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.

 

Where's the evidence all crop circles are man made?

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
I'm trying to understand the all or nothing logic of the skeptic but I can't. It doesn't make any sense.

Does the logic go like this, we know some crop circles can be man made so all crop circles must be man made?

Do you know that crops circles have been peer reviewed?


Over the years, numerous people have claimed that they have seen how a crop circle was created by one or more "balls of light". Recent
www.ecn.org/cunfi/Haselhoff.pdf have confirmed these statements: Circumstantial evidence has shown that crop circles may very well be made by ‘balls of light' indeed! This article explains the essential elements of these studies in simple terms.

Although there are known biological effects that can create node lengthening, these could be easily ruled out. It was clear that something else had happened. The effect could be simulated by placing normal, healthy stems inside a microwave oven. The heat induced by the microwaves made the liquids inside the nodes expand, just like the mercury inside a thermometer. This caused the nodes to increase in length, while the amount of lengthening increased proportionally to the amount of microwave energy that was generated. This finding led to the conclusion that the node lengthening effect may be caused by the involvement of heat, possibly caused by microwave radiation. In fact, traces of heat have been found innumerable times in crop circles all over the world, such as dehydrated plants, burn marks, and molten snow.

My paper shows that the node lengthening in several crop circles corresponds perfectly to the effect that would be created by a ball of light, heating up the crop during the creation of the crop circle. This is not the case for a man-made formation. The amount of node lengthening, and in particular its symmetry over the crop circles, lack any trivial explanation. Consequently, the study confirms the words of eyewitnesses, stating that they saw how crop circles were created by "balls of light." My paper does not attempt to explain where the balls of light come from, nor does it explain how the crop is flattened. It does, however, give a strong argument to take the "ball of light" phenomenon, as well as the words of eyewitnesses, very seriously, and I hope will stimulate further study. Finally, it should be mentioned that all these findings and conclusions have been published in ‘peer-reviewed’ scientific journals. In order to guarantee a high level of reliability, such journals employ so-called ‘referees’ (objective, anonymous experts), who accurately check each contributed paper for errors and inconsistencies before it is published. Consequently, conclusions published in peer-reviewed scientific journals can not be simply dismissed as wild fantasy or pseudo-science. Therefore, it is fair to say that recent scientific findings have established considerable progress in understanding the crop circle phenomenon, although many questions still remain unanswered.


www.cropfiles.it...

Here's a link to the study:

www.ecn.org...

The pseudoskeptic has come to the conclusion that all crop circles have to be man made because a few are man made.

Maybe these balls of light are another life form that's yet to be discovered. Maybe there plasma life forms and crop circles are just their recreation. If a species came to earth that did things differently than we do, they might ask, why do they draw pictures on a canvas? So this plasma life form might form crop circles like we do paintings.

Again, this is just asking questions based on the peer reviewed paper.

Here's some info that might point to plasma life forms:


The universe is filled with massive clouds of dust. From past studies, scientists have learned that this cosmic dust can, in the presence of plasma, creates formations known as plasma crystals. An international team of researchers published a study in the Aug.14, 2007, issue of the New Journal of Physics that indicates that these crystals may be more sophisticated than anyone realized. In simulations involving cosmic dust, the researchers witnessed the formation of plasma crystals displaying some of the elementary characteristics of life -- DNA-like structure, autonomous behavior, reproduction and evolution.


science.howstuffworks.com...

My point is, so called skepticism of today, really is an obstruction to the truth. It seeks to stop debate in the name of absurdity of the subject matter. We learn and grow through questions and debate, not the blind skepticism of today. It reminds me of a quote by Alfred Russel Wallace, a biologist that helped Darwin with Natural Selection and he was a Spiritualist.


I thus learnt my first great lesson in the inquiry into these obscure fields of knowledge, never to accept the disbelief of men or their accusations of imposture or of imbecility, as of any weight when opposed to the repeated observation of facts by other men, admittedly sane and honest. The whole history of science shows us that whenever the educated and scientific men of any age have denied the facts of other investigators on a priori grounds of absurdity or impossibility, the deniers have always been wrong.




posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Skepticism obstructs nothing.

You're wrong about skepticism being based on the absurdity of the subject matter. It offers "mundane" explanations for "strange" phenomena based on known phenomena. It doesn't seem to have stifled much discussion either, there is plenty of it still going on.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising

Does the logic go like this, we know some crop circles can be man made so all crop circles must be man made?



I think you've answered your own question. The fact that it was demonstrated that a couple of guys could pull off an intricate crop circle overnight with a few boards is enough for most people to accept that as fact for all crop circles. I don't believe that they're all man made but there certainly isn't enough evidence to prove otherwise.

edit for grammar

[edit on 24-11-2009 by bigern]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Why exactly must we prove that all crop circles are man made? And what does it prove if we cannot?



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigern

Originally posted by Matrix Rising

Does the logic go like this, we know some crop circles can be man made so all crop circles must be man made?



