Humming Bird Crop Circle Is Man Made - Proof

reply to post by Wh00pS


Wonderful contribution to this topic. Thanks for that information.

So we are to believe that rich people from all over the world pay these guys??
And they have been doing this for How Many Years Now???????????

I do not think that his hummingbird is so great. It isn’t symmetrical.
They messed up where the body meets the wings.
The circle on the you tube video was very bad.
Why didn’t they demonstrate the “Milk Hill Spinner”?

College kids? Don’t they sooner or later graduate and get a life?
There must be by now a very large number of X-circle makers who would be doing a lot of talking about it. Do you suppose they are sworn to secrecy on blood oaths or such?

bsbray11
“I was talking about some research I once saw in a documentary, done by people who are paid a lot of money to investigate these things. They had computers, chemistry equipment, etc., ie they were prepared for the job.”

****And who is paying for all this equipment? Oh, I know, its those rich guys from all over the world.

I do have to wonder why the farmers haven’t gotten the law involved and set out to catch these guys.
Since some of these groups have been filmed and interviewed surely the farmer demanded to be reimbursed for the damage to his crops. ?

DO you think that These markings may have military value? A code? We suspect that our military has some incredible equipment, maybe they are working or playing..

And then he says, “bring your cameras, and we are going to summon the High Fleet of Alien Space Command down to earth to "help" us all.”

And there we have the Outrageous Truth that is mistaken for joking.

Thanks for showing that. I find it funny that the cropcircleconnector website and others put up explanations of what these crop circles mean and some of them I can't help but think they're hoaxed and man-made. I'm not saying that all are man-made, but I'm not saying that all or any are alien in origin either. I think it's possible that there may be some sort of alien presence with the crop circles, but I'm not going to put my entire faith in that belief when there could be a logical explanation for it being man-made. I do find some of the anomalies pretty fascinating and that's what makes me have an open mind in the subject. Whether or not they're man-made or there is some alien presence trying to tell us something, they are still wonderful works of art and I would like to shake hands with the people and/or aliens that created them.

reply to post by Sirius20


Great post and a star for you. I agree they are beautiful works of art regardless of their origin and whoever created them has talent.

reply to post by badmedia


I was thinking about that too but what it may be is that with the advancement of our own technology "they" (if "they" are real) have conveyed more advanced and cryptic messages since we possess the technology to decipher more advanced circles. I wish they could just write it in plain text since they probably know that much about our culture and literature but I guess they just like to do cool designs to knock our socks off.
I feel so crazy when I talk about these crazy things.

I’m sure this has been posted in other crop circle threads, but, what the hey, here it is again.

www.csicop.org...
Investigative Files

Levengood's Crop-Circle Plant Research
Joe Nickell In several technical papers, W. C. Levengood purports to show that "Plants from crop formations display anatomical alterations which cannot be accounted for by assuming the formations are hoaxes."[1] Unfortunately, there are serious objections to Levengood's approach. First of all, while he uses various control plants for his experiments, nowhere in the papers I reviewed [1,2,3,4] is there any mention of the work being conducted in double-blind manner so as to minimize the effects of experimenter bias. (As one "cereologist," the Earl of Haddington, said of another laboratory that claimed to detect different "energy levels" between crop-circle and non-crop-circle areas [a concept that appears to have begun with dowsers], "When they are not told which sample came from a Crop Circle and which from a heap of grain in my back yard they are either unable or unwilling to give a result."[5])

The question of bias is important since Levengood's attitudes and assumptions reveal him as a partisan crop-circle "believer" of the Terence Meaden, ion-plasma-vortex variety. Alas, Meaden-who wrote several articles and books advocating the vortex hypothesis-was increasingly forced to conclude that great numbers of crop circles, especially the elaborate pictograms, were produced by hoaxers, and he reportedly abandoned interest in the subject. [6] Levengood's colleague, John A. Burke, seems particularly defiant towards "alleged hoaxers" [7], as if there were not powerful evidence that most-probably all-of the crop patterns were man-made.[8]

There is, in fact, no satisfactory evidence that a single "genuine" (i.e., vortex-produced) crop-circle exists, so Levengood's reasoning is circular: Although there are no guaranteed genuine formations on which to conduct research, the research supposedly proves the genuineness of the formations. But if Levengood's work were really valid, he would be expected to find that some among the putatively "genuine" formations chosen for research were actually hoaxed ones-especially since even some of Meaden's most ardent defenders admit there are more hoaxed circles than "genuine" ones. [6,8] In fact, there is now evidence that a major formation that Levengood believes genuine and uses as a basis for theoretical discussion-the "Mandelbrot" formation-was the work of hoaxers. [6]

