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: 3
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

OK I've got two bridges for sale if you're that gullible.



While I probably have earned some of the this; there really is no reason to be abusive...




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


Thank you for that...I'll review it and make my own decision.

I still have questions about the energy required to make such an isotope, and of course the flux density of such cosmic rays...




posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 01:27 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418


And, no, I'm not an "on the fence" type, I'm a science and data type...you should try it sometime...

Yeah, and to use some "context" as to your scientific mind and data collecting, we mustn't forget your claims of telepathic communication with aliens and ability to summons UFOs at will. Forget all of these other stories, here we have a self proclaimed scientifically minded data hound that can single-handedly end the UFO/alien speculation himself! Yet, he just chooses not to. Uh huh.

Anyway, back to your initial response to me about these smaller circles possibly being created on purpose.

The crop circle would naturally begin in the center and work it's way out. That would mean the 13th circle on the end of each leg or arm would be the last to be created. If the on-ground calculations were off just a bit, these end circles would reflect that miscalculation once it came up to the corresponding circle from the next arm/leg. If the length of the boards used to create the circles was slightly different than the others, that mistake could also be shown as it progressed to the last circle.

Now, I just gave a more detailed explanation of why I believe this is human error, while you continue to waffle with your explanation. I'm still waiting for your argument against mine that the size of these two circles wasn't a mistake, but data driven.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: tanka418

Yeah, and to use some "context" as to your scientific mind and data collecting, we mustn't forget your claims of telepathic communication with aliens and ability to summons UFOs at will. Forget all of these other stories, here we have a self proclaimed scientifically minded data hound that can single-handedly end the UFO/alien speculation himself! Yet, he just chooses not to. Uh huh.



Wow...talk about irrelevant. Anyway sir, I have data to back up all of that...I guess you decided to ignore it...as usual.




Anyway, back to your initial response to me about these smaller circles possibly being created on purpose.

The crop circle would naturally begin in the center and work it's way out. That would mean the 13th circle on the end of each leg or arm would be the last to be created. If the on-ground calculations were off just a bit, these end circles would reflect that miscalculation once it came up to the corresponding circle from the next arm/leg. If the length of the boards used to create the circles was slightly different than the others, that mistake could also be shown as it progressed to the last circle.

Now, I just gave a more detailed explanation of why I believe this is human error, while you continue to waffle with your explanation. I'm still waiting for your argument against mine that the size of these two circles wasn't a mistake, but data driven.


Firstly, I never asserted that it was data driven; I only asked the question "what if"...you misinterpreted that...your bad.

All I've seen so far in your analysis is a group of less than valid assumptions. One can not analyze data in this manner as it leads to false conclusions.

In your analysis you point out two circles that are smaller that the others, actually there are three (3), and at least one (1) that is larger than others in the same logical position. One of those smaller circles is obviously smaller by design, as there is ample space for it to be the same size as the other 3 that might be used to establish a standard. And, it would appear that perhaps 3 of the "arms" contain 12 not 13 circles...though that could be open to further interpretation. In the arm with the small circle not filling the "gap" completely, all of the remaining circles are within 1% of circles in corresponding position. In the subsequent clockwise progression of arms; the #1 circle is larger than all others in that position.

With most of the circles in the questionable arms being equal in radius (within 1% or so), your hypothesis of "unequal" board length kind of gets shot down...all of the circles in these arms should be consistently smaller, they are not.

This little analysis took all of about 5 - 10 minutes, it established that you have not done an adequate analysis of the image; thus your conclusions have little foundation.

But I find this typical of your data analysis skills. My guess is that you were never taught "how" to analyze data...but, I'll give you points for trying...next you should try to improve your skills.

ETA: Oh, for what it's worth; No, I don't think this is the work of aliens, just some Terrestrials with a misplaced sense of something...


edit on 7-10-2015 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418


Wow...talk about irrelevant. Anyway sir, I have data to back up all of that...I guess you decided to ignore it...as usual.

Well, I hope I didn't embarrass you by bringing that up. But I think it's very relevant because your "data" is something you've been pointing to for a long while now. When you make claims of having telepathic communication with aliens, or can summons UFOs at will, but have nothing to back that up even though you claim to be scientific minded, it shows how seriously you can be taken when you speak of data.

My "analysis" is based on several perspectives of the circle where the two circles are clearly smaller and not a result of an optical illusion or the topography of the field. That's why I've focused on those two circles. I don't think you can come to any real conclusions or "adequate data analysis" of the size of the other circles unless you have a direct overhead shot and take into account the lay of the field. So I don't know how: "With most of the circles in the questionable arms being equal radius (within 1% or so)..." would be accurate. Maybe you should be taking a little more than the 5-10 minutes you mention below, to research data?


