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.

 

Crop Circles, 2010 & Beyond: Ignore Denial?

page: 11
25
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sol12

As to clarify my point of view relating to the "Specialist Phenomenon",
I'll re-post here what I wrote elsewhere while discussing the Butterfly CC:

This is what I have written in the past regarding the butterfly CC.
Here is a book published in 2008, the year before the Butterfly CC that was made, which was 07-08-09.
The Book is called Spontaneous Evolution: Our Positive Future and How To Get There From Here.
Here is the Cover, does it look familiar?

more info on the book. It has nothing to do with Aliens so you may not like it.
www.youtube.com...

The cover of this Book has the Da Vinci Vitruvian man with what appears to be Mandelbrot set or fractal butterfly wings.

Here is the Da Vinci Vitruvian man and the Butterfly CC.



The Butterfly CC, like the Book i linked earlier, are about the evolution of man.
The Butterfly is iconic of transformation. The Butterfly is also linked to many myths and cultures. The greeks with Psyche the Goddess of the Soul, psyche originally meant butterfly( psyche, from where we get the term psychology), the Hopi and Mayan cultures as well as many other Native American cultures also have many myths regarding the Butterfly. I mention the Native american Cultures because Mayan and Hopi cultures are currently being UPDATED by new agers around the 2012 phenomena where many new age movements believe we will be making a transformation.


It is what many new agers call the next step in man and many sites use imagery to represent this, and that imagery is what?
The Butterfly gets a call up again. Many sites I have read mention Homo Luminous, Hopi and Mayan prophecy and incorporate butterfly imagery to describe the transformation into a higher evolved human. This Crop Circles is no different.

Many people believe we are on the cusp of an evolution.

Here we have these beliefs transformed by humans into a CC.
Human beliefs, images and philosophies are all intertwined into this Butterfly CC. And it is beautiful.
But!
Everything about it is Human.

Everything about it is Human.
Human beliefs, images and philosophies are all intertwined into this Butterfly Crop Circles and these beliefs, images and philosophies all pre-existed before the butterfly crop circle.
There is nothing alien at all about that CC.





The basic methods of the disinfo-agenda:

- Blunt denial. ( MSM, "give me proof or shut-up". )
That is not denial. A request for proof of any claim is normal. Banks ask you to provide I.D. proof when you make a transaction, when the police pull you over they ask you to prove that you are licensed to drive.

- Ignoring the facts ( ignore any info that actually makes sense. )
Lets apply that to CC's. Why do people ignore the fact that no other cause besides humans can be shown making CC, in the entire history of crop circles.

- Ridicule. ( anything goes. )
I have seen you ridicule a sound hypothesis.

- Beating around the bush ( endlessly rehashing case_XYZ. )
Add BLT and node anomalies to that endless rehashing along with the claim that "some CC's are impossible for humans to make".

- Tunnel vision ( emphasis on irrelevant facts, ignoring the wider picture. )
Ignoring what wider picture?
The CC community that claims that something non humans is causing CC.

- Fiction ( pointless mindless fictional speculation. )
That is all those who claim human are not creating the circles do. Speculate. Assume.


- Fear-mongering/fiction ( "abduction", "cattle mutilation", "aliens")
Sadly, many people do this for a wide variety of issues and topics. It sucks quite frankly.


Regardless of all the noise, dis-info and fear-mongering,
people are gradually awakening to the simple truth.

We are not alone.
I don't think we are either, I hope we are not. What a waste of such huge and beautiful universe it would be if it is just us.
I guess I draw the line at what I know, and what I hope, when it comes to CC's as evidence or aspect of Other life in the universe.

The trend in CC's has been decreasing since a peak in 98-99.

Looking at many years from 1996 to 2003, June would see at least 20, and as many as 40 cc's each year in the month of June.
Last year there was 28 in June www.cropcircleresearch.com...://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/sep/15/crop-circles-england-2009-data
This June has been incredibly quite after last year. Only 4 so far. Why?








[edit on 14/6/10 by atlasastro]




posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 03:45 AM
link   
I am curious about changes in the soil and the big question which is what is causing the portion of plant just coming out of the ground to be softened, bent over, and hardened up again...A real mystery.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   
New crop circle in Piemont (appeared on the 13th)



More info and explanation about the formation can be found here.

I don't blame people for not wanting to believe that the crop circles are not man made.
If there is a bigger picture to it it also means we are not in control.
Most people are just to comfortable living in their shelter, feeling save, in control and secure.