Although Levengood finds a correlation between "structural and cellular alterations" in plants and their location within crop-circle-type formations (as opposed to those of control plants outside such formations) [1], he should know the maxim that "Correlation is not causation." As the noted Temple University mathematician John Allen Paulos recently demonstrated-quite tongue in cheek-there is a direct correlation between children's math ability and shoe size! [9] Comments statistician Rand Wilcox of the University of Southern California: "Correlation doesn't tell you anything about causation. But it's a mistake that even researchers make." [9]

That Levengood's work does not go beyond mere correlation in many instances is evident from his frequent concessions: For example, "Taken as an isolated criterion," he says, "node size data cannot be relied upon as a definite verification of a `genuine' crop formation." [1] Again he admits, "From these observed variations, it is quite evident that [cell wall] pit size alone cannot be used as a validation tool." [1]

Even his alleged correlations are suspect. Citing variations in pit expansion and node size in plants from within the formations, he states: "These energy distributions are by no means uniform."[10] Again, he cites formations where there were increases in plant pit size well outside the formations, saying that "some 20 feet out is the farthest I've seen this energy carryover and so even [though] those crops were standing upright and looked perfectly normal they had been hit." He attributes this to "several different kinds of energy" being involved. [10]

He thus gives the impression that, like Meaden, he is constantly rationalizing new data and attempting to fit it in to preconceived vortex notions. Apparently no one has yet independently replicated Levengood's work. One scientist from Colgate did attempt to verify his seed germination claims using some of his seeds but without success.[10] Apparently few mainstream scientists take Levengood's work seriously other than one or two friends who wish "to remain anonymous because of the ridicule. [10]

Until his work is independently replicated by qualified scientists doing "double-blind" studies and otherwise following stringent scientific protocols, there seems no need to take seriously the many dubious claims that Levengood makes, including his similar ones involving plants at alleged "cattle mutilation" sites.[10]
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Franklin D. Trumpy, professor of physics, Des Moines Area Community College, for critiquing this article.
References

1. W. C. Levengood, "Anatomical Anomalies in Crop Formation Plants," Physiologia Plantarum 92 (1994): 356-363.
2. W. C. Levengood, "Technique for Examining Crop Circle Energetics," Report No. 18, [Pinelandia Lab], October 12, 1993.
3. W. C. Levengood and John A. Burke, "Delineation of Electromagnetic Energy Influencing Crop Formations," Report No. 24, Pinelandia and Am-Tech Labs, September 28, 1994.
4. W. C. Levengood and John A. Burke, "Study of Simulated Crop Formations, 1994," Report No. 27, Pinelandia and Am-Tech Labs, October 10, 1994.
5. The Earl of Haddington, letter to The Cereoloqist (Spring 1991), quoted in The Skeptics UFO Newsletter 10 (July 1991): 7.
6. Joe Nickell, "Crop-Circle Mania: An Investigative Update," Skeptical Inquirer, in press.
7. John A. Burke, Introduction to W.C. Levengood's Report No. 18 (see ref. 2).
8. Joe Nickell and John F. Fischer, "The Crop-Circle Phenomenon," chapter 11 of Joe Nickell with John F. Fischer, Mysterious Realms: Probing Paranormal, Historical and Forensic Enigmas (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1992), 177-210.
9. "Statistics Often Misused to Cite Links as Causes," Lexington Herald-Leader (Lexington, Ky.), January 5, 1995.
10. W. C. Levengood, telephone interview by A. J. S. Rays, December 8, 1994.

About the Author
Joe Nickell is CSICOP Senior Research Fellow.

Unfortunately all this thread is doing is proving that 90% of contributors to ATS seem happy to type first, think afterwards and prove with their drivel that society is being dumbed down.

Until the self alleged circle maker provides further answers there will perhaps be some doubt but for the sake of logic look at the OP, read through the thread (skim the drivel), check out the circle makers thread and other posts and there is only one conclusion.

The humming bird glyph was man made, a plausible explanation given as to how and indications as to why and a further verifiable prediction made.

That doesn't make all circles and glyphs man made but maybe this person can provide further info, I guess until then the nonsensical debate will continue to fill up server memory with further damning evidence of mankinds willingness to cling to faith and personal belief regardless of logic.

reply to post by Pauligirl


Great post as always Pauligirl! I expect the faithful believers to get a sudden attack of dyslexia, denial or cognitive dissonance when scrolling to your informative post.

IRM

reply to post by chunder


I agree wholeheartedly with your very real assumption. Society is massively dumbed down and this thread seems to be where most of the madness has decided to lurk in recent days.

As i said much earlier in this thread, there is a massive difference between wanting to know and needing to know. This site is not an all consuming part of my daily life because i work very hard and need to feed my kids. This is my priority.
If you don't have any priorities beyond making sure you wash often enough not to catch diseases then you can spend every waking hour online ( it's not an accusation, more an observation about just how much time some people seem to have to inflict the weird and wonderful upon us).

