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.

 

Aliens make Crop Circles, Best Evidence Ever - Cosmic Wakening

page: 19
83
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by UfosExiZt
reply to post by atlasastro
 

It's more like you try to reinforce your belief that these hasn't been created by something else than humans.
I don't need to make my belief up. I have evidence that supports my belief, it does not need reinforcing.


It is obvious they have. No one can make a giant perfect cc in half an hour. This has happened over and over.

Awesome, just show me one being made that quickly. Just one. Use google, it is your friend. Remember.
Just one circle, just once, being made quickly by an alien.
Just one.......
Well?
Just one.

Should be easy because it happens over and over apparently.

Here is the best evidence to show why these circle appear over and over.
You should check it out, lots of googled stuff here.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Just keep ignoring the facts turtle.

Show me the facts.
All you have is dribble so far.


But, anyway Yes, I know you have a good understanding of the facts and the truth.
I mean, you think there are trees on Mars. post by UfosExiZt

Maybe the Aliens that make cc are planting vegetation on mars so the can make Mars circles.
Case closed.
Move on dweeb.




posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 

I told you. Google is your friend.

Search and you shall find.

But all you want to do is ignore facts and keep maintainting your false belief. So nothing I show you will change your mind, you will just find ways to try and ignore it.

The one at stonehenge is just ONE example of a cc made in extremely short time. There are MANY. Search and you shall find.

The one at stonehenge could impossibly have been created in 30 min by humans. No one saw anything at the road that goes by stonehenge which has a lot of traffic on it.

The blown nodes can not be explained either such as a bunch of other anamalies.

That's right turtle, you did exactly what I thought, keep ignoring facts you ignorant turtle.


www.bltresearch.com...

[edit on 17-1-2010 by UfosExiZt]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Whoever is creating the circles puts a lot of time into creating an orginal, meaningful, beautiful designs. The date of the circles is often symbolic and imprortant too. These individuals are patient and cunning. It is a passive way to communicate leaving wonder and imagination in their wake.
I often think certain individuals are mean to receive these messages and
interpret what they mean, however the public is never really told what was communicated. To the average person they mean nothing more than a cosmic hello, you are being watched, we are here.
There have been several environmental warnings, and 2012 acknowlagements. They symbols do change the minds way of thinking,
strange dreams occur after looking at the designs, acceptance of a larger
universe than just earth is understood. They are addictictive, you find yourself wondering what symbols will happen next, anticipation and excitement evolve. Where all this leads I have no clue. Contact? People
leaving the earth with them for science and culture study? Colonization?
Who knows what? Trust is a very fragile idea or bond between two species.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicWakening
 


Crop circles are probably the one Extraterrestrial related subject I enjoy looking into, because they really do hold more questions than the regular testimonies and video footage, which both of the latter give more options for hoaxes, but crop circles do ask the tougher questions...

1.) How is it possible, given the intricacy and time?

2.)If It is us, there is no way it was done for fun or credit...so why? There are so many people who don't care about crop circles Its almost amusing that any organization would go through what appears to most people as a meaningless expense - that is of course in the boring, non-touristic areas.

3.) If is not us, Then there are a million other questions...



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicWakening

ALIENS MAKE CROP CIRCLES, BEST EVIDENCE EVER - Cosmic Wakening


www.youtube.com

Crop circles are one of the things no one can really explain, the government say there hoaxes but that explanation cannot be used for some of the crop circles out there.
(visit the link for the full news article)

MOD-Note: All-CAPS removed.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by Skyfloating]


Thx you so much CosmicWakening!!

2nd ..



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   
I keep hearing people say some circles are too big or complex to be done by a few people, but I think that's really underestimating what experienced people who are good at their job can accomplish. I work construction, and I've seen some crews pull off jobs in miraculous amounts of time.

I checked out the OPs original link, and find this interesting vid in the related videos. Apparently three metal disks were found underneath a crop circle, showing the same sigils the crop circle displayed. Sure they could have been planted, but one was made of bronze, one was made of silver and one was made of gold. I have a hard time believing anyone would leave behind that much silver and gold just to pull off a hoax.
www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by GORGANTHIUM
Have you ever though aliens have hobbies too.Maybe the crop circles are made by aliens as a hobby or intreast.Don"t think aliens work all the time.They have to have time off like humans.Maybe the aliens have competitions to see who can make the best crop circle.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by GORGANTHIUM]


I think the crop-circles are gang signs made by alien gangs. We should start referring to them as "gang-circles". Alien gangs are obviously making the circles to mark their territory. Since our typical crops have narcotic effects on aliens when smoked, it's as if a good portion of our planet is covered with alien-marijuana.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Cusp
I have a hard time believing anyone would leave behind that much silver and gold just to pull off a hoax.
www.youtube.com...