For me the funniest thing is that most people who are looking into the cc phenomena are trying to figure out how they were made.

Not interesting!
The only thing that matters is the message.

The following video has nothing to with crop circles - but in the end is has everything to do with ccs.

Watch it and try to understand





posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Those guys who are making the CC must be dying to disclose, but they don't...


second line



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Personally, I believe ETs could very well indeed be responsible for some crop circles. Many of them are found to have increased amounts of radiation and electronic devices like cameras and phones tend to malfunction in these CCs. Don't tell me that two 60 something year old men (Doug & Dave) can do that using a piece of rope and a 2x4.

I also find it interesting that this,

4.bp.blogspot.com...

was found a year before this. Look at the bottom and you will see the previous image.

3.bp.blogspot.com...

which is a response to the binary message Carl Sagan sent into outer space in 1974 via the Arecibo Radio Telescope.

Here is a representation and explanation of the message sent by Carl Sagan

www.barry.warmkessel.com...

Here is a chart explaining the changes in the response

www.fenice.info...

[edit on 15-6-2010 by mr pant123456]

[edit on 15-6-2010 by mr pant123456]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 

...


Originally posted by Atlasastro

"Thank you for taking the time to consider my post and offer a reply."


Hi Atlasastro,

I've offered you a reply within the context of the 10 page discussion so far
and frankly, even if your opening lines were promising, you give the impression,
as you feel to state the obvious in the manner that you do,
that you are not interested in a fair on-topic discussion.



Originally posted by Atlasastro

Firstly Sol12. The Sun emits in the full electromagnetic spectrum but our atmosphere
filters much of it out. So we have the ability to observe the effects electromagnetic
radiation on plants and we have in fact researched these effects in depth. There have
literally been been thousands of studies relating to this Sol12.

Not to mention We live in a world that has many, many, many new devices that emit
electromagnetic radiation. Powerlines, mobile phones and wireless technology etc.
So the research on the effects of electromagnetic fields on both animal and plant
life are in there thousands. Literally in the thousands Sol12.


Let me just state the obvious too: we live in an electromagnetic Universe.

Maybe you didn't notice the link I added below the quote you refer to in these remarks,
it will take you to the full post and provides the context:

www.abovetopsecret.com...






Originally posted by Atlasastro

"It is controversial, but only because it is an everyday technology
that billions of people use and rely on."


I'd say the subjects and controversies relating to electromagnetism reach
way beyond commerce, the 'gadget phenomenon' and vacuum cleaners.



Originally posted by Atlasastro

"Well, I usually am convinced by evidence, but your conviction is noted and respected."


Ok, let's just apply this logic to the subject of this thread without wasting
our time any further on insignificant out of context comments:

You believe "all crop circles are man-made".

Where is your evidence?

Don't bore me with theories and speculation, I want the facts
that prove that all CCs would be man-made.

Let me just re-post part of what I wrote to you elsewhere:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Originally posted by Sol12

Fact is that for the majority of documented CCs there are no credible solid
facts available to prove/show their origin and their method of creation.

You can either ignore these facts, or you can accept that the "man-made"
hypothesis is only backed up with facts in a minority of cases.

Unless you believe CCs "appear out of the blue",
it makes a lot of sense to look for alternative explanations.

As you can not provide the facts to back up the claim
that "all crop circles are man-made" and no one else has
been able to provide these facts during the past several
decades, I would say it is highly illogical from a scientific point
of view to insist to hold on to the "all CCs are man-made" hypothesis.


You feel you have a point by stating that I would be ridiculing
an argument which according to you seems valid:



Originally posted by Atlasastro

"But you still needed to ridicule a hypothesis that is supported by evidence and fact.
Ridicule as an opposing argument is not food for thought, my friend."


The hypothesis that "all CCs are man-made" is not supported with evidence nor fact.

A mere appeal to "basic common sense" as a means to induce a belief
that "all crop circles are man-made" is hardly logical nor a scientific means
to come to any valid conclusions related to our subject:

- A largely unexplained crop circle phenomenon.

Pointing out to the flaw of this non-approach has nothing to do with "ridicule".



Originally posted by Atlasastro

"The one significant agenda that has stayed pretty constant
is the claim that some of the CC's are not man made."


The problem, or rather the issue at hand, is that there are simply no
solid facts available that point out that all crop circles would be man-made.

So, it is not an agenda that causes the assumption they aren't all man-made,
it is simply a lack of available facts that show/prove they are.