I think you've answered your own question. The fact that it was demonstrated that a couple of guys could pull off an intricate crop circle overnight with a few boards is enough for most people to accept that as fact for all crop circles. I don't believe that they're all man made but there certainly isn't enough evidence to prove otherwise.

edit for grammar

[edit on 24-11-2009 by bigern]


LOL

That's enough for pseudoskeptics to make the illogical leap that all crop circles have to be man made because some are man made.

This is the problem with the skepticism of today.

They take a mundane explanation and then try to turn it into an absolute.

Did you even read the peer reviewed paper?

Are these guys creating the crop circles and then microwaving the nodes as they do it?

Again, pseudoskeptics want to shut down debate based on their belief system not any evidence.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2
Why exactly must we prove that all crop circles are man made? And what does it prove if we cannot?



You need to prove it if your making the LEAP of logic that all crop circles have to be man made because some crop circles are man made.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising

Originally posted by draknoir2
Why exactly must we prove that all crop circles are man made? And what does it prove if we cannot?



You need to prove it if your making the LEAP of logic that all crop circles have to be man made because some crop circles are man made.


The following are leaps of logic:

1. Aliens exist.

2: They are intelligent.

3: They are more technologically advanced.

4: They use this technology to travel to earth and squash cryptic messages into remote fields of wheat and corn for some unknown reason.

5: If a single crop circle remains unexplained, then it is evidence of #1-4.

The following are not:

1: People are known to have made some of the complex crop circles that have been discovered.

2: They could possibly have made the rest of them too.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


It can be frustrating that in the majority of fringe topics brought up someone's going to call bunk and rush right into the mundane explanation, sometimes a mundane explanation, as disappointing as it may be is the correct explanation.

The skeptics are necessary though, without them the crazy, way out there cringe worthy stuff would be running rampant and I don't think any of us want that.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Hmm, lets see if we can wade in knee deep into this crap fest.

So, this paper somehow claims that a big ball of light did it. What ball of light, the sun? Then, how do you explain the various figures drawn by a ball of light?

finally, how can you discount that the people who have physically done it share all the same characteristics as the other crop circles?

or are you suggesting they did it with giant flashlights instead of boards, ropes and a stake?



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 



You need to prove it if your making the LEAP of logic that all crop circles have to be man made because some crop circles are man made.


The following are leaps of logic:

1. Aliens exist.

Not a leap of logic. There's eyewitness accounts from police, pilots and more, mass sighting, alien abductions, trace evidence radar reports and more.

Do you have any evidence against extraterrestrial visitation? Do you have any evidence that shows all these people are lying or stupid? If not, how is this a leap of logic?

This answers 1-3


4: They use this technology to travel to earth and squash cryptic messages into remote fields of wheat and corn for some unknown reason.

Some crop circles could be made from an advanced civilization or a plasma life form. Have you even read the peer reviewed study?

5: If a single crop circle remains unexplained, then it is evidence of #1-4.

The following are not:

1: People are known to have made some of the complex crop circles that have been discovered.

2: They could possibly have made the rest of them too.


Nobody said it wasn't possible but the probability shrinks in light of the peer reviewed paper.

He shows through heat distribution the size of the light source that did this to these nodes. If you are goind to stretch the possibility to an absolute, you need some evidence.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Has it already been two weeks since Matrix Rising's last Argument from Ignorance, insecure, by-proxy attack on skeptics?

Before anyone gets dragged into his nonsense, please be advised that he cannot have a honest discussion. Review this thread for further information.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
The first crop circles were man made, Unless the aliens were like
"WOOWW COOL WE GOTTA GET IN ON THIS #"
Then i highly dought any crop circles are made by ets.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigern
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


It can be frustrating that in the majority of fringe topics brought up someone's going to call bunk and rush right into the mundane explanation, sometimes a mundane explanation, as disappointing as it may be is the correct explanation.

The skeptics are necessary though, without them the crazy, way out there cringe worthy stuff would be running rampant and I don't think any of us want that.


The pseudoskepticism of today is not needed. We need questions and debate, what we don't need obstruction and blind absolutes.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoffinFeeder
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Hmm, lets see if we can wade in knee deep into this crap fest.

So, this paper somehow claims that a big ball of light did it. What ball of light, the sun? Then, how do you explain the various figures drawn by a ball of light?

finally, how can you discount that the people who have physically done it share all the same characteristics as the other crop circles?

or are you suggesting they did it with giant flashlights instead of boards, ropes and a stake?


These are questions that need to be explored. What ball of light? Is it a plasma or another type of lifeform?

Yes, they compared a man made crop circle with a crop circle that had node lengthening.

The man made crop circle did not share this characteristic.


