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.

 

New evidance behind the meaning of crop circles? you be the judge.

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 02:55 AM
link   
www.lucypringle.co.uk...

www.cropcircleresearch.com...

The first site is full of awesome pictures, and has great links too. Ms. Pringle is one of the best circle photographers in the world.
The second site shows how hoax circles and genuine ones differ.




posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Frosty. Firstly, I haven't used the term offworlder. Just because they're weren't made by two blokes and a plank doesn't mean they were created by little green men. Secondly, you've just asked a few questions that you could answer by using your eyes, and re-reading my post. What did NASA analyse? Why don't you have another look?


Originally posted by Implosion


In 1988, during a BBC interview inside a new formation, the cricket-like warble that had been heard several times throughout the years was captured on tape. Eventually analyzed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, it was measured as 100 bpm, at a frequency of 5.2kHz, and mechanical in nature. A bird or insect was also out of the question.


Source.

[edit on 13/1/06 by Implosion]


As to attempting to use a government agencies actions as a basis for the validity of my argument? Well, please, If it is so obvious to you that this is obviously the work of two blokes and a plank, why isn't it obvious to the great minds at NASA?

I am not claiming to know what these formations are, or for that matter where they come from. However, I feel if you ignore odd facts about them, and blindly write them all off as hoaxes, you might very well end up missing something.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Implosion
Frosty. Firstly, I haven't used the term offworlder. Just because they're weren't made by two blokes and a plank doesn't mean they were created by little green men. Secondly, you've just asked a few questions that you could answer by using your eyes, and re-reading my post. What did NASA analyse? Why don't you have another look?


besides humans, who/what do you think made these circles?



As to attempting to use a government agencies actions as a basis for the validity of my argument? Well, please, If it is so obvious to you that this is obviously the work of two blokes and a plank, why isn't it obvious to the great minds at NASA?


The great minds at NASA? This research could have been conducted by a janitor if it at all exist. All the article says is that someone from JPL, not a sound expert, analyzed the sound and said it was mechanical. So....what? That does not rule out the sound human in nature or from a local machine or local person. Honestly, what made you read that entire TWO sentences worth of garbage to conclude that it meant NASA and its great minds cannot figure out what this 'cricket warble' is? Show me more information than that, please.

Proof through funding: How can a government agency be wrong?
If this were your college research paper that you had to give to a professor, I would bet everything I have that no matter how much information you collect from this forum you will still fail at attempting to prove the existence of crop circles made by anyone else other than humans.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Implosion
Frosty. Firstly, I haven't used the term offworlder. Just because they're weren't made by two blokes and a plank doesn't mean they were created....

How about 10 blokes with 10 planks? Really I see nothing in these formations that is beyond human abilities. Human's have created everything from the space shuttle to St Paul's Cathedral - I really don't think flattening some crops in a pretty pattern is beyond us.



As to attempting to use a government agencies actions as a basis for the validity of my argument? Well, please, If it is so obvious to you that this is obviously the work of two blokes and a plank, why isn't it obvious to the great minds at NASA?

I have had my hands analysed by NASA and apparently they are capable of killing a man at 100 metres. Anyone can say that they have had something "analysed by NASA" - it's meaningless without the report that the technicians would have produced if they were ever comissioned in the first place. Where is this analysis and what the hell does it have to do with crop circles?



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Show me more information than that, please.


Find it yourself. I have not come here to convince anybody of anything. What I have presented is related and interesting to those who would like to learn something about crop corcles, it is not there for the purpose of starting an argument with someone who is violently sceptical.

[edit on 14/1/06 by Implosion]



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Really I see nothing in these formations that is beyond human abilities.


Maybe you havent look closely enough.



In 1988 Andrews and Delgado sent plant samples from crop circles, together with controls, to Signalysis laboratory in Stroud, England. The samples were processed by Kenneth and Rosemary Spelman in accordance with a procedure approved in the German Government's "Pharmacopoeia for Homeopathy" for spagyric preparations- a process normally used in the diagnosis of human blood samples. The method allows for the crystalline structure of fluid to be examined under a microscope.

Their results revealed how the irregular pattern in control samples had taken on a strict structuring pattern inside crop circles - energy of some type had changed the plants' crystalline structure. A separate barrage of tests on samples from a crop circle in Argonne, Illinois, by molecular biologist Kevin Folta, even showed that the plant DNA was considerably more degraded than the controls.


Source.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Implosion

Originally posted by Frosty
Show me more information than that, please.


Find it yourself. I have not come here to convince anybody of anything. What I have presented is related and interesting to those who would like to learn something about crop corcles, it is not there for the purpose of starting an argument with someone who is violently sceptical.