... and that would be the perfect reason to do it, wouldn't it?

You could buy 50 bags of lady-bugs or whatever, and dump them all in a pile in the middle of the circle. A few hours later when people come to investigate they'll most likely notice a bunch of insects that were "attracted" to the circle due to some strange force. They could be dispersed, in a group, or even dead. It would still be "strange" and people would take it as evidence of extraterrestrial creation. Perhaps the force has something to do with the glass micro beads that the people threw around the field after they created it.

You could disperse something as stupid as magnetic shavings around the circle and people would take it as "evidence" that aliens made it.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Cusp
I checked out the OPs original link, and find this interesting vid in the related videos. Apparently three metal disks were found underneath a crop circle, showing the same sigils the crop circle displayed. Sure they could have been planted, but one was made of bronze, one was made of silver and one was made of gold. I have a hard time believing anyone would leave behind that much silver and gold just to pull off a hoax.

The video says the silver is made of sliver and the bronze of bronze, but they don't say the gold plate is made of gold, so it might be gold plated?

Well the hoaxer's manual tells the hoaxers how to make the crop circle appear "genuine" instead of "man-made" and this is one of the techniques, to leave behind artifacts at the site, and they know that some people will fall for it, that's why they do it. Sure a plate made of silver might cost several hundred dollars (at $20 an ounce), but that's not outside the budget capabilities of ordinary people.

The other thing you should do is look at close-up photographs of those plates. The craftsmanship is absolutely horrendous, they really look like a low-budget hack job instead of something an ET created with advanced technology.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 01:33 AM
link   
I think one thing the debunkers keep ignoring is the isotopes of rare earths that are often found in the genuine crop formations, not to mention many other details...
And for those that think humans could make any of these, I think you are right, except for that to happen it would take many engineers and a cyclotron laboratory and a HUGE sum of money and at least 10 years to produce the quantities of rare earths in the specific and very rare isotopic ratios being found in these genuine crop formations!!!

And this is just a couple of details of the whole thing.....

My advice to the resident debunkers is to go get a better education, then research the crop circles a lot better than you have been, oh, and last but not least, start practicing the ATS motto for once.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by alienreality
I think one thing the debunkers keep ignoring is the isotopes of rare earths that are often found in the genuine crop formations, not to mention many other details...
And for those that think humans could make any of these, I think you are right, except for that to happen it would take many engineers and a cyclotron laboratory and a HUGE sum of money and at least 10 years to produce the quantities of rare earths in the specific and very rare isotopic ratios being found in these genuine crop formations!!!


You make this claim but you don't provide any examples, can you even provide one example of the isotope claim you just made? The last isotope claim I heard that I researched, I found that the scientist who made it got fired for making such an incompetent claim that such isotopes couldn't be manufactured on Earth. But that one didn't involve crop circles so if you have one related to a crop circle, then post it and I'll look at it.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Certainly,

This page is the first one that I read several months ago:
execonn.com...

Very interesting data.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Enough of the back and forth bickering.
What do yall think of the video around 6:30???

I have never seen anything like that before, has that footage been debunked?



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Lets set the record strait for Skeptics and Believers alike.
First, I am neither of the two. I am on the fence till conclusive proof can be offered.

For the Skeptics:
One obvious FACT that can not be dis-proven is the way in which these "Genuine" circles are created, by this I mean the accelerated growth on the stalks of these crops; that allow them to be bent in any particular direction. This 1 Fact has not been dis-proven by anybody! Joe shmo, his board of wood, and a string do not accomplish these "Genuine" circles. Period.

This simple act cannot be replicated even in the lab. Period.


