involvement in general? Do you honestly believe anyone familiar with your postings believes that? You're hardly an "on the fence" completely unbiased eye when it comes to this subject. So yeah, I absolutely believe you respond in support of alien created crop circles from your past responses. Just as you would with me in regards to not believing it.



I knew you'd do it; completely ignore context...you really need to look beyond the surface and try, at least a little to see what is there...

Yes, it would appear that I do favor the ET response, but, then it seems a wee bit warranted. And, no, I'm not an "on the fence" type, I'm a science and data type...you should try it sometime...however, I am unbiased, more so than you...I will actually look at the data, as differentiated to dismissing it out of hand like you see to most of the time.

For the record, I do not support the "ET made the crop circles" hypothesis...there are several technical reasons for this, all of which you appear to have overlooked...kind of typical...



I addressed it in my response to PlanetXisHERE. It was created to be a symmetrical design that when put into action, two of the outer circles had to be made smaller for it fit in and be completed. When you have multiple people creating the circles, which I'm sure this had, it becomes even more logical how they might not come together as planned.



Sorry man, but, you haven't addressed the issues...you assume there is an error...there is no evidence of error. Perhaps IF you made a better attempt at understanding the evidence...


How is my conclusion "uninformed" when past circles have been proven to be man-made and human error is a fact of life?


"past circles"...kind of irrelevant do you think? Others being man-made, do not necessarily describe this one, and, human error being a "fact of life", so far only applies to your lack of analysis.



This circle would be a perfect example of a human made mistake.


An invalid assumption!



Where is the equally compelling evidence from the last 40+ years, that shows crop circles are made by an intelligent force other than humans? Where is your "data" that shows these two small circles were purposeful?



Oh now there's the thing...I don't need to demonstrate the purposefulness of those circles, however, you kind of do need to show they are an error. You know...it's that old thing about the burden of proof that you like to abuse so much...

But there's another thing; you can not demonstrate your point...you make it anyway and rely on injustice to keep it in tact, that and a whole lot of irrelevant talk. IF ever you were compelled to actually "prove" your point, you would probably fail.



You do understand that it's the believers and supporters that come out with claims of physical actions by these beings, right? No one is demanding physical evidence of an alien spacecraft in the sky. Once it crosses from visual sightings to many thousands of claimed physical interactions, it's not an unreasonable request any longer. Unreasonable and unattainable is only an attempted diversion and excuse created by people who know after 60+ years, there is no convincing physical evidence.


Yet, somehow, a task that would take too many hours to complete, if done by humans, isn't evidence that humans probably were not involved...course, then again, IF it was ET dong these things, he must be dong it from orbit. Because, ET is not seen hovering over a field for the several hours it would take him to complete the task...

And, no, absolutely not...unreasonable and unattainable are a perfect deception for the kinds of evidence you seem to require. You want "undeniable" proof...such a thing does not exist, and you insure that with every bit of new evidence provided by your inappropriate insistence that it does not constitute evidence. Perhaps you should attempt to understand the data before you declare it "bunk".

And, after 60+ years...there is quite a lot of convincing evidence, however, you have rejected it, probably without ever looking at it, and certainly without understanding it and what it says.


edit on 6-10-2015 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-10-2015 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   
.









.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: gmoneystunt
That's in step #11 of the instructions for how to make crop circles:

Make-a-Crop-Circle

Melt some iron filings into droplets on-site and sprinkle them around the flattened area to leave "meteorite particles" and magnetized stalks.



Just curious, but is that the same way they get isotopes of rare earth elements in ratios not found on earth, or the solar system naturally, and in relatively large quantities that normal super colliders could never produce in a hundred years, which I assume they manufacture using some super efficient super collider the public is unaware of, into these circles as well?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: R0CR13
.









.


cropcirclewisdom.com...



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: gmoneystunt
That's in step #11 of the instructions for how to make crop circles:

Make-a-Crop-Circle

Melt some iron filings into droplets on-site and sprinkle them around the flattened area to leave "meteorite particles" and magnetized stalks.