Originally posted by Atlasastro

"The hypothesis that all crop circles are man made is not based on
any assumptions at all. The hypothesis makes the assumption, sure,
that is what it is for. But it is totally supported by observed evidence.

The case is solid."


The case is solid?

You propose we should all merely 'believe' that
"all crop circles are man-made" just because some are?

To state that all crop circles would be man-made merely because
a small percentage are known to be man-made is not much of a solid argument.

No one here argues that all crop circles are of unknown origin.



Originally posted by Atlasastro

"The challenge is then made that I have to prove a claim
that the circles are all man made."


The challenge is either to acknowledge or to ignore the facts:

The facts available in the CC debate, pointing out that we are dealing
with an unexplained phenomenon, are several decades of documented
crop circles of which the origin and method of creation is unknown.

You are free to ignore the available facts, context, and the lack of evidence
that points out to the origin and method of creation of most CCs
and perpetuate your belief they are all man-made.

I wrote:



Originally posted by Sol12

The basic methods of the disinfo-agenda:

- Blunt denial. ( MSM, "give me proof or shut-up". )


You responded:



Originally posted by Atlasastro

That is not denial. A request for proof of any claim is normal.


I agree.

So, where is the proof that all CCs are man-made?

The fact that I haven't summoned you a UFO to prove my point
doesn't mean that you have backed up the claim that "all CCs are man-made"?





...
..
.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


...

Human Butterfly Crop Circle.

...



Originally posted by Atlasastro

"Everything about it is human"


I agree.

When considering the hypothesis that visiting extra-terrestrials are Humans
it is rather interesting and telling to ponder the meaning of what is depicted
by the design of the Human Butterfly CC.

As I indicated earlier, from a scientific point of view, it is highly illogical to assume
we are the only Humans, the only "fish in the ocean of our Solar System",
or if you will, in the Ocean of an Infinite Universe.




But let's clear out something first.

As you know I have been researching and debating the Human Butterfly CC
during the past 10 months, you too have participated in this discussion and
we have arrived to a point now where you and I end up debating the Butterfly CC
here at a thread where the wider CC phenomenon is the subject and we end up
debating the CC phenomenon at the thread dedicated to the Butterfly CC.

Regarding the case of the Human Butterfly CC, we both agree that there are
no credible solid facts available that show/prove who made it, why it was made
and most important, how it was made.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I agree with you that the Human Butterfly CC is an excellent example, a show-case
if you will, of what has been discussed here at this thread.

Now, as you have indicated how you understand the Butterfly CC to relate
to the subject of this thread, I will also add my take on how I feel the Butterfly CC
relates to the subject of this thread.

I will do so by re-posting here what I wrote elsewhere, it is basically
a summary of the available facts concerning the Butterfly CC controversy.

In my next post I will add it to this thread.

For now I just want to point out that we have this giant Human Butterfly CC,
the story so far is that "xld-sign" has merely claimed to have created this CC
while admitting there was no cause, no revenue, it was not a publicity stunt,
there were no other parties involved and they don't feel to share any convincing
evidence with the world to show/prove they actually made it.

No one has been selling any Butterfly dvd/videos, no "yoga-crop-circle-tours"
were organized during the time this CC was laying in the field, nor is this Butterfly CC
being used to promote anything, in fact it seems as if it is being ignored into oblivion.

So, no matter from what angle we look at this case,
for now, everything about it is unexplained.




...
..
.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   
...

The 'making of' a cover-up?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

...






...

If it really were all that easy to solve the complexities of the logistics involved
of making this stunning, mega-sized and very accurate work of art during a short
6 hour summer night, as claimed by "xld-sign" with a bunch of inexperienced folks
as insinuated in the BNN video, why then is it so hard for those claiming they
created this CC to provide some actual convincing evidence they did so?

Why wouldn't the "crop circle artists" want to show off to the world,
tell about their historic unprecedented achievement?

Claimant "xld-sign" is never mentioned during the 6 minute BNN "movie"
that was broadcast on Dutch national TV?

Broadcast company BNN has made it clear in this video they were not involved
with the "initiative" of creating the Butterfly CC, all they state/claim is that
they were merely present just to shoot some footage featuring "Geraldine".

Meaning, BNN has officially retracted a previous unconfirmed rumour
of their alleged involvement.

The rumour about broadcast company BNN's involvement originated from the fact
that the initial discovery of the Butterfly CC was announced during a live BNN
radio-show after discoverer Joop van Houdt, a professional aerial photographer,
had emailed an image to the show and he was called back
to tell his story about the discovery.