The paper reinterpreted the data published by Levengood and Talbott and showed that the node lengthening as measured in all three crop circles could be perfectly explained by assuming that a ‘ball of light’ had caused the node swelling effect. An identical analysis performed on a famous man-made formation (Dreischor, Holland, 1997) did not show these characteristics at all. My statements can be interpreted as follows: Imagine a dark room with one single light bulb hanging on the ceiling. If you switch on the light, you will notice that right below the light bulb the light intensity on the floor will be brightest. Towards the edges of the room, the floor will gradually become darker. This light distribution on the floor is well understood, and can be described with high accuracy. The exact light distribution on the floor depends on the HEIGHT of the light bulb. When the light bulb is hanging very low, almost touching the floor, the floor underneath the light bulb will be very bright, but the intensity will rapidly become less as you move away from it (see Figure 3, left). When the light is hanging high on the ceiling, however, the light intensity underneath the light will be much less and be more evenly distributed over the floor (see Figure 3, right). Because this mechanism is so well known, one can actually derive the height of the light bulb after measuring the light distribution on the floor.

This is what I suggested. As explained above, the swollen nodes inside the crop circles may be thought of as many little thermometers, expanding their length with increasing heat. If one assumes that the heat was induced by a small spherical shape emitting electromagnetic radiation, the theoretical heat distribution on the floor can be accurately determined (similarly to the case of the light bulb, as discussed above). I demonstrated that the measured node lengths in all of the three crop circles studies by Levengood and Talbott perfectly matched the temperature distribution that would be caused by a small ball of light, hanging in the air above the centre of the circles, emitting intense heat. An identical analysis was repeated on a formation in Holland [3]. An eye witness claimed that this crop circle was created in a matter of seconds, while a "ball of light" was floating in the air, right above the centre of the circle [4]. Figure 4 shows the results.

The yellow bars indicate the average node length measured at seven different locations across the crop circle, from one edge (position b1), through the centre (a4), to the opposite edge (b7). Note the perfect symmetry, which is remarkable! Similar graphs were obtained from two different cross sections through the circle, revealing a perfect circular symmetry: long nodes towards the centre of the circle, shorter nodes towards the edges. The thick, continuous, blueish line represents the theoretical value of the node length across the circle, if it were caused by a ball of light at a height of 4 meters and 10 centimetres. (This height corresponded to the estimate of the eyewitness). Just like the three crop circles analysed by Levengood and Talbott, the theoretical values for the node length (blue line) correspond perfectly to the measurements (yellow bars). Consequently, the circumstantial evidence left in the fields was in perfect agreement with the words of the eyewitness: the crop circle was indeed created with the involvement of a "ball of light".


www.cropfiles.it...

This is very simple physics and there's nothing supernatural about it.





[edit on 24-11-2009 by Matrix Rising]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Santa Claus made them. Where's your evidence that he didn't?


Pseudoskeptic!





[edit on 24-11-2009 by draknoir2]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


so you attack the poster and don't even mention the thread topic? kk.

i mean some people on this site are so full of themselves with their E-rep.

i really think there is a legitimate possibility that many complex and interesting crop circles are not man made in any way.

although there obviously are crop circle hoaxers out there.

but i understand the thread starters perspective, that a lot of skeptics will argue that all crop circles are fake, because some are fake.

that is so wrong, i mean when you searching for truth, you never leave out any possibility because that's how unexpected life is.

I do hope some of the arrogant, narrow-minded people in this world, just accept the possibilities. if we can't do that, we can never advance.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I think the evidence comes in the form of that we know for certain that some crop circles are man made. Given that option as a possible source of crop circles that are of unknown origin vs. the supernatural or other worldly creators, then one must assume that the most likely candidate for the unknown crop circles is also of man made origin. Especially since there is no evidence to support any other notion.

Now, that doesn't prove with 100% certainty that all crop circles are man made; however, I would say that it makes it 99.99% certain; with the remaining 0.01% being left up to the fact that anything is possible.

Just my 2-cents



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by Matrix Rising

Not a leap of logic. There's eyewitness accounts from police, pilots and more, mass sighting, alien abductions, trace evidence radar reports and more.

Do you have any evidence against extraterrestrial visitation? Do you have any evidence that shows all these people are lying or stupid? If not, how is this a leap of logic?



It's a disagreement of interpretation. People see and experience things. We don't know what they are. Lying or stupid frequently doesn't enter into it. Sometimes they're just mistaken. Sometimes there is no explanation. To automatically jump to "aliens" may provide a possible explanation, but it doesn't close the question for me. It would certainly be a leap of logic for me to conclude alien visitation is a done deal.

I don't know that alien visitation hasn't occurred, but I've yet to see anything conclusive that 100% proves it. To me, it's an open question. I'm just as suspect at the people claiming "absolutely not" as I am at the ones claiming "absolutely".

Where is the proof that no cricket has ever talked? If I can't "prove" no cricket has ever spoken, does that mean talking crickets exist?


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


We can't assume that especially in light of the peer reviewed paper and the physics behind it.

Give me the evidence that these crop circle makers are also microwaving the nodes of corn symmetrically as they make these crop circles.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dave157
that is so wrong, i mean when you searching for truth, you never leave out any possibility because that's how unexpected life is.


If you are looking for the truth, you will not find it in this thread. Threads such as this are not designed to find the truth, but are an argument-by-proxy. Insecure in his beliefs, instead of looking for the truth, the OP attacks skepticism instead of providing evidence to support his beliefs.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join