Crop circles CAN be explained rationally, produced by human hands within a charter of what wouldn't have to be classed as strange in order to be accepted. Some of the designs are very complex but don't underestimate other human beings with too much time on their hands, these people have an artistic talent and like to put it to this use. We have no proof that aliens have anything to do with these designs, only hope that something beyond our current comprehension is involved in some way.

I certainly hope there is an "alien" force at work here, but at the same time, i cant bring myself to believe they would have anything to gain by doodling in fields.

Maybe some of us on ATS cannot ever get what we want, a sensible and coherent discussion with analysis and conjecture...a mind opening debate which raises both questions and awareness. that's not to say i don't appreciate "humour", just not irreverent or downright stupid responses.

Please ask yourself this one question:

If I were to travel vast distances to interact with a different race of beings using technology far in advance of anything they had on their planet, how far up my "things to do" list, my list of priorities, would making designs in one of their fields be? (in the night, making sure i was unseen, never showing myself as the manufacturer).

Does it make sense?

Whilst there are many crop circles that are very impressive in both size and intricate design I can't help but feel these are man made. Just because a crop circle displays incredible precision and symmetry that doesn't mean that "aliens" made them. We seem to be forgetting that there are some very talented people out there who can create large scale artwork in a short period of time, especially if working as a team. The fact that they seem to "suddenly" appear over night more than likely indicates that the owner/s of the property where it appears slept through it. This would give them several hours to create this. The only aspect of these crop circles I find puzzling is that often the grass, wheat, corn, etc is interwoven and pressed and not killed in the process. There have also been reports of radioactivity in some circles, which is equally baffling. So it is a mystery, but one I feel that has a human connection using a process that the majority of us aren't familiar with.

Originally posted by davedat2
reply to post by chunder

 

Please ask yourself this one question:

If I were to travel vast distances to interact with a different race of beings using technology far in advance of anything they had on their planet, how far up my "things to do" list, my list of priorities, would making designs in one of their fields be? (in the night, making sure i was unseen, never showing myself as the manufacturer).

Does it make sense?

So what exactly would be your idea of the "right" type of contact? I'm just curious since you say it's ridiculous that they would travel a vast number of lightyears to draw a message in a field, I just want to know what you would consider to be a believable interaction taking into account their advanced technology and all?

reply to post by lpowell0627


That would totally depend upon why i was traveling to that particular part of the "universe".
Had i been there before?
Had i been traveling there for many years?
Had I been observing that particular planet for a long time?
Did i think, or did my superiors think, that making contact would be beneficial to our race or the indigenous race?
Was contact going to have a negative impact upon the observed people?
Were they ready for an outside influence?

And many more concerns and issues.

Among the many actions i would not consider would be to carve out cryptic designs in crops and fields, that is unless(and i stress that this is me going out on a limb) those messages were for my own kind who were present on that planet and knew what they meant and why they were put there.