This little analysis took all of about 5 - 10 minutes, it established that you have not done an adequate analysis of the image; thus your conclusions have little foundation.

But I find this typical of your data analysis skills. My guess is that you were never taught "how" to analyze data...but, I'll give you points for trying...next you should try to improve your skills.

The 5-10 minutes speaks to your quick "expertise" of data analysis, rather than the depth and lengths you go for investigation of data? I guess the skills to take in and review data for 5-10 minutes without time constraints and come to realistic conclusions or possibilities is a special class. I took a little more than 5-10 minutes to search for and look over other images to be sure I wasn't mistaking an odd perspective of the photograph for making them appear smaller. I don't subscribe to quickly looking over something for minutes and blurting out an observation.

Once again, you've evaded an explanation of what type of data could possibly be drawn from these small circles, which was your first comment to me in this thread:

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

It's similar to evading an answer when I mentioned your alien telepathy 8 months ago:

tanka418 posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 10:37 AM
ETA; Actually much of this was communicated via Telepathy...and before you start; yes, I'm a telepath, and NO, absolutely NOT; on the testing front. You could never make it worth my while to submit to your testing,..

Or asking about your ability to call on UFOs at will:

tanka418 posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 05:34 PM
Available data, personal history, strongly suggests that I may be able to predict, or perhaps cause the appearance of UFOs. This isn't a "I think I can", this is a hard probability...say around 88%. This is based on real physical data; and, no you may not see it.

The lack of providing data seems to be a running theme. See how it all comes together with my first paragraph?

If you have data that will solve or even help move the study of this phenomenon further along, why wouldn't you be sharing it with the world?


ETA: Oh, for what it's worth; No, I don't think this is the work of aliens, just some Terrestrials with a misplaced sense of something...

There ya go! "Terrestrial" meaning they're susceptible to error.



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: tanka418

Well, I hope I didn't embarrass you by bringing that up. But I think it's very relevant because your "data" is something you've been pointing to for a long while now. When you make claims of having telepathic communication with aliens, or can summons UFOs at will, but have nothing to back that up even though you claim to be scientific minded, it shows how seriously you can be taken when you speak of data.



The only one you can embarrass is yourself...the telepathic communication is mostly of a personal nature, hence the reason I don't release any of that.

The "summoning of UFO" is a matter of public record...all you need do is look it up...go find the thread where it was disclosed...




My "analysis" is based on several perspectives of the circle where the two circles are clearly smaller and not a result of an optical illusion or the topography of the field. That's why I've focused on those two circles. I don't think you can come to any real conclusions or "adequate data analysis" of the size of the other circles unless you have a direct overhead shot and take into account the lay of the field. So I don't know how: "With most of the circles in the questionable arms being equal radius (within 1% or so)..." would be accurate. Maybe you should be taking a little more than the 5-10 minutes you mention below, to research data?



You have heard of "computer vision" ? Right?!? Actually, much of that wasn't necessary because a simple, manually applied "edge analysis" will tell you quite a lot...I started to actually run this through the software I'm developing, but quickly realized that the image isn't clean enough for a simple analysis...it was producing too many inappropriate "blobs"...indicating that the image needed to be cleaned up some...which is a very tedious, time consuming task.

Perhaps you might like to convert it to a two color (black and white) image...Actually, I think I may use the image for development purposes...perhaps refine the method(s) somewhat.


The 5-10 minutes speaks to your quick "expertise" of data analysis, rather than the depth and lengths you go for investigation of data? I guess the skills to take in and review data for 5-10 minutes without time constraints and come to realistic conclusions or possibilities is a special class. I took a little more than 5-10 minutes to search for and look over other images to be sure I wasn't mistaking an odd perspective of the photograph for making them appear smaller. I don't subscribe to quickly looking over something for minutes and blurting out an observation.



BullSh**! It is far less a matter of "how long" as it is a matter of "method"... From either of the images posted One can easily reproduce the "directly overhead" view...well...I suppose it does depend on the software One is using...But, using Poser Pro 2012, a plane, and a few cylinders..."overhead" would be rather easy...



Once again, you've evaded an explanation of what type of data could possibly be drawn from these small circles, which was your first comment to me in this thread:
"And, IF those circles are smaller by design, so that they might contain data?"


Actually, I evaded nothing! I posed a question, a "conditional" that asked "what if"...there is nothing to demonstrate there, except for your imagination, perhaps.