Just curious, but is that the same way they get isotopes of rare earth elements in ratios not found on earth, or the solar system naturally, and in relatively large quantities that normal super colliders could never produce in a hundred years, which I assume they manufacture using some super efficient super collider the public is unaware of, into these circles as well?


Could you preload that question with just a bit more bunk, please?

Thanks.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Just curious, but is that the same way they get isotopes of rare earth elements in ratios not found on earth, or the solar system naturally, and in relatively large quantities that normal super colliders could never produce in a hundred years, which I assume they manufacture using some super efficient super collider the public is unaware of, into these circles as well?
I've got a great bridge for sale, I've been looking for a customer just like you.

Should be a slam-dunk sale since the bridge is far easier to believe than all that you apparently swallowed hook line and sinker.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: gmoneystunt
That's in step #11 of the instructions for how to make crop circles:

Make-a-Crop-Circle

Melt some iron filings into droplets on-site and sprinkle them around the flattened area to leave "meteorite particles" and magnetized stalks.



Just curious, but is that the same way they get isotopes of rare earth elements in ratios not found on earth, or the solar system naturally, and in relatively large quantities that normal super colliders could never produce in a hundred years, which I assume they manufacture using some super efficient super collider the public is unaware of, into these circles as well?


Could you preload that question with just a bit more bunk, please?

Thanks.


What "bunk" would that be? The presence of vanadium, europium, tellurium, and ytterbium has apparently been established in genuine crop circles. These isotopes have half-lives measured in days and thus are very unlikely to be a natural or random occurrence. This was a very simple search, you should have done it yourself...

www.cropcirclesecrets.org...

I think its a very good question, I'd like to see another opinion...



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   
I have found that whenever something is discovered about some hard to fathom event, like a genuine crop circle, and it takes conventionalism out of the loop, (that would be you Arby), then your parade has been rained on and so you go into "bridge selling mode"
Hey I hear you bro!
You don't have to tell me how lucky I am to be able to see outside the box.

And since you can't explain this documented fact about some crop circles, you just don't understand it. Selling Bridges becomes much easier at that point.

edit on 6-10-2015 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: added arby



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418
I think its a very good question, I'd like to see another opinion...
OK I've got two bridges for sale if you're that gullible.

Here's another opinion:
ufologie.patrickgross.org...

The claim: crop circles are radioactive!

Through the web forums, websites, TV and radio shows about crop circles that want to convince us that are not all of them are done by men, you find, among the numerous alleged arguments, that "genuine crop circles" and that "unquestionable scientific studies proved it".

I saw what such "unquestionable" scientific proof is really worth...
If anybody else believes this nonsense about crop circles being radioactive I'm sure I can come up with more bridges for sale.

The only claim that might have been true was about finding isotopes not found on earth, but it turns out that had nothing to do with the crop circle and nothing to do with aliens either.

edit on 2015106 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Your logic is flawed about other intelligences having the same learning curve. They still do have a learning curve of some kind.
They could even be introducing this progression in complexity as a courtesy to human learning curves.

Any developing intelligence will have a learning curve of some kind. Only the idea of a supreme being like God would not have a learning curve and already knows all knowledge there is.

Most circles found to be genuine with traits not reproducible by any human methods, have been deciphered, or at least explained in meaning using geometry, physics, and other science disciplines. If you research these you will see they seem to show a propensity for new energy production describing novel mechanisms to produce energy. Also some seem to show planetary and space science themes like orbits and planetary alignment events corresponding to future dates of celestial events. All theories, but they have been described as having real meaning in many genuine crop circles. None have delivered new advances on a silver platter, but they are being studied, and most are hard to decipher since they are probably just beyond currently known sciences and require real investigation and effort to figure out.

Nothing about the genuine circles show any evidence in the slightest that they were created by pub visiting Englishmen staggering around the Moors with boards and string. It makes for funny reading in the London news though.

If you reject all of these things that is your own choice, but you can't destroy the truth just because it is not popular with your own feelings.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join