There is an awful lot of sloppy thinking in evidence on this thread. Here is one tiny example. I'd have to reply to almost every post to nail all the nonsense I see...

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Regarding the policeman's report, no one will ever know if it is true, unless he has retained some truly outstanding corroborative evidence to support his hearsay story.

The word "hearsay" is being used in a pejorative sense, but quite incorrectly. "Hearsay" is evidence that's inadmissible in a court of law becuase it relies on one person saying what another person has told them. That's why it's called "hearsay".

The police officer's account is first-person testimony. Colin Andrews' account of that testimony is hearsay until we can get it in the officer's own words. And elysiumfire would know from the story as we have it so far that corroborative evidence is going to be unlikely.

Singling out that post is a little unfair, because much of it was thoughtful, far more than the majority of the knuckleheaded grunting that passes for informed comment hereabouts.

As for those people who say it's dark at that time of the morning, it is not. By 4.30 it's getting nicely light in midsummer and visibility is excellent by 5. I live in the South of England and am an early riser, so I know.

Those of us who've done our reading in the subject will know that there were COINTELPRO operations to infiltrate and subvert UFO organisations dating back to the sixties. The crop circle phenomenon is getting the same sort of attention. I posted a link earlier in this thread to an interview given by Colin Andrews in which he relates how someone who claimed to be CIA (and who had been presented to him as a crop circle witness on a TV programme to establish his "credentials") attempted to recruit him. He offered to give him a device to tell real from fake crop circles, and he said, "we're taking out people in the field one by one. You'll be the only one left. Then you'll turn around and admit it's all a hoax."

That account rings true for me.

As for the poster who wanted the creators of the crop circles to communicate in ways we understand... there are plenty of good reasons why not.

Firstly, this demand relies on the assumption that the thing to be communicated lies within the set of concepts our language encompasses. That's a truly dumb assumption to make.

Secondly it ignores the possibility that by working through the process of deducing the meaning of these ideograms, we might learn something it would be impossible to teach any other way. But of course this kind of thinking is par for the modern world, where people would sooner play the guitar hero game than actually study the instrument. The idea of work as transformative activity is pitifully absent from modern society.

Thirdly, there is, like it or not, a long tradition in the more esoteric schools of human thought that symbols and ideograms can have a direct influence on the human nervous system. Unlike the other reasons given above, this is contentious but I have reason to think there's something in it.

Originally posted by rich23

As for the poster who wanted the creators of the crop circles to communicate in ways we understand... there are plenty of good reasons why not.

I never figured out why people thought it so outrageous that pictures would be used for communication. We have universal symbols used today that allow people to understand the message being conveyed (danger, poison, etc.) despite the language they speak. We certainly have the technology available to make this unnecessary, however it is used because it works, needs no technology, etc.

Firstly, this demand relies on the assumption that the thing to be communicated lies within the set of concepts our language encompasses. That's a truly dumb assumption to make.

I agree. Any other planets with life on them could easily be millions of years ahead of us. It would be impossible to determine how advanced another civilization is. Further, it is said that Earth goes through periods of extinctions and renewals. This theory could also be applied to other planets. We have no way of ascertaining at what "evolutionary" phase another civilization could/would be at.

Secondly it ignores the possibility that by working through the process of deducing the meaning of these ideograms, we might learn something it would be impossible to teach any other way. But of course this kind of thinking is par for the modern world, where people would sooner play the guitar hero game than actually study the instrument. The idea of work as transformative activity is pitifully absent from modern society.

There was a 1500' long symbols/writing crop circle not too long ago. I think the more reasonable thought process would be that it was there for a reason. Whether a message from above or below, it's rather naive to think that it was a bunch of men with nothing better to do. They could have accomplished the same type of thing with only 20 feet - or even 100. But to put a 1500 foot long symbolic string together, would seem rather redundant "just for the fun of it". Also, I call it overkill.

People, in their quest to label all circles as meanlingless entertainment, seem to forget the following:

1. Crop circles are a seasonal "business" which greatly cuts down on the profit. Equipment would be expensive: aerial phots, dvds, calendars, etc -- all cost money to produce and maintain. Further, there are many different companies making such items. They can not "all be in on it" and keep the "secret" going. Someone would have spilled the beans by now. Especially considering it would be competitive, someone trying to make money and not able to would certainly blow the whistle on the others to ruin for them as well.

2. There are too many circles and too many highly detailed circles to claim that they are all made by the same people. There have been more than one in a night, and four in a row night after night, with many, many miles between them. So now you would have many trained persons, apparently all with similar skills and equipment, still keeping the secret. The more people involved, the greater the possibility of information being leaked. Plus, not to mention the person that "blew the whistle" would be paid a decent sum from a tabloid to do just that.

3. People also point to the "circle makers" from the 80s that antied up to making a bunch of circles. They seem to forget - or not know - that the one guy died about 14 years or so ago. Still, they say he's responsible.

4. The argument that farmers charge a fee to "look" at the circle within their field, and therefore are in on it as well is ridiculous in my opinion. There are numerous fields that circles are found in. What do people honestly think: they have a secret farmers meeting and all agree to allow the makers to destroy their crops in the hopes of making a few thousand pounds (if that) from visitors? Then they all also shake hands and agree to never speak of it again. People tend to forget human nature in these explanations.