But, IF you need me to show you what data may be contained therein; how about "deception", a circle deliberately made smaller with the intent of producing he illusion of "data"...actually not much of an illusion because data actually is there...It even had the desired effect on you...and you don't even realize that...how much have you missed?



The lack of providing data seems to be a running theme. See how it all comes together with my first paragraph?



lol!!! Yeah like the lack of data I provided in the Hill Map analysis, course I've yet to complete that. But that is another place where you have ignored the available data, and insisted that you are correct even in the face of scientific and mathematical data that strongly indicates otherwise. The reality here is that you consistently ignore valid data IF it does not corroborate what you believe. And make no mistake, it is only what you believe, and frequently in these subjects, it is far from reality.



If you have data that will solve or even help move the study of this phenomenon further along, why wouldn't you be sharing it with the world?



I do, people like you make every attempt to insure that the data is ignored by all...typically with your failed attempts to debunk. The end result is obfuscation of data, leaving those who are truly interested in the truth to wonder "who" is correct...unfortunately they can't tell...like you. Fortunately, most are open minded enough to not use inappropriate, or incomplete analysis to obfuscate as you frequently do.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 02:04 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

The only one you can embarrass is yourself...the telepathic communication is mostly of a personal nature, hence the reason I don't release any of that.

So you have in your power the ability to communicate with aliens, and as I've said, end all the speculation about the reality of alien beings on Earth, but you just choose not to? Sorry, but it's comments like this that make it hard to take what you say seriously.


lol!!! Yeah like the lack of data I provided in the Hill Map analysis, course I've yet to complete that. But that is another place where you have ignored the available data, and insisted that you are correct even in the face of scientific and mathematical data that strongly indicates otherwise. The reality here is that you consistently ignore valid data IF it does not corroborate what you believe. And make no mistake, it is only what you believe, and frequently in these subjects, it is far from reality.


Yeah, I'm familiar with your Hill map data. Other members of the board have gone through the same thing and they don't see it either. I've told you before to email your completed analysis to Stanton Friedman who would welcome anything new as far as the Hill map. He gave Robert Sheaffer a run-around response during a debate HERE to the Fish map a couple of years ago. So I'm sure if your data is of any value, he would gladly include it in his continuing lectures of the Betty and Barney Hill case. That's how you get it out there. To be completely unbiased you should also email a copy to someone like Seth Shostak, who as an astrophysicist, would be far more knowledgeable in reviewing any data than most people.


I do, people like you make every attempt to insure that the data is ignored by all...typically with your failed attempts to debunk. The end result is obfuscation of data, leaving those who are truly interested in the truth to wonder "who" is correct...unfortunately they can't tell...like you. Fortunately, most are open minded enough to not use inappropriate, or incomplete analysis to obfuscate as you frequently do.

It's comical how you have to create fantasy based excuses for all of this. You have quality data/evidence, but people like me make it difficult for you to get your information out there. Here's an idea, instead of spending time working on your robot telescope site, why don't you create a website dedicated to all of this data you've compiled of these cases? Then it's out there for the internet world to see with no "obfuscation" of your data.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Congratulations! You have managed to pull this discussion entirely off topic...

I could see what you were trying to do, but, I'm sorry, I just had to observe the whole "mechanic" of your little process. Almost clever, but, as they say; "no Cigar!"

This is quite typical of your style; when you have nothing, find something about your opponent that you can try to exploit. SHAME on you!!! you should either admit your defeat, or simply go away quietly...but, nope, you have to drag in the irrelevant and hope nobody notices...though, I suppose, it wouldn't be quite so bad IF you could manage the truth.

I think we are done here; you have nothing to counter real science, logic, and common sense...too bad, You see, I actually kind of like these nearly "heated" discussions. You know discussions where "the other side" says things that make One think, and perhaps begin to question One's analysis. But, you are wholly incapable of holding it together long enough...SIGH!!!!

Anybody else have anything intelligent to add?

Oh and by the way; until the time that you actually have something intelligent to say about my work...STFU!!!




edit on 9-10-2015 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-10-2015 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   
There has to be an intelligence behind the patterns. They are made in an instant from the inside out. The elongation, node bursting, and weaving all occur at once. The most impressive one is the 1033 ft long circle that appeared in front of a group of witnesses at 3:00am in England.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Oannes
There has to be an intelligence behind the patterns. They are made in an instant from the inside out. The elongation, node bursting, and weaving all occur at once. The most impressive one is the 1033 ft long circle that appeared in front of a group of witnesses at 3:00am in England.


There is intelligence behind them.