During this live BNN radio show an attempt was made to find out the identity of
the creators and the conclusion of this attempt was that no one knew who had
created the Butterfly CC and "xld-sign" has never been mentioned during this show.

The full details regarding this BNN live radio-show including a translation of the
interview and an mp3 file of the original broadcast (in Dutch) are available here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So, going by the revelations of this stunning BNN video, all we know now is that
a guy named "Ron" claims he created this CC, "xld-sign" is no longer mentioned,
yet we have not been provided with any actual convincing footage, we have not seen
a single image of the process of creation nor of any aspect of the logistics involved.

"xld-sign" has not posted nor mentioned the BNN broadcast at their website.

www.xld-sign.com...

A segment of the CC 'establishment' continues to ignore the many odd facts
surrounding the "xld-sign" claim, in particular the complete absence of actual
solid evidence that would show/prove how this Butterfly CC was made.

Crop Circle Connector website has never explicitly denied nor confirmed
the authenticity of the Human Butterfly CC.

They have mentioned the Human Butterfly CC at their "rumours" section,
adding a link to the "xld-sign" website where no facts can be found and
a link to a Dutch fringe forum "Niburu.nl" where neither any facts can be found.

Another link was added to an image gallery no longer available online which contained
the infamous group-shot of the alleged "artists" posing in front of the camera.

The infamous group-shot has never been posted at the "xld-sign" website
nor did they ever add a link to this now no longer available image gallery.

defotograaf.smugmug.com...

The 2009 CC year is now archived at CCC and only accessible to paying members.

As mentioned earlier, researcher Colin Andrews has hailed the 6 minutes of BNN bliss
as the anticipated "movie" that would prove the Butterfly CC to be man-made.

www.colinandrews.net...

Of interest here is the highly peculiar fact that Dutch crop circle organization "DCCA"
has been supporting and promoting the "xld-sign" claim, yet, without ever offering
a reasonable indication for their motivation to do so.

- "DCCA" has never posted any photographs nor any other facts/details
as to show that the Human Butterfly CC would have been created by "xld-sign".

- "DCCA" has never published any statement nor facts at their website
as to point out why they support the unsubstantiated "xld-sign" claim.

- All "DCCA" has ever offered at their website is a single direct link
to Dutch fringe forum "Niburu.nl", merely redirecting the inquiring visitors
in search for facts/details to rumours posted at a Dutch fringe-board.

- At the Dutch fringe board "Niburu.nl" it is implied that "DCCA" associates
are the "specialists" who have established that the Butterfly CC would be man-made.

Initially, Peter Vanlaerhoven and Sjaak Damen, two "DCCA" associates, stated that they
had talked to the land-owner who allegedly explained to them being involved and that
the creation of the Butterfly CC would be part of an anniversary related land-art project.

The "land-owner/land-art project" rumour has turned out to be false
and has in fact later been retracted by "xld-sign" associate Manfred Koeleman.

It is indeed the only statement ever made by "xld-sign" since August 7th 2009
and when considering who is the actual land-owner it becomes clear why "xld-sign"
had to make this statement and why they had to retract this false rumour.

Landowner KMWP is closely associated with Dutch government, the fields they own
are used for advanced agricultural scientific research, they have never stated
to be involved with the Butterfly CC nor with any "crop circle artists".

www.kmwp.nl...

It is clear that land-owner KMWP, bearing a Royal honorary name
("K" in KMWP means Koninklijk = Royal), did not much feel like getting
caught up in any 'rumour games' and controversy relating to crop circles.

While discussing the Butterfly CC controversy, I have pointed out
to the dubious nature of the "land-owner/land-art project" rumour
and more detailed information can be found at the following links:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

None of these rumours were ever posted at the "xld-sign" website,
neither were they retracted at their website, the stage of the 'rumour game'
is Dutch fringe forum "Niburu.nl" in association with the 'CC researchers' of "DCCA".

You can still read these statements at link below, it is in Dutch so you may
need to use google translate. This page at Dutch fringe forum "niburu.nl"
is the one and only source of all rumours relating to the "xld-sign" claim:

www.niburu.nl...

Bottom-line, all the "specialism" DCCA has ever offered since August 7th 2009
relating to researching the Butterfly CC is posting a mere single direct link to
the "Niburu.nl" fringe forum without providing any information nor any reasonable
explanation/motivation why they do so.

