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: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


It's not a leap of logic when you say alien visitation is the most likely source for mass sightings, eyewitness accounts, traceevidence, radar reports, videos, pictures and more. This is based on the available evidence and probability not the wild speculation and opinion of the pseudoskeptic.




posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dave157
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.



Exactly Dave and that's my point.

There's a lot of evidence out there that needs to be explored if you are seeking the truth.

The skepticism of today wants to cut off debate by claiming their mundane explanation is an absolute.

There's just to many questions to make the leap that because some crop circles are man made, all crop circles are man made.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
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.


It is called a preponderance of evidence. While not every single crop circle can be directly shown to have human origins, the weight of evidence would suggest they are. Many here do not understand (and some outright refuse to) the concept, instead they rely on a God-in-the-Gaps argument.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by Matrix Rising

It's not a leap of logic when you say alien visitation is the most likely source for mass sightings, eyewitness accounts, traceevidence, radar reports, videos, pictures and more.


We disagree. The evidence still requires interpretation. Your interpretation results in an answer involving alien visitation as a settled argument. Mine doesn't.


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 @ 01:02 PM
link   

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?


There are accounts of Unidentified Flying Objects.

The clue is in the word Unidentified, which means we do not know what they are.

The leap of logic is turning something that is unidentified into something that is alien.

No one is saying all these people seeing UFOs are lying or stupid, but saying everybody can identify everything, or that people are infallible observers is stupid.

We live in a world together with billions people, is it so hard to see that any given day/night at least someone will look up and see something that they can not ID?

There is plenty of hard evidence that shows that people make bad observers in general. What someone sees is not necessarily what is actually there: www.buzzle.com...


If anything, there is just as much "evidence" that the small percentage of UFOs that remain unidentified could be due to some un-discovered phenomena, as there is that it could be due to "aliens". Why does it have to be aliens? We don't know for sure they even exist, and even if they do, there is certainly no evidence that they could make it here (or even find here), unless include more leaps of logic, like "they must be everywhere in the universe" or "they must have technology that can find a 'needle' in a 'solar-system sized hay-stack' ".

Well, why "must they" have all of these things? Because you think they should?

It's a leap of faith!



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
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.



Now, I will admit I am no expert on this subject; however, I am fairly certain that these same "microwaved" nodes have been present in crop circles known to be man made as well. I can't back that statement up w/documentation; however I bet someone here on ATS has that documentation. Anyone? Anyone?



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright


Originally posted by Matrix Rising

It's not a leap of logic when you say alien visitation is the most likely source for mass sightings, eyewitness accounts, traceevidence, radar reports, videos, pictures and more.


We disagree. The evidence still requires interpretation. Your interpretation results in an answer involving alien visitation as a settled argument. Mine doesn't.


Nope, it's the result of extraterrestrial visitation being a settled possibility.

I can then weigh the available evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely. These are not cases that just happened yesterday. The evidence has been around for years and much of it has been investigated.

Unless you have new evidence to counter the available evidence, then I can reach a conclusion based on the the available evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely.

We do this in all walks of life.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Perhaps I'm misreading your premise. I thought since no one could provide evidence that all crop circles were man made (which I believe to be a futile task), you're suggesting skepticism is an untenable position. With that, I disagree.


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 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Another thing is that crop circles have become more and more complex as time has gone on. Most likely due to each successive attempt being someone trying to out do the previous. Especially interesting is that once fractals became mainstream...suddenly, fractal crop circles start showing up...hmmm, wonder why...



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 

Actually, there isn't a lot of physics in the paper, it's mostly geometry and statistics.
The paper says the effect on the nodes could be caused by a thermal effect which could have been produced by an electromagnetic source centered over the circle. Basically it says that if an electromagnetic point source were used the results might look something like what is seen. There is nothing in the paper which precludes other possible causes for the effect or says unequivocally that electromagnetic radiation is the cause. It's offering a possible explanation, just like what the dreaded skeptics do.


The experimental data published in Levengood and Talbott (1999) suggest that pulvinus length expansion in crop circles is a thermo-mechanic effect, possibly induced by a kind of electromagnetic point source.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 


Why?

Because of the evidence.

We have tons of evidence to support these things. These cases have been around for years and they have been investigated.

I don't want to turn this thread into an alien visitation thread because I have already shown that extraterrestrial visitation is the mosty likely scenario to explain these things.

We might find another answer someday is not evidence of anything.

Based on the available evidence.

Let's get back to crop circles and if you want to debate visitation visit one of my other threads.

I'm talking about crop circles being made by a plasma life form that has yet to be discovered and you can't make the leap that all crop circles are man made because some are man made.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Again, you need to read the paper. He went onto say:


In the year 1999, William Levengood and Nancy Talbott published a scientific paper [1] that contained a study to the node lengthening effect in three different crop circles, two in England and one in the USA. The authors presented a ‘quantitative analysis’; in other words, the article tried to explain the AMOUNT of node lengthening throughout the crop circle, by means of physical models. The authors concluded that the heat (that had made the nodes swell) was electromagnetic in origin. One year later, I contributed a paper reacting to the one by Levengood and Talbott. This article appeared early 2001 [2]. 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.


www.cropfiles.it...

Again, he's just responding to them with physics.

He can tell the size of the light source that was used to microwave the nodes based on physics. The reason he can be precise about the light source and it's position and size relative to the nodes is physics.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 

He didn't "go on to say". What I quoted was from his conclusion.

Like I said, "not a lot". Some, not a lot. It's called the inverse square law and it is a very basic concept of electromagnetic radiation.

Distances and angles = geometry, not physics.


[edit on 11/24/2009 by Phage]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Another interesting point:


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".


There needs to be evidence that people are making these crop circles at night then symmetrically microwaving these nodes. Let me say that again, symmetrically microwaving these nodes.

Could some of these crop circles be the result of a life form we have yet to discover? Yes and in light of this paper we can't attribute all crop circles to being man made.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Please provide the part of the paper which says microwave radiation is the only possible explanation for the effects described on the nodes.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
The conclusion in Levengood's paper does not follow logically from the observations.

1. The data is based on scant readings, not nearly enough to recognize unequivocally a 1/r² law.

2. Where is the study that shows that NO OTHER reason can be found to the increased node elongation in the center of the crop circle ?

3. Where is the study to show that wheat node elongation is proportional to the amount of electromagnetic radiation absorbed ? This is speculative.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Because if someone can do something then it's all fake,look at the mess the US is in because we are to take ones in controls words for whatever happens,they aren't all man made maybe a few,but some people don't believe anything even if it bit them in the butt,people become skeptics because they are comfortable with whatever they are told by their fearless leaders,sad way to go through life with head buried in sand



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
cc are not man made...... here is the proof.....


news.bbc.co.uk...







[edit on 24/11/09 by mcrom901]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Please provide the part of the paper which says microwave radiation is the only possible explanation for the effects described on the nodes.



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.


Do you have evidence that something else can cause these things? Do you have evidence that something else can cause symmetrical heat distribution? Do you have evidence that circle makers microwave corn fields when they make these crop circles?



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 

Hmm. "Easily ruled out". That quote seems to be from a different source, not the Haselhoff paper.
Did Levengood mention how are they easily ruled out or what those biological effects are?


[edit on 11/24/2009 by Phage]



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join