The sort of intelligence that seeks to convince others of the things you just posted.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Oannes




The most impressive one is the 1033 ft long circle that appeared in front of a group of witnesses at 3:00am in England.

Impressive enough to post a link to the sighting report and pictures ?



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   
There is a video of this formation but I'm figuring out how to post it. It's the formation that looks like a human made out of circles. Search for 1033' crop circle and the video will pop up.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418
Careful Eugene, you're becoming unhinged. You think you've effectively shown this circle wasn't human made? You keep saying IF this was by design, but haven't provided anything to back that "IF" up. Anything is possible. Bigfoot could have created it for all we know. But the baseline and default is that it was human made and it's up to others to prove it wasn't.

You're right, I have taken the thread off topic. There's no motive other than to speak to the character of the person making the claim. You haven't proven anything and it's a "consider the source" type of response. I believe it's important to understand the mindset with all that claim a firsthand alien encounter. Their past and future actions speak to how viable their story is and their conclusions or suggestions to other cases. That's why I bring up your past comments.

BUT, to bring it back on topic, if these messages can't be deciphered, why do the creators continue to go on for decades using the same method? They aren't shy and obviously want to be known, then what's the purpose of creating these at night where no one can see them? Why not create another circle next to the original the next night where the attention will be? Or create one in daylight? These and others are simple common sense questions that anyone should be asking.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: tanka418
Careful Eugene, you're becoming unhinged. You think you've effectively shown this circle wasn't human made? You keep saying IF this was by design, but haven't provided anything to back that "IF" up. Anything is possible. Bigfoot could have created it for all we know. But the baseline and default is that it was human made and it's up to others to prove it wasn't.



Wow really?!!? Dude! I agreed with you several posts ago...as I asked; "how much have you missed?"

You should have done a real analysis of theimage...it has much more than you even suspect that shows it to be of human origin...

But, I guess you were too "hung-up" on thinking that I was saying that it was alien made...your bad!




You're right, I have taken the thread off topic. There's no motive other than to speak to the character of the person making the claim. You haven't proven anything and it's a "consider the source" type of response. I believe it's important to understand the mindset with all that claim a firsthand alien encounter. Their past and future actions speak to how viable their story is and their conclusions or suggestions to other cases. That's why I bring up your past comments.



Guess you missed that one too...I say that because you haven't a clue as to my "mind set"...perhaps IF you would actually pay attention...



BUT, to bring it back on topic, if these messages can't be deciphered, why do the creators continue to go on for decades using the same method? They aren't shy and obviously want to be known, then what's the purpose of creating these at night where no one can see them? Why not create another circle next to the original the next night where the attention will be? Or create one in daylight? These and others are simple common sense questions that anyone should be asking.


Well, here is someone who thinks they have deciphered it...Here ... its almost half way down the page...

They seem to be trying to use a sort of "broken" Gematria. While Gematria is a valid technique (I don't expect you to understand that), I'm very sure it wouldn't difficult to "shoot down". Then there is the idea that it doesn't actually contain any kind of coherent message, but, still contains random bits of data, kind of like fractals. These can be distracting from the reality of the circle. For instance; the one we are discussing has those smaller circles, to many they would seem to convey some sort of data or message. When all they really are; are smaller circles that get your attention...they have no intrinsic meaning. Just as the crop circle itself has no intrinsic meaning.

Though, that does not mean there is no data contained therein...Above when I mentioned "broken" Gematria... Gematria is a method, nearly a technology, a mathematical technique through which One can derive data about an object, or event via what is "imprinted" upon it by Nature. I guess we shouldn't go too far into Gematria, you are not equipped to understand. Suffice to say...these are techniques that harken to the Esoteric Mystery Schools like the Golden Dawn.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Oannes
There is a video of this formation but I'm figuring out how to post it. It's the formation that looks like a human made out of circles. Search for 1033' crop circle and the video will pop up.


You mean the 7/7/7 circle HERE?



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 10:48 PM
link   
This seems to be a good update on current ones..
Current Crop Circles
If it was a hoax back in the 90,s you would think it would have died out due to lack of interest?



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: draknoir2

Brother ! so glad to see you about , Ide thought somehow you was ingested by other Brother , where did you disappear too ? not down Wiltshire with boards and planks I hope


explodingnodeBox



posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: funbox
a reply to: draknoir2

Brother ! so glad to see you about , Ide thought somehow you was ingested by other Brother , where did you disappear too ? not down Wiltshire with boards and planks I hope


explodingnodeBox



Disinfo convention in Germany, then work projects.



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: draknoir2

interesting sniffing ability you have there Brother
das beste ?

nog

funbox




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join