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.

 

'Balls of Light' Form Crop Circle

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Hmm, this is interesting.

I have seen this footage talked about before and major debunking going on towards it as being hoaxed, and that may well be.

BUT-It appears that more than this individual has seen these "orbs" of light above the formation of circles, and now it appears that even a PHYSICIST is coming forward to say that a light with a high electromagnetic signature fits the formations and effects left behind these events perfectly!

What ARE these "balls of light" that people claim to be seeing? Are these the FOO-FIGHTERS witnessed during WWII by numerous pilots tracking their planes? Are they some sort of ET technology? Or are they something that comes from the earth itself?

Definitely something to ponder over and give some thought to IMHO...





One of the more interesting videos concerning crop circles may be seen in this documentary from the U.K.. The documentary showcases an extraordinary video, filmed by John Wheyleigh at Oliver's Castle in August of 1996. The video appears to show two balls of light creating a crop circle.

The producers also interviewed physicist Dr. Eltjo Haselhoff of the Netherlands. Dr. Haselhoff offers scientific proof that at least some crop circles are indeed formed by balls of light. His research and evidence was even accepted after peer review for the internationally recognized scientific journal, Physiologia Plantarum.


goldenagetoday.com...




posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
on tv they explained theyre computer generated.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by platipus
 


Yeah, I'm actually not sure where I sit with the footage, but what is perhaps more interesting to me is that OTHERS are claiming to see the orbs over the formations as well, and more importantly this PHYSICIST has gone out and studied it directly, and corroborated witness accounts as well as the physics behind the creation of at least SOME of these formations as being created by something with a high energy signature in the approximate form of a small light. THAT has to at least make someone ponder the possibilities IMO.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


Humans create the "crop circles". CGI creates balls of light creating "crop circles." It was explained YEARS AGO!



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
 


Humans create SOME crop circles...Nowhere has it EVER been proven that they create ALL crop circles. It is a subject that is still up for debate. Many may be the product of hoaxers, many may be something else...



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
 


Humans create SOME crop circles...Nowhere has it EVER been proven that they create ALL crop circles. It is a subject that is still up for debate. Many may be the product of hoaxers, many may be something else...



Until irrefutable evidence is presented for other than humans constructing the "crop circles", humans are the only explanation.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
 


Nah, only debunkers only explanation, which is fine. There will always be varying opinions on the subject, and I can respect those differences of opinion.

But did you even bother to listen to what the physicist had to say? Or are you dismissing his claims as well?



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
 



Yeah, humans create the majority of crop circles. Probably about 99% are enterprising people looking to get a rise out of the rest of us. However, what about the cases of rare radioactive isotopes being present in samples taken from some circles? Or extensive botanical damage?
Botanical damage:
www.controversial-science.com...
Radioactivity.
www.cropcirclesecrets.org...


Your skepticism is well founded, but there are ocasionally...anomalies. Which may be entirely terrestrial in origin, but it's still weird and unexplained.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
The video is faked.

Firstly, there is an early video that shows a ball of light transforming into a disc and shooting light at a forming crop circle. Yes, I know it is noted on that segment as an animation, but it supposedly mimics a description by a 'witness'. But then the actual video shows something entirely different: three balls of light traversing what at first look appears to be a zig-zag course across a field just as a crop circle forms.

Secondly, the three balls never change apparent size, even though they appear form the camera angle to be moving away from the camera. That is clearly impossible physically, unless the balls were done either by computer animation or by some sort of optical trickery.

Thirdly, the video is some sort of a documentary, I am assuming about crop circles. The moody music and the build-up to the actual footage makes this plain. Such documentaries are always sensationalized, as their purpose is not to find a solution or answer, but to get people to watch them so they can make money.

Now the scientist they interviewed toward the end is a different story. He appears to have done some interesting research, and I was indeed interested in the data he had uncovered (I have heard similar studies before that pointed out similarities to what he had discovered with the node lengths). For many years now I have believed that most crop circles are created by people for kicks or notoriety, while some are indeed a mystery. This video appears to propose a corollary to that belief: most videos are made by people with good computers, while a few are actually what occurred,

I'd say this one was the former.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
 


Nah, only debunkers only explanation, which is fine. There will always be varying opinions on the subject, and I can respect those differences of opinion.

But did you even bother to listen to what the physicist had to say? Or are you dismissing his claims as well?



I dismiss all claims of other than humans regardless of who posits the claim. Should irrefutable evidence be presented that counters my opinion, I'll be more than glad to study it and see if it's been treated responsibly. If one has to take a stand, on anything, it has to be guided by common sense, logic and reason. When those are violated there goes respect.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
 


LOL, so then you DO dismiss the findings of the physicist. Well at least we know where you stand.