The English section of the "DCCA" website no longer mentions the Butterfly CC,
any Dutch visitors are merely redirected to the "Niburu.nl" fringe forum.

More info about DCCA and their research:

www.dcca.nl...

Another Dutch crop circle organization, DCCCS, has never posted any statements
regarding the Butterfly CC, they have neither confirmed nor denied its authenticity.

The Human Butterfly CC was one of many rather graphical CCs which
have appeared during the 2009 CC year like the Dragonfly, the Jellyfish,
the Phoenix bird, the Owl, just to name a few.

Is it all that reasonable to consider the Human Butterfly to be
"too good to be true" in the light of the stunning 2009 CC year?

Is it reasonable to ignore the facts relating to a highly dubious
and so far unsubstantiated "xld-sign" claim?

Is it reasonable to ignore the dubious nature of the entirely unconvincing
BNN footage in which "xld-sign" is not even being mentioned?

My intention is not to prove the authenticity of the Human Butterfly CC.

I don't think anyone can prove the authenticity of any particular CC,
all we can do is take a close look at the facts surrounding a case
and draw our own private conclusions.

It seems only few people realize the tremendous size of the Human Butterfly CC,
the accuracy in the way it is laid out in a field of wheat, the extremely complicated
task of solving and executing the logistic issues involved, in particular, when
considering the "xld-sign" claim of having created this very accurate work of art
during a short 6 hour night.

Anyone looking at the facts of this case will have to conclude
that the "xld-sign" claim does not hold any water.

Besides "xld-sign" no one else has made any claims.

The controversy surrounding the Butterfly CC points out that
there seems to be a massive interest to keep the public uninformed
about the many unanswered questions that surround this case
which point out that we are dealing with a CC like most others
in the sense that its origin and method of creation is unknown.

Some people will continue to argue that this CC has to be man-made
and that it was created to further some unspecified agenda.

I don't see how any agenda is being furthered when all the talking-heads
and "specialists" have unanimously agreed this Butterfly CC is man-made,
regardless the absence of any facts pointing out to this,
and the Butterfly continues to be ignored into oblivion?

I do see how an agenda is being furthered when considering
the Human Butterfly a genuine CC and that the agenda involved
is to keep it low-profile by means of spreading false rumours and
promoting an utterly dubious and unsubstantiated "man-made" claim.




...
..
.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sol12
reply to post by atlasastro
 




I've offered you a reply within the context of the 10 page discussion so far
and frankly, even if your opening lines were promising, you give the impression,
In all fairness Sol, you cannot define this tpic to a context in order to present an overall valid truth or explanation, perhaps what impression you read in my reply has no relation to the context or argument I refer to, and has more to do with you own personal bias. By relegating any discussion I present to the "impression" you determine it to represent is typical of this topic. It is a constant of this debate that people like yourself will rely on "impressions" or interpretation to suit their own arguments rather then simpl the facts.


As you feel to state the obvious in the manner that you do,
that you are not interested in a fair on-topic discussion.
I state the obvious because it seem that it escapes many here in this discussion. Why pander to speculation and imagination when the obvious is ignored as being unsupportive of your own personal bias.
Simply point out the unfairness in the facts I present Sol. Again you seem intent on attacking me personally and you have failed to responded to any of the actually arguments I present. You can dance around these arguments by siting context but if you need to suggest that I need to define my response to YOUR context then you must really be struggling to support your own beliefs. This struggle is evident in your need to define and restrict ALL discussion to a context in which you can control all perception and argument relating to this CC.




Let me just state the obvious too: we live in an electromagnetic Universe.

Maybe you didn't notice the link I added below the quote you refer to in these remarks,
it will take you to the full post and provides the context:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
I noticed your response Sol. You state the obvious when it suits you and then choose to mystify aspects of the obvious when it suits you too!
My response regarding the obvious presence of electromagnetic aspects of our every day existence argues against your points, which is why I pointed out the obvious too you as a way of arguing against the way you create a "mystery or supernatural" aspect to an element that is ordinary and explainable.
This only highlights the bias you seem to soak your arguments with. It is only when members like myself that take the effort to "state the obvious" that the entire context of your argument unfolds.






I'd say the subjects and controversies relating to electromagnetism reach
way beyond commerce, the 'gadget phenomenon' and vacuum cleaners.
Sol, point out where I define the controversy relating to "electromagnetism" as being:

'gadget phenomenon' and vacuum cleaners.
.
I simply don't do that. You can say what ever you want about the controversy. This does not support your argument in any way except to present you own personal bias.
My response to you in relation to this topic was to point to the obvious as a juxtaposition to the argument you present.