[edit on 14/1/06 by Implosion]


You are debating with me over the interpretations of cropcircles. You sure are trying to make a point. If you are going to site sources, make sure they are accurate. Check your research. I am being very methodical about my approach, you however are willing to jump to any conclusion based on any bit of information that may surface somewhere on the web.

I wouldn't be able to find it myself because it either does not exist or the article took a statement froma research article way out of proportion and made it seem like NASA was 'baffled' by the findings. As far as I am concerned no such research ever took place.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty

I wouldn't be able to find it myself because it either does not exist or the article took a statement from a research article way out of proportion and made it seem like NASA was 'baffled' by the findings. As far as I am concerned no such research ever took place.


You're not just being rude, you are also being ignorant as the above statement illustrates beautifully. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you over points of view, i.e. Subjective statements. If you wish to open your eyes to the possibilities that in fact you don't know it all, then Google is usually a good place to start. I am not here to lay down the whole truth with regards to anything, I am here to add what I can to a debate about something that baffles me.

If you want to have a puerile argument, try someone else. Try a schoolyard.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Implosion

Originally posted by Frosty

I wouldn't be able to find it myself because it either does not exist or the article took a statement from a research article way out of proportion and made it seem like NASA was 'baffled' by the findings. As far as I am concerned no such research ever took place.


You're not just being rude, you are also being ignorant as the above statement illustrates beautifully. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you over points of view, i.e. Subjective statements. If you wish to open your eyes to the possibilities that in fact you don't know it all, then Google is usually a good place to start. I am not here to lay down the whole truth with regards to anything, I am here to add what I can to a debate about something that baffles me.

If you want to have a puerile argument, try someone else. Try a schoolyard.



Dude, you made a claim and were unable to verify it or show its validity or prove such a thing exist. Cool down. Don't gripe about me not being able to find your phony research article.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Implosion

You're not just being rude, you are also being ignorant as the above statement illustrates beautifully. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you over points of view, i.e. Subjective statements. If you wish to open your eyes to the possibilities that in fact you don't know it all, then Google is usually a good place to start. I am not here to lay down the whole truth with regards to anything, I am here to add what I can to a debate about something that baffles me.

If you want to have a puerile argument, try someone else. Try a schoolyard.




You have voted Implosion for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.



I have been trying to find an eloquent way of putting that statement to frosty for some time.

Hy seems to just want to attack anything said at any time.


I am still searching through some of his old threads to see if he has ever said a positive, constructive thing yet.

Am still looking ........



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Oh, blessed art thou who has thine link to research article!

I still am waiting.

mod edit: removed quote of previous post

[edit on 15-1-2006 by sanctum]



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 01:26 AM
link   
If you go back about ten posts, there is a good circle/hoax research site.
Also, in a post before that I suggested going to dogpile dot com and entering 'crop circle hoax', and you will find a huge number of similar sites. The research is pretty accessible.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
If you go back about ten posts, there is a good circle/hoax research site.
Also, in a post before that I suggested going to dogpile dot com and entering 'crop circle hoax', and you will find a huge number of similar sites. The research is pretty accessible.


What do your links mean when they present the words genuine and hoax? I assume one means made by alien and the other made by humans (this is a ALiesn & UFO forum, so you know....).

Why are you so willing to believe what one person suggest? How much do you know about em signatures? How much do you know about botany? Euclidean geometry any of what is being stated in these links? Why would any of this information suggest that these circles are genuine or hoax circles?

I couldn't find any JPL research articles.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Implosion

Maybe you havent look closely enough.



In 1988 Andrews and Delgado sent plant samples from crop circles, together with controls, to Signalysis laboratory in Stroud, England. The samples were processed by Kenneth and Rosemary Spelman in accordance with a procedure approved in the German Government's "Pharmacopoeia for Homeopathy" for spagyric preparations- a process normally used in the diagnosis of human blood samples. The method allows for the crystalline structure of fluid to be examined under a microscope.




Maybe it's you who hasn't looked closely enough. Here's some more news on the "lab" where the samples were "anaylsed":



A serious loophole in Britain's medicines laws has been closed by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society after a disciplinary hearing in which a widely sold alternative therapy was described as unscientific "quackery."

The society's statutory committee last month warned registered pharmacists that they would be struck off if they associated themselves "in any way" with a remedy called "spagyrik therapy." Spagyrik therapy, sold by Signalysis of Stroud, Gloucestershire, is described as a "system of diagnosis and treatment in one" and has been marketed particularly at people with a life threatening or chronic illness. The process entails distilling then evaporating a blood and urine sample and examining the resulting ash under a microscope to produce "an individualised patient oriented diagnosis." The ash is then mixed with herbs, diluted, and posted back for oral administration to the patient.