Redneck-Yeah the physicist is the part that really left me scratching my head, because he went out there and did the hands on with the equipment, and was definitely surprised by the results. And the fact his findings were PUBLISHED in a peer reviewed article means that the scientific community based his findings as legit, solid science.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAmazingK
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
 



Yeah, humans create the majority of crop circles. Probably about 99% are enterprising people looking to get a rise out of the rest of us. However, what about the cases of rare radioactive isotopes being present in samples taken from some circles? Or extensive botanical damage?
Botanical damage:
www.controversial-science.com...
Radioactivity.
www.cropcirclesecrets.org...


Your skepticism is well founded, but there are ocasionally...anomalies. Which may be entirely terrestrial in origin, but it's still weird and unexplained.


First, I definitely agree with your last statement and I'm not shy in saying the same thing as I've seen plenty of examples presented on TV that definitely makes one think. But let me add to that something out of left field, I've never heard of a single case where an atheist was haunted by ghosts! It always happens to religious believers.

Now, because I've never heard of or seen any examples of irrefutable evidence presented by anyone that other than humans create crop circles, I cannot state that I accept the claims by those who believe that aliens are responsible even for one circle. I have yet to see a "crop" circle in the arctic or the antarctic. Or anywhere where there are no tram-like tracks to hide the perps such as in crop fields.

I've watched a ton of court cases and I'm very familiar with requirement of irrefutable evidence. I've also read quite a few law books dealing with the rules of evidence. Hearsay just doesn't cut it.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
 


LOL, so then you DO dismiss the findings of the physicist. Well at least we know where you stand.

Redneck-Yeah the physicist is the part that really left me scratching my head, because he went out there and did the hands on with the equipment, and was definitely surprised by the results. And the fact his findings were PUBLISHED in a peer reviewed article means that the scientific community based his findings as legit, solid science.


Physicists, schmisists. I cannot put my hand on it right now because it's been many years but there were a group of people who went into a complex crop circle that was credited to aliens and they pulled samples of the bent crop from various locations and put them through the mill of testing. They came back with outrageous comments about nodes this and nodes that complete with lab photos. Later, the human creators came forth and everybody had a good laugh at the expense of the "experts" such as Colin Andrews, people who make themselves experts.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Skeptical Ed

I've watched a ton of court cases and I'm very familiar with requirement of irrefutable evidence. I've also read quite a few law books dealing with the rules of evidence. Hearsay just doesn't cut it.

I have to cut in on this. Court rules of evidence and the Scientific Method are two completely different animals. The former depends more on politics and special interests, while the latter is based on logical progression and experimentation.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Really old story and it was admitted to be CGI.




posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Skeptical Ed

I've watched a ton of court cases and I'm very familiar with requirement of irrefutable evidence. I've also read quite a few law books dealing with the rules of evidence. Hearsay just doesn't cut it.

I have to cut in on this. Court rules of evidence and the Scientific Method are two completely different animals. The former depends more on politics and special interests, while the latter is based on logical progression and experimentation.

TheRedneck


The bottom line is whether in court or in a lab, results count; the end product. In a court, the evidence decides the case. In the lab, results satisfies the scientist. Results are evidence that the system works


[edit on 26-9-2009 by Skeptical Ed]



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Was this really admitted to being a hoax? Who said that?

Was CGI really around at that time?

lol does out system really work? What do these so called 'experts' really know? They are repeaters with technology years and years behind what it could be.
We have no idea.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
 


The phenomenom is interesting, nonetheless, and it is rather depressing to see so many hoaxes and "fake" circles. (Although many are astounding works of aerial art.)
Sometimes, it seems that this accepted "crop circles are all stupid hoaxes" mentality may be a detriment to real research. No researcher takes it, or
is going to be taken seriously in the international science community with
the constant doubt behind the subject matter, if that makes any sense.

Those excerpts I referenced in my first post were conducted in the 80's and 90's, if I'm not mistaken. Some serious, unbiased research needs to take place, but who will do it? People will scoff at it being a waste of money and time, and others will be dying to know if they are in any way extra-terrestrial in origin.
Such a tough place for the whole situation to be. Caught between iron-hard skeptics and groups on the fringe of established science.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
This sounds like the balls of light mentioned in the ringing cedars books.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Skeptical Ed

The bottom line is whether in court or in a lab, results count; the end product. In a court, the evidence decides the case. In the lab, results satisfies the scientist. Results are evidence that the system works

The difference is that in a court, one makes judgments; in science, one makes theories. Both are subject to human error, but whereas a judgment is rarely reversed, theories are on a regular basis as new evidence comes to light. Judgments are not peer-reviewed; theories are constantly undergoing peer review.

All I am saying is that intentional ignorance of phenomena is far from being a truly scientific outlook. Sure, most crop circles have been proved by admission of the hoaxers to be a hoax. All have not, and while it makes perfect sense to keep in mind that others have been hoaxes, the possibility of rare naturally-formed crop circles is at least still a possibility.

Skepticism is healthy. Blindly ignoring reports is not.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join