Ok, let's just apply this logic to the subject of this thread without wasting
our time
any further on insignificant out of context comments:

You believe "all crop circles are man-made".

Where is your evidence?
Excellent lets use Logic Sol12. Lets rock.

I believe all crop circles are man made.
I have a hypothesis that they are man made.
I can show you men making CC.
I can show you CC's made by men.
You know this Sol.

Therefore I have a VALID hypothesis that I can APPLY TO ALL CROP CICLES.
I CAN SHOW A CAUSE.
USING LOGIC LIKE YOU DEMAND!
IT IS NOT ILLOGICAL TO HYPOTHESIS THAT ALL CC ARE MAN MADE.

WHAT DO YOU HAVE?..................

SOL12- Can you show an other cause?
CAn you show any thing else making CC in the entire history of CC's?
No You Cannot.
You can't.
You never have.
So who is using Logic Sol12?

How have you come to a logical conclusion that CC's are not Man Made?

Cut and Paste pics of Fairies?



Don't bore me with theories and speculation, I want the facts
that prove that all CCs would be man-made.
You have seen my threads Sol12.
I have far more facts then you will ever need.

Just show me ONE CC made by something not HUMAN!
Just one.
Then logically, we can add it to the KNOWN cause of CC's.
Because, logically speaking, we only have one known cause SOL. Humans.
Therefor the hypothesis that all CC's are man made, is logical.
Unless you can introduce another known cause?
Can you do that?
No.
You can't.
Can you?
Don't give me your crap arguments about your theories SOL.
Just show me your evidence?

What?
You don't have any?
Ever!
In the entire history of CC's?
Nothing other then Humans making CC's in the entire history of CC's!
What!
Nothing at all?
In over 30 years?
Wow, and you think I am not logical in my arguments hey Sol12!

Let me just re-post part of what I wrote to you elsewhere:



Fact is that for the majority of documented CCs there are no credible solid
facts available to prove/show their origin and their method of creation.
So lets stick to what know Sol. Not what we imagine.


You can either ignore these facts, or you can accept that the "man-made"
hypothesis is only backed up with facts in a minority of cases.
Sol, just show me ONE, just ONE, only ONE, being made by something else.
Then I can entertain another KNOWN and REAL, and REALLY EXISTING cause that is not man made.
Why is the too much to ask you people. Just One Circle Sol, being made by something other then man. I mean you guys have had 30 years dude. 30 YEARS.




As you can not provide the facts to back up the claim
that "all crop circles are man-made" and no one else has
been able to provide these facts during the past several
decades, I would say it is highly illogical from a scientific point
of view to insist to hold on to the "all CCs are man-made" hypothesis.
Dude, this is total bull#$%t.
I don't need to prove every single CC is man made.

You can't even prove just ONE was made by something other then humans.
Your argument is a fallacy.

This is how pathetic your belief is.
You actually need to challenge people like me to prove to you that every single CC is man made in order to disprove something you cannot show in any way, shape or form is actually making the CC's.

Think about that.

All you need to do is show me just ONE CC being made by something not human.
You can't.

I can show you humans making CC's.







The hypothesis that "all CCs are man-made" is not supported with evidence nor fact.

Your poor understanding of science or argument is not my problem.
A hypothesis makes an assumption. My hypothesis is that ALL CC's are man made. The Hypothesis makes the claim that ALL CC's are man made by using evidence. NOT ASSUMPTIONS.
I have evidence that humans exists.
I have evidence that humans make CC's.
My hypothesis is supported by evidence.

Simply present another cause for CC's that is supported by evidence Sol.
It is that simple. That way you can argue against my Hypothesis.


A mere appeal to "basic common sense" as a means to induce a belief
that "all crop circles are man-made" is hardly logical nor a scientific means
to come to any valid conclusions related to our subject:
It is a basic tenant of any hypothesis that it be supported by the least possible assumptions.
My hypothesis is not supported by assumptions but Evidence.
What about Yours SOL?




The problem, or rather the issue at hand, is that there are simply no
solid facts available that point out that all crop circles would be man-made.
Wrong.
That is what you want it to be.


So, it is not an agenda that causes the assumption they aren't all man-made,
it is simply a lack of available facts that show/prove they are.
You cannot even show one other cause. Not one Sol.
Ever, in the entire history of CC's. That is what I call a lack of facts.


The case is solid?

