'Balls of Light' Form Crop Circle

reply to post by Before2017Victor


Ummm try looking two posts above yours




I like this one too...

Balls of light are real. Here in England we see them all the time, and they are associated with ancient stone monuments like Stonehenge and Arbow Low, where they are often seen travelling parallel to the ley lines surrounding these stone monuments. The smaller BOL are most likely probes that come from a much larger mothership. They are just masses of pure electromagnetic energy, pure light. They are intelligently controlled and can go through anything. Check out the documentary Ships of light: The Carlos Diaz Experience for a greater understanding.

Originally posted by hermantinklyThe smaller BOL are most likely probes that come from a much larger mothership. They are just masses of pure electromagnetic energy, pure light. They are intelligently controlled and can go through anything. Check out the documentary Ships of light: The Carlos Diaz Experience for a greater understanding.

OR...

The BOL's are plasma critters... no mother ship or 'sips of light' required
They are native to our region of space

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


Light ball might appear anywhere between ground and the bottom
of a ship in the air.

If aimed in circles the currents will light up air above the
extraction of negative charges from the plants and ground.

If the ship is not lighting up the air at it's bottom then its as invisible
at night as it is in the daytime.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
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 Judgments are not peer-reviewed; theories are constantly undergoing peer review.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

Actually, there are no hoaxed crop circles as they are first-time constructions by humans. To create a crop circle is not the same as creating a hoax. By saying hoax, it implies that there is other than humans creating these sometimes brilliant images. But every single one has fallen on human knowledge. We have some really bright college students! And non-college, of course. The human mind is the greatest creator of everything outside of nature.

Hoaxing is done by CGI experts.



[edit on 28-9-2009 by Skeptical Ed]

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed

Originally posted by TheRedneck
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

Actually, there are no hoaxed crop circles as they are first-time constructions by humans. To create a crop circle is not the same as creating a hoax. By saying hoax, it implies that there is other than humans creating these sometimes brilliant images. But every single one has fallen on human knowledge. We have some really bright college students! And non-college, of course. The human mind is the greatest creator of everything outside of nature.

Hoaxing is done by CGI experts.



[edit on 28-9-2009 by Skeptical Ed]

Your screenname is Skeptical Ed and every single post I've read of yours is either critcizing or trying to debunk an incident. Why would you openly identify yourself as a skeptic and join a conspiracy forum, then continue to posting? It's like a self-identified atheist joining a religious forum for the sole purpose of trying to disprove their beliefs. It implies that you are driven purely by an identity (by ego), because you're here with the belief that you're somehow "above" all of us little fringies by standing for all things rational and scientific and being a skeptic. You might fit better at a place like skepticforum.com or badastronomy.com, where you can spend countless hours talking to the clad of other arrogant, narrow-minded pseudo-debunkers who think they've got the world figured out. People like you are speedbumps on the road to real discovery and exploration.


[edit on 28-9-2009 by hermantinkly]

reply to post by Skeptical Ed

Actually, there are no hoaxed crop circles as they are first-time constructions by humans. To create a crop circle is not the same as creating a hoax.

Ate who???

How about a definition of the word 'hoax':

something intended to deceive or defraud: The Piltdown man was a scientific hoax.

Source: dictionary.reference.com...

A hoax would be exactly the correct term should someone create a crop circle with the intent to make others believe it was caused by aliens or balls of light, or whatever. Methinks you are a bit so obsessed with debunking everything you see, you forgot to consider what you are actually saying!

So much for 'skepticism'...

TheRedneck