For the Believers:
The military has advanced technologies that far surpass anything we have seen around. And for good reason they protect these technologies. I'm not saying they have time travel machines, but its not that big of a leap of faith to think they have some things we've never seen yet. I am not saying the military is making these circles, but I am saying you must keep your mind open to all possibilities until they have been proven or dis-proven. By merely saying "Man could not make these genuine circles" is an under statement to the human race. I do agree that current technologies available to average citizens now is not capable of of these "genuine" circles, but possibly is capable of non-average citizens--military...

So, all I am saying is neither side can prove nor dis-prove some of these weird, but true FACTS. And both sides must keep an open mind until all doubt is cast away.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Sorry believers....

@ 6:30 in or so there is some footage of Oliver's Castle which I have seen over a year ago. This footage has been labeled as **HOAX** in other threads. I do not agree totally as neither side has produced any evidence which will support either claim.

With all the new video software out there AE. 3Dmax,...ect. It seems anybody can "make up" some footage that could be interpited either way.
Point is... It seems that actual video footage of something just isn't good enough anymore....and for good reason.

While I would like to believe that oliver's castle footage is real, I could produce a very similar clip with all the same effects, in a very short amount of time.

Youtube video's can not be used as concrete evidence for making claims. Only in the lab or on the field- will any of these claims be put to rest. Period.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienreality
Certainly,

This page is the first one that I read several months ago:
execonn.com...

Very interesting data.


If there are SO MANY circles with rare elements in them, how come this is the only paper floating around about it? I see claim after claim after claim, and this is probably the only paper I've seen sourced (if it's not a total hoax anyway).

The paper is from 1991 also... almost 20 years ago, and it is only in regards to a single crop circle.

SO MANY CIRCLES = 1 ???



If our research in 1992 demonstrates the presence of short-lived radionuclides in many crop circles, the meteorologists will have the burden ...


Where is the 1992 research?



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


Just on a side note I thought was kind of interesting

deuterium-what that article was about...

"A deuterium-tritium fusion reaction releases 80 percent of its energy in a stream of high-energy neutrons, which are highly destructive for anything they hit, including a reactor's containment vessel. Since tritium is highly radioactive......"


Funny thing is.....most of this stuff is found on the moon


Since this is a conspiracy theory site...I figured I'd bring it up


[edit on 17-5-2010 by Software_Pyrate]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienreality
Certainly,

This page is the first one that I read several months ago:
execonn.com...

Very interesting data.


OK thanks for the link. I'll share with you what I know. I have spent over $100,000 a year of my employer's money ordering laboratory tests for material content (things like lead, etc) and I always get detailed reports in PPM from every sample, including the control. So I have a lot of experience reading testing reports from analytical laboratories. I didn't see any of that PPM data in the link you provided, so I checked the references in that report, which led me to note 3 at the bottom of your link, regarding the story talking about the 6 crop circles they tested that year (1991). The article is very interesting, here's a link to it (which will only work if you click "quote" and copy and paste the link into your browser, ATS doesn't like it for some reason):

MUFON UFO Journal, October 1991 No. 282
The name of the article is "The Summer 1991 Crop Circles", starting on page 3. Here are some excerpts from that article:


Most crop circle theories these days resemble sinking ships. Launched amid fanfare and high hopes, they have come to grief against those sharp-edged objects known as facts.

the debacle has produced one sobering lesson. It is becoming clear to me that hoaxes are not always so easy to distinguish from the real thing. When in England, I tried flattening a few bunches of wheat myself. Where the plants were green and the ground was soft, it was not difficult to bend them without breaking them. Hoaxers could presumably do the same, though it would be difficult to do on a large scale. Thus it is risky to assume that one can tell a hoax from visual inspection alone
Then he describes all the problems with all the theories for believers and skeptics.

Regarding the radioactivity data, it's all over the place, which i think I can explain:


The first set of samples...seemed relatively uninteresting.They varied from the control by 12% or less in all cases. Dudlet regards such variations as not likely to be significant, because soil is a fairly heterogeneous substance.

The second set of samples is from the controversial Barbury Castle formation. The first time Dudley counted them, the differences were not significant. However, Dudley recounted the samples two weeks later, and got strangely anoalous results. The total emission levels were higher, but expectedly so, since as samples dry out there is less water to block alpha and beta particles. However, one sample, previously 3% lower in alpha count than the control, was now 31% lower. The other sample, previously 10% lower in alpha count, was now 17% lower. These disparities, one sample lower, present a perplexing challenge to anyone trying to decide if the Barbury Castle formation is genuine. The disparities from the control are significant, but they are significant in the opposite direction.


