Now Earthfiles is a different story with an article written by Linda Moulton Howe which those quotes are from, thats a website and a Author with an agenda. And it looks past the actual known science and steps in the world of personal interpretation, which proves nothing.

Originally posted by lpowell0627
reply to post by jprophet420

---

First of all, not ALL crop circles from '71 - '91 were proven to be faked. That is a gross exaggeration on your part.

Second, people find a way to make money off of anything and everything. Twin towers fell? Good, make a movie. Doesn't mean they made them fall. Swine flu? You need a designer mask that says "oinki!" Doesn't mean that they made the swine flu either.

One of the wonderful things about this world is that people have the ingenuity to profit off the worst tragedies and also the best successes that they should come upon.

People making movies about other people's lives makes them tons of money. In essence, they are taking moving pictures and charging a fee to watch it.

Taking pictures of crop circles and selling them is absolutely no different.

It does not mean that the people that make the movie caused the person to be interesting enough for a movie to be made about, not does it mean that people taking and selling pictures of crop circles make them either.

Lastly, didn't you ever wonder why when the images of crop circles are being sold all over the place that not one person has stepped forward to copyright the image?

If you are an artist, then you make more money by being the only person able to sell and distribute your work. Crop circle pictures and all of the other stuff that go with them are a free-for-all.

Makes you wonder why the artist wouldn't copyright his work. PS - you can copyright images under a pseudonym, so the argument regarding fear of reprisal from authorities doesn't apply.

[edit on 11-7-2009 by lpowell0627]

Images John Montgomery Copyright 2009

May 10, 2006: The Sun's Great Conveyor Belt has slowed to a record-low crawl, according to research by NASA solar physicist David Hathaway. "It's off the bottom of the charts," he says. "This has important repercussions for future solar activity."

The Great Conveyor Belt is a massive circulating current of fire (hot plasma) within the Sun. It has two branches, north and south, each taking about 40 years to perform one complete circuit. Researchers believe the turning of the belt controls the sunspot cycle, and that's why the slowdown is important.

Right: The sun's "Great Conveyor Belt" in profile.

"Normally, the conveyor belt moves about 1 meter per second—walking pace," says Hathaway. "That's how it has been since the late 19th century." In recent years, however, the belt has decelerated to 0.75 m/s in the north and 0.35 m/s in the south. "We've never seen speeds so low."

According to theory and observation, the speed of the belt foretells the intensity of sunspot activity ~20 years in the future. A slow belt means lower solar activity; a fast belt means stronger activity. The reasons for this are explained in the Science@NASA story Solar Storm Warning.

NASAIn 2004, NASA scientists started looking forward to a new solar minimum. In 2005, it began. At this time most scientists expected the new solar cycle 24 to begin in late 2006 or early 2007 with a following ramp up in solar activity.

But 2006 and 2007, according to NASA data, passed without any sign of a new solar cycle. During this time, the sun remained unusually quiet. Then, in early 2008, scientists finally found what they were waiting for -- a single
sunspot with a reversed magnetic polarity As a switch in magnetic polarity usually presages an increase in sunspot activity building up to a new solar maximum, scientists around the world proclaimed the new solar cycle had finally begun.

Now, nearly two months later, NASA observations show the sun is still unusually quiet. Day after day, the sun displays few, if any, sunspots. Even coronal holes are curiously absent. The long solar minimum now stretching into its third year coupled with curiously low solar activity even for a solar minimum is causing some scientists to speculate if the sun is entering a period of anemic activity like the most recent Dalton Minimum.

04.01.09

How Low Can It Go? Sun Plunges into the Quietest Solar Minimum in a Century

The sunspot cycle is behaving a little like the stock market. Just when you think it has hit bottom, it goes even lower.

2008 was a bear. There were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year's 366 days (73 percent). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days. Prompted by these numbers, some observers suggested that the solar cycle had hit bottom in 2008.

Maybe not. Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower. As of March 31st, there were no sunspots on 78 of the year's 90 days (87 percent).

It adds up to one inescapable conclusion: "We're experiencing a very deep solar minimum," says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

"This is the quietest sun we've seen in almost a century," agrees forecaster David Hathaway of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala.

May 8, 2009 -- The Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel has reached a consensus decision on the prediction of the next solar cycle (Cycle 24). First, the panel has agreed that solar minimum occurred in December, 2008. This still qualifies as a prediction since the smoothed sunspot number is only valid through September, 2008. The panel has decided that the next solar cycle will be below average in intensity, with a maximum sunspot number of 90. Given the predicted date of solar minimum and the predicted maximum intensity, solar maximum is now expected to occur in May, 2013. Note, this is a consensus opinion, not a unanimous decision. A supermajority of the panel did agree to this prediction.

Daily Sun: 21 Apr 09
A new sunspot is forming at the circled location. The magnetic polarity of the spot identifies it as a member of new Solar Cycle 24. Credit: SOHO/MDI