Debunking activity can be complex, I still support Linda Howe whilst not agreeing with her about everything, and will carry on sending her $36 per year.
'once once' has swallowed the hook disguised with juicy worms for her or him by security operatives.
Few people check out debunkers, but a moment in UFO history I think about was when the English 'Quest' UFO group did a conference in Iceland, partly rather gullibly because persons claiming they were getting prescient sensations that something big was going to happen in Iceland in that week, during November in 1993. Quest were excited by several clairvoyants saying the same thing.
While Quest were in Iceland, with Wendelle Stevens, Bob Oechsler, Bob Dean, myself, a UFO crash happened in the Cleveland area of Yorkshire - the very people you would have wanted to investigate that crash, were over in Iceland a thousand miles away.
this does come across as Gullibilityville, but soon after that crash, which occurred during the night in the first half of November, can't remember the exact date, I was talking with a friend of mine who had left MI5 in 1984 because he couldn't stop arguing with his fellow MI5 men (partly, going into detail here would be difficult), but he remained in touch with a few MI5 guys, possibly also guys who'd left, can't say, but they always told him whether a UFO story was serious or not - I was sitting with him in Edinburgh's Royal Oak pub (neither of us are heavy drinkers, one or two suits us) sometime in the months after I'd returned from Iceland, and he asked me without my ever having mentioned it,
"Know anything about that Cleveland crash?" and I just instantly knew what he meant......an image of a thrush drawing interest away from its nest sprang to mind....however, it might be born in mind that I do give a good impression of having quite a network of contacts built up over the years myself, and I'd been impressive to him.....my response was,
"I didn't knoooowwww any crash had happened in Cleveland, Colin. Are you saying it definitely happened?"
"It definitely 'appened, me friends 'ave been on to me about it, it was a really big incident with quite a big gash in the ground. The military took it away quite quickly and covered the gash over 'n' stuff....we get the impression it was much bigger than the usual UFO crash, that's why we're wondering about it."
"All right, I'll ask Tony Dodd what his version of events is, he'll be interested in you confirming it happened as well."
Finally getting Tony Dodd on the phone, well known in those days for being Quest's main field investigator, he told me,
"It was actually three UFOs that crashed, one big one and two small ones. Locals described small beings runnin' off into the bushes away from the army as they approached, but the main guy I was going to discuss this with, he had a visit from the men in dark coats, so I've had to leave the story alone." The answer to what was 'bigger about it', presumably.
Tony Dodd never ever repeated that story anywhere, and I think that fact renders us a more respectable, and careful, image of him than many people realised while he was alive. Yet I would say the Cleveland crash was substantiated.
IN MY OPINION QUEST WERE SYSTEMATICALLY DRAWN AWAY FROM THAT INCIDENT AND THE MILITARY KNEW IT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, KNEW IT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN THROUGH MONITORS AND THOR II LASER CANNON, NOT THROUGH PSYCHICS. THROUGH UNDIVULGED SCIENCE.
AND 'ONCE ONCE' IS IN MY OPINION THE GULLIBLE PERSON, I CAN COME UP WITH OTHER STORIES WHERE THE DEBUNKER IS THE MORE SUSPICIOUS FELLOW, ANDY ROBERTS BEING THE GRAND-DADDY OF THEM ALL.
SO DEAR DARLING 'ONCE ONCE', REFLECT UPON HOW WELL YOU'VE DEBUNKED THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL FACTOR IN CROP CIRCLES, WHICH HAPPENED NEXT, THE THREE VERY TALL GUYS STORY, THUSLY RESULTING IN NO-ONE PAYING ANY ATTENTION TO IT - THE MILITARY KNEW THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, AND YOU VASTLY UNDERESTIMATE THE TROUBLE THE ARMY WILL GO TO TO THRUSH YOU AWAY FROM THE TRUTH.

Originally posted by martin_heth
I still support Linda Howe whilst not agreeing with her about everything, and will carry on sending her $36 per year.
'once once' has swallowed the hook disguised with juicy worms for her or him by security operatives.

You pay Linda Howe $36 a year and you say "once once" swallowed the bait?

LOL!

Then you call him gullible...

You need to wake up man. Seriously. Why would "security operatives" need to do anything when you people debunk yourself with posts like yours?

Hey can you pay me $36 a year? I'll make up fake stories too!

So lets recap what happened shall we?

1: A guy comes forward confessing he makes crop circles. (plain sight)

2: All the die-hard, religious like, crop circle fanatics in a self induced psychosis didn't believe him so they all asked for proof.

3: At their request, not his own, he tells them the next crop circle that they are going to make so he can prove it.

4: The crop circle appears.

That is proof that it is man-made, or proof that the guy is in contact with aliens. I'm going to believe it is proof of man-made. Anyone else saying other wise is in denial.

If you think it is some conspiracy then go make a topic about it.

Now, I was just thinking to myself about something. IF there are extraterrestrials coming to this planet and they want to communicate with the people of Earth, maybe they are doing so in a subtle way that could give people looking for that explanation a way of presenting themselves, but in a way where it's not blatantly obvious that it's aliens. This would help prevent many people from going insane because their personal beliefs would be threatened. So over a few years, they leave little clues of their existence and that they're watching us, but don't come right out and say "Hey, we're here." This would ease the shock of that reality for a lot of people who are open to the possibility. Using crop circles could be a way for them to show that, because it's possible that humans could create these designs, but some of the designs have been so elaborate it makes people think "well maybe there is something extraordinary about these things." It opens up the possibility for people to consider these ideas. I'm not convinced either way that all crop circles are man-made, but it does make me think "well maybe."

So Does this hummingbird circle look alot like this image:

files.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't know how to add an image to this from another thread.
It's the three clinchers for proof of alien life thread.
I just thought it was interesting to see the comparison.

reply to post by Tompdx3


The creator of the humming bird crop circle said that is what they used to desgin the crop circle. The Nazca Hummingbird.

If you would have fully read the o.p., and the links within, you would know that EarthFiles, and the o.p., already mentioned that.

They used that image to design their crop circle so people just like yourself would say, "OMG It looks like the Nazca Hummingbird!!".

reply to post by Wh00pS


And you have been lurking all this time with such important data?

May the Aliens beam you up for prodding



Nice one That has been a issue. Thanks for pointing that out

reply to post by Wh00pS


The problem with that is unless the node can repair itself & grow 3x longer within a few hours then it isnt the reason because the genuine circles have the elongated node thing on the day they appear.