This is a really long article and I'm not going to quote the whole thing but there are 4 more results in addition to those two for a total of 6 crop circles tested, with these results:

2 showed higher results in the circle.
2 showed lower results in the circle.
2 showed no significant difference in the circle.

Not only that, but in the report you posted, even the two samples in the circle don't agree with each other. There is a reason for all of this, it's called the "Measurement problem". They have sensitive measuring equipment, so the problem isn't the sensitivity so much as the repeatability, reproducibility, and statistical validity of the results.

For one thing their sample sizes are too small, they only take typically two samples in the circle and one outside the circle. They probably need to take 10 samples inside and 10 samples outside the circles to get statistically valid results.

The amounts of radiation they are trying to detect are so miniscule as to be almost ridiculous:

execonn.com...


the radionuclides were present in such low concentrations that they could only be detected by exquisitely sensitive equipment. The absolute quantities of the radionuclides were so low that one would probably be exposed to more radioactivity by eating a banana (which contains the natural radionuclide potassium-40) than by spending 24 hours in a fairly new crop circle.


I have actually run into this same measurement problem in my line of work. When the levels are so small, the equipment will give you a reading, but you can re-run a sample from the same place and get a different result, so you can't really trust these ultra-low readings. I know this from personal experience. We can say the amount is below some higher threshold, but the readings themselves being so close to zero only tell us the amounts are small, and they don't give us reliable measurements. I didn't see any extensive measurement error analysis detailing how they determined confidence intervals for the measurements, in fact they didn't even provide the raw PPM numbers, but the data they DO provide shows that it's a mess:

Just look at the inconsistencies in the columns labeled "present in 1a" and "present in 1b", both of which are in the circle, and you can see they don't even agree with each other.

It certainly seems possible to me if they had taken more control samples they might have also found such results, or, of they wanted to evaluate the hoax theory, they would have to flatten the crops with a rope and plank so the control areas dried out the same way as the circle areas tested, since the dryness of the sample can affect the results so much.

So you said Skeptics need to educate themselves about this type of data, and I did, and it basically says they need larger sample sizes and more scientific and statistical rigor to evaluate measurement repeatability and reproducibility errors and determine confidence intervals more accurately. The way the samples are prepared is obviously critical since if they don't flatten the crops in the control areas so they dry out just as much as in the circle, that will bias the results due to the water content being different.

If you read the conclusion in the link you provided, apparently the authors agree, look at some of their conclusions about what they wanted to do next:


we hope to perform these same tests on multiple crop circles next summer. 1992's radiological research program should include the following aspects:

* Locating of financing for research, both from American and English sources
* Use of survey meters and film badges to test for health hazards and possibly to identify formations most deserving of detailed analysis
* Harvesting of multiple samples and controls from each crop circle
* Harvesting of samples across circle-less fields, to assess soil homogeneity
* Enlistment of U.K. labs with radiological equipment or, failing that, transportation of equipment from the U.S., or mailing samples overnight back to the U.S.
* Obtaining permits where needed for soil and plant importation
* Coordination with daily aerial surveillance, in order to sample crop circles promptly after they are made
* Regularization of sampling techniques

So they mention some of the same things I mentioned, like "harvesting multiple samples and controls from each crop circle" note they failed to do this in that report as there was only one control sample and not enough samples in the circle. "Regularization of sampling technique" covers some of the other issues I mentioned also, and there appear to be problems with that in their 1991 data as previously described.

So their ultimate conclusion, (and mine): more research is needed, (using better methods), if they really want reliable radioactivity measurements. Then again, these levels may be so small that they can't get repeatable results and can only say with certainty that the levels are less than "X amount" (like 1 part per million or whatever the sensitivity level of the equipment and statistical measurement repeatability analyses indicate)

So I would say these results are inconclusive. Their results show more about measurement problems and statistical validity than of any repeatable or reproducible effect associated with the circles.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicWakening

ALIENS MAKE CROP CIRCLES, BEST EVIDENCE EVER - Cosmic Wakening




I have an evidence that the humans did it
:




posted on May, 18 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Crop circles are indeed a mystery.
Over the years, they have become more detailed too.
If only we had a "key" to deciphering the geometric configurations.



new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join