You propose we should all merely 'believe' that
"all crop circles are man-made" just because some are?
I don't propose anything SOL. I am simply saying that we know that humans make CC's. We know that.
Just show me any other cause SOL.


To state that all crop circles would be man-made merely because
a small percentage are known to be man-made is not much of a solid argument.

To state that any percentage is not man made when you cannot show any other cause in the entire history of the CC phenomena is much weaker then my argument.
Just show me another cause. It is that simple Sol.
Just One circle.
Being made by something not human.






The facts available in the CC debate, pointing out that we are dealing
with an unexplained phenomenon, are several decades of documented
crop circles of which the origin and method of creation is unknown.
That only one cause has been shown and documented for. Humans.


You are free to ignore the available facts, context, and the lack of evidence
that points out to the origin and method of creation of most CCs
and perpetuate your belief they are all man-made.
Feel free to ignore the fact that there is no evidence to support a non human cause.

I

Originally posted by Sol12

The basic methods of the disinfo-agenda:

- Blunt denial. ( MSM, "give me proof or shut-up". )


Do you deny that you have no evidence at all, showing a non human cause?
If you do have this evidence, now would be a good time to present it as an argument.








[edit on 23/7/10 by atlasastro]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 

...

Atlasastro,

I've pretty much had it with your implicit ad hominem approach to the subject.

May I remind you that the CC phenomenon is the subject of this thread?

No need to spell out my name 22 times in one post.





I have no reason to argue with your private belief that "all crop circles are man-made"?

At best you can point out that some crop circles are known to be man-made,
meanwhile ignoring the great majority of documented CCs where no conclusive
facts are available that point out to their origin or method of creation.

My point of view relating to the CC debate I've made clear
earlier on in this discussion:



Originally posted by Sol12

The interesting fact regarding the crop circle debate is
that neither the 'believers' nor the 'non-believers' find themselves
in a position to make a solid case regarding their convictions.


You choose to deny the fact that no conclusive evidence/facts are available to explain
the origin and method of creation of the majority of documented CCs.

You are free to do so.

Ignoring the available facts in order to 'prove' the hypothesis that all crop circles
would be man-made is not very convincing nor scientific.

If it really were so self-evident that "all crop circles are man-made", why then
would there be any need for you or any other of the so-called 'non-believers',
here and elsewhere, to feel so compelled to zealously defend this hypothesis?

Your private beliefs are entirely of your concern only.

If you can prove to the world that "all crop circles are man-made",
thereby ending the CC debate once and for good,
then I will summon you a UFO.

Deal?

...




...
..
.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
I've scrolled through all the bickering for the past 8 pages or so and didn't notice that anyone had posted this from the cropcircles.org site: weird sh*t happens. I also note that they haven't added anything to their gallery for some time. Why's that? No one can afford frivolities like knocking down grain in a field for advertising?
The circles keep appearing though....



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sol12
reply to post by atlasastro
 

...

Atlasastro,

I've pretty much had it with your implicit ad hominem approach to the subject.
Once again Sol. Your personal opinion on my stance seems to be your only source of discussion relating to the argument I present.

I've pretty much had it with the fact that you never address my arguments, whilst continuing to offer opinion and personal bias.



May I remind you that the CC phenomenon is the subject of this thread?
So address the my reply.
Can you show JUST ONE CAUSE, FOR JUST ONE CC, OTHER THAN HUMNAS MAKING CROP CIRCLES?
Just One sol.


No need to spell out my name 22 times in one post.

Please don't move the goal posts of the discussion Sol. By creating an issues from nothing.
I can use your name Sol, as many times, Sol, as I want to.
O.K. Sol.


I have no reason to argue with your private belief that "all crop circles are man-made"?
You actually make it a challenge Sol. You introduced this part of the discussion as a direct challenge. Not me.



At best you can point out that some crop circles are known to be man-made,
meanwhile ignoring the great majority of documented CCs where no conclusive
facts are available that point out to their origin or method of creation.

You cannot even show one other cause ever, in the entire history of CC's.
Why are you ignoring that Sol?
Why Sol?
Why are you ignoring that?
Answer me please Sol.
Why, in the 30 year history of CC's, have we never found any other cause but humans?
Why Sol?



Originally posted by Sol12

The interesting fact regarding the crop circle debate is
that neither the 'believers' nor the 'non-believers' find themselves
in a position to make a solid case regarding their convictions.

There is a strong case for humans as being the cause Sol. they exist and they make CC's, they are documented making them. That is a fact.
Sol, lets be clear, you do not accept that as the cause.