The company operates through a large national network of "practitioners"–some of whom are registered medical doctors–who take samples and administer the remedies to patients.

At a series of hearings, the company claimed that its sale of spagyrik liquids as medicinal products was lawful without a product licence because they were produced at a registered pharmacy and under the supervision of a superintending pharmacist, Mrs Jacqueline Wells.

The committee found Mrs Wells guilty of serious professional misconduct which "renders her unfit to be on the register." However, she has been given until October to resign from the company, and if she does so she will face a reprimand instead.

The directors of Signalysis, Kenneth Spellman, a retired town planner, and Rosemary Spellman, who ran the service, were told that they were guilty of "misconduct" under the Medicines Act. Their premises would no longer be registered as a pharmacy. Had they been pharmacists they would have been struck off, the committee ruled. They had been "practising quackery from the premises of a licensed pharmacy."

My emphasis.

Source: British Medical Journal

Hmm, a reliable source of scientific information then


So Mr and Mrs Spellman are quacks who have been found guilty of medical misconduct. The fact is that they couldn't actually be struck off from any professional body or register because they were never qualified to practice medicine or scientific analysis in the first place.

On a more general point about "testing" these crop circles to see if they are man made: how do these "researchers" know what effects they should see at a man made circle vs a non-made one in the first place? They can say that a non-made made circle has such-and-such levels of radiation or that the stalks don't break etc - but how do they know this? It is circular logic.

EDIT: spelling

[edit on 15/1/06 by FatherLukeDuke]



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Crop circles in places like China and Russia which have huge amounts of farmland have never (or almost never) been found. Yes, there have been UFO reports form these countries, but if the aliens realized there was such a broad space to "communicate", they would have done so many many years ago.

I think humans are mostly the ones who do make crop circles, not so sure about the geometricly (sp?) perfect & complex ones. We'll just have to wait and see, because just like the Patty footage & others, we cannot determine the truth just yet.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

Hmm, a reliable source of scientific information then
[edit on 15/1/06 by FatherLukeDuke]


Beautifully done. I got Pwned. Can you also do the same with Dr. W. C. Levengood, Michael Chorost, BLT Research Team Inc, and any of the other numerous sources of information here?

[edit on 15/1/06 by Implosion]



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
That was some good information Father, albeit I am really more concerned with the method of research and investigation by these crop circle pi's, so to speak. Though it was a good find, maybe I should start searching into these labs more often.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Yes, that would be a first now wouldn't it?



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Average Science practioners.
------------------------------------

These are folks who had graduated and joined the workforce. They do not challenge what they had been taught, keep their heads low, quietly observed and make the necessary changes, earn their pay and get on with life.

Good Science practioners
---------------------------------

There's this grop of folks, who have or have not graduated, read widely and gain experience thru the years, challenge science daily, with or without funding. Despite being thrashed by the community and treated with contempt, they persevered and they never give up, experimenting and studying further to attempt to create solutions to improve upon or correct a theory. Some succeed, some dont, but the advancement of mankind had been better off because of such people. Some of these angels are folks like Edison and Bill Gates comes to mind.

Bad Science odiums
------------------------

Folks of these category comes from some of the limited educated, but more from the educated ones who enjoys the money, fame, respect and perks of their education, they sought to protect what they know, never allow anyone else to challenge their beliefs or what they had been taught, forgetting that knowledge is a journey and not an end game. Their careers, cushy jobs, future book deals, overseas paid trips, fundings for research, retirement at an island with pina colada is at stake here!

Waving that education or experience, they will not hesitate to thumb others down, even if the truth is right under their nose, for in these bad science practitioners, in their hubris, with their credentials, they expect that their name alone will be believed and unchallenged, without even performing a serious study to the claims, let alone if the claims are not their speciality.

These people are no different from hoaxers who are out to con some money. However at least with hoaxers, we get some laff at the end of it, but with the educated who practise bad science, knowledge necessary for the betterment of mankind is snuffed and denied for not many brainy folks have the stamina to face the unbearable financial and emotional pain, ridicule for their beliefs.

Regards.

Edit:- I humbly apologise if anyone is offended. This post is not meant to be a dig at the intelligentsia, for no one is perfect. It is just merely my objective observation and not an intention to stir up a hornet's nest, as i am sure not many here are of the last category. Cheers

[edit on 16-1-2006 by SeekerofTruth101]



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   



What do you think?

There are clear distinctions between real/fake.. what do you think?

How could that even be pulled off by humans..



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join