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.