Believers have no evidence of any other cause. At all.
In over 30 years of CC phenomena. No other cause ever found. You don't even have a case, let alone claiming it may be solid or not.



You choose to deny the fact that no conclusive evidence/facts are available to explain
the origin and method of creation of the majority of documented CCs.

Humans exist Sol. Humans make CC's.
What Am I in denial of Sol?
What other cause or method can you show.
Just one Sol.
Just one other cause or method not Human, show me it and then we will talk about denial.


You are free to do so.
Wow. Like I need your permission!


Ignoring the available facts in order to 'prove' the hypothesis that all crop circles
would be man-made is not very convincing nor scientific.

Sol, you have no Idea how a hypothesis is formed.
What facts are being ignored?
Present the fact showing another cause making a CC.
I can present humans!
I can present humans making CC's.
I can present you groups of humans making CC's.

My hypothesis is based on these observed facts.

Simply show that my hypothesis that All CC's are man made is wrong by showing a non human cause making CC's.

It is that simple.
I answer your challenge Sol.
Answer mine now, and not with your cut and paste fairies please.




If it really were so self-evident that "all crop circles are man-made", why then
would there be any need for you or any other of the so-called 'non-believers',
here and elsewhere, to feel so compelled to zealously defend this hypothesis?
You challenged me Sol. I am not here to defend anything.
Simple show me another cause not human.
Answer the challenge.


Your private beliefs are entirely of your concern only.
So you keep saying.


If you can prove to the world that "all crop circles are man-made",
thereby ending the CC debate once and for good,
then I will summon you a UFO.

Deal?
Again, Sol. I never said I wanted to convince the world. If I did, point it out.
I have simply stated a hypothesis supported by observation and know facts, and you have continuously made reference to my freedom to state a personal belief. So god only knows what you are babbling on about in particular regards to me having to "convincing the world" etc etc.

But Sol, think. Think Sol, for just a minute.
Why would I think the CC's are not man made?
What have you shown me that would tell me that they are made by something not Human SOL???????????????????????????????????????

Nothing.
You have only shown me your disbelief of my explanation. Nothing more.
That is all you have Sol.
Doubt.
You cannot show me another cause.
Ever.
In the entire history of CC's.
But you just doubt that humans have made them all?
That is all you have bro.
Nothing but doubt.

I do not doubt that something non human is causing them, because logically, no other cause has been shown to exist. So how can you have doubt in a cause that does not exist!


That is why Humans are at the top of my list, because you don't have anything remotely showing another cause in 30 years of CC history.
Nothing.
In the entire history of CC's nothing but humans.

You do the math mate.





posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   
circlemakers.org...

More evidence of humans making crop circles and not properly documenting their creation up to Sol12's standards. Sure they show themselves out in the field flattening crops with boards, but they didn't document the whole process, step by step!! Why not??




posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


Great post and reply to the naysayers.
Personally I would like to see whoever try to make the complex circles. Im willing to give them up to 24 hrs to make one just to drive the point home to all the skeptics. Matter fact...give them 2 days to make it.

I bet 100 dollars they can't recreate the designs as well



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   
im pretty sure crop circles have been debunked for a while now, just a few guys with too much time on thier hands. notice how most of it goes on outside of the usa. just a cultural thing



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by superluminal11
 


ill give you 2 days to recreate the mona lisa, i bet you $100 you cant..

..same concept is it not?



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by zaiger
reply to post by Sol12
 


Why are crop circles ever discovered in remote locations? Why is the crop circle phenomenon not as old as UFO reports?
www.circlemakers.org...
Can you pick out man made vs. "real" alien ones?

[edit on 16-4-2010 by zaiger]


I remember reading of this years ago. Apparently it's dated to 1678. I can't be certain of the date's validity but it does appear to be of extremely old design.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gehirn

Originally posted by zaiger
reply to post by Sol12
 


Why are crop circles ever discovered in remote locations? Why is the crop circle phenomenon not as old as UFO reports?
www.circlemakers.org...
Can you pick out man made vs. "real" alien ones?

[edit on 16-4-2010 by zaiger]



I remember reading of this years ago. Apparently it's dated to 1678. I can't be certain of the date's validity but it does appear to be of extremely old design.

en.wikipedia.org...


ok, but what does this mowing devil have to do with crop circles, it doesnt say he made a crop circle. it said it appeared to be on fire then it was mowed perfectly.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join