It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Wide-Eyes
reply to post by wmd_2008
Maybe they get bored and bend grass for the hell of it just to f**k with us
Who knows man but with all the sightings over the years it is silly to relate E.T possibillities to Santa and the tooth fairy.
What did God have to do with anything?
Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by judge360
Did you conduct all these test yourself in a crop circle or is it information given on a crop circle site, which would not tell lies to back the cause
Originally posted by judge360
Here's A Pic Of A Tree Circle:
Hmmm Did Men With Boards Do This ?
Pulling a Fast One on the Internet
Enormous tree-circles (like crop-circles) were discovered in the Wabikon lake forest (Wisconsin).
Hoaxing and Skepticism
In September 1991, the British tabloid Today broke the story that two pensioners, Doug Bower and David Chorley, had created all of the crop formation since 1978 (all 2000 of them). Bower and Chorley demonstrated in front of TV cameras that by using a wooden plank and string, they were able to create a crude circular design in broad daylight that showed non of the precision or complexity of the best formations. At that time, the "circles" had already evolved into highly complex pictograms, and Bower and Chorley could offer no explanation of how they created these. The tabloid that broke the story claimed that one of D&D's creations was so good that it fooled prominent British crop circle researcher Pat Delgado, but creation of this circle had not been documented on film
In that situation, a true skeptic would have perceived
~an extraordinary claim: two old men say that for over a decade, they have been creating geometrical designs in crops whose complexity defies easy geometrical construction.
~claimants who may safely be characterized as "publicity seekers" and whose a priori credibility is therefore low.
~a lack of proof to support the claim
Any person who is even remotely sane would have received Bower's and Chorley's claim with skepticism.
~If they created hundreds or thousands of formations, how come they had never gotten caught?
~And why had there been not at least some incomplete formations, where the duo had to leave a circle unfinished and make a hasty retreat because they would otherwise have been discovered?
Yet the public, the mass media and organized skeptics in particular endorsed the claims enthusiastically and denounced the whole crop circle phenomenon a proven hoax.
If a tabloid had claimed that it had found "aliens behind the crop circle phenomenon", neither the media nor the skeptical groups would have paid attention, and with good reason.
Tabloids are not a reliable source of information. Yet when a tabloid told them what they wanted to hear, they threw all skepticism to the wind.
Apparently, when people are confronted with a phenomenon that challenges their basic assumptions about reality, they will react to the cognitive dissonance by abandoning their critical faculties for any "explanation", no matter how implausible and contrived.
In a 2001 interview, Colin Andrews gives the following eyewitness report of a part of the initial investigation into Doug & Dave's claim conducted by Today.
"In September of 1991, Doug Bowers and Dave Chorley approached the Today national newspaper, in England, saying they were responsible for all the crop circles, and requesting a fee for their story. The fee (and I had this confirmed) was 10,000 UK pounds paid to them in two parts, 5,000 upon publication and 5,000 some months later. So money was involved. I think it is important to say that.
The Today newspaper sent out a journalist for a week. And at the end of that week the journalist, with a photographer and, indeed, with Doug and Dave themselves, arrived at the home of my co-author and co-researcher at that time, Pat Delgado, and said that they had something they wanted to discuss. They went into the house, and Pat Delgado, after a few moments of listening, got on the phone to me saying that this meeting was very important and that I really should come over immediately — which I did.
By the time I arrived, they had already spent several hours together, and it was made clear to me that I was not there by invitation as far as the newspaper was concerned.
As I listened to Doug and Dave's story, it became clear to me that what they were saying was no threat to me personally because my name was not going to be mentioned. It did become increasingly clear, however, that in the story to be written by the reporter the next morning, Pat Delgado was going to be made to look extremely foolish.
You also have to know that I was very interested in what was being said because just the week before I had given up a very well-paying job within the British government to take on this research on a full-time basis. I had no idea how I was going to fund my work except for the royalties of the first book. So you can imagine the impact these men's words had on me.
The reporter had apparently asked Pat to go and have a look at a new crop circle which had just arrived in a field not too far from his house. Pat went there, and he dowsed it and was duly impressed. Apparently, a helicopter was hovering nearby, filming, and when the reporter allowed him to see the circle that Doug and Dave had constructed, those two men appeared from behind the bushes. And Pat was totally devastated. Doug and Dave, along with the Today newspaper, had set him up.
So upon hearing this story, I forced my way in and asked Dave Bowers — and this is the bottom line here — "You know the cover of our book, Circular Evidence ?"
"Yes," he said. "We made all of those on that site."
So I said to Pat, "Do you have a pen and paper?" Pat and I had spent many hours studying the plants in the Celtic Cross that appeared on the cover of our book, and we actually never did reveal its location to the public because the farmer didn't want a lot of people there.
In this circle, the plants were lying radially across the actual ring. So in other words, rather than lying in sympathy with the flow, as you would expect the plants to be if they had been flattened with a wooden plank, these were laying at 90 degrees radially straight out.
I drew the ring that connected the four satellites that connected the Celtic Cross around the central circle. I drew this design, and then I asked Doug how they had made it.
There was this stony, icy silence. Nobody talked. The journalist stopped taking notes, and Doug looked at Dave, and he had nothing to offer. And he looked back again, and he looked down. And then he looked at me and said, "We didn't make that one."
Closer investigation reveals other problems with Doug and Dave's story. Many crop formations had been reported in other countries, including Canada and the United States. D&D claimed that they started making circles in 1978, but crop circles have been reported prior to 1978. Crop circle researcher Freddy Silva gives details in Secrets in the Fields (Hampton Roads Publishing, 2002):
Modern hoaxers claim that they applied boot to wheat in 1978, yet crop circles have appeared sporadically throughout the world since the early 1900s, with dozens of eyewitnesses reporting crop circles forming in a matter of seconds as far back as 1890; several descriptive accounts were even documented in 1678 by Robert Plot, then curator of the Ashmolean. If hoaxers are responsible, they also appear to have mastered the art of time travel, in which case it is they who should be under scientific scrutiny
Given the contradictory evidence, it is inappropriate to draw conclusions about the crop circle phenomenon at this time. But it is already great case material for identifying "skeptical" fallacies.
~~Double standards of proof: the extraordinary claims of unconventional claimants require extraordinary evidence, but extraordinary claims that support skeptical a priori beliefs do not require much evidence at all. The skeptical movement has shown a complete failure to be skeptical of the claims made by Doug and Dave.
~~Biased hypothesis selection: evidence that has a plausible interpretations in terms of both the conventional and the unconventional hypothesis is nonetheless taken to support the conventional hypothesis favored by skeptics by default.
~~Going beyond skepticism: making counter claims without bearing the burden of proof.
~~Making claims seem like facts by simply repeating them until no one can remember that they are claims ("Doug and Dave started it all".)
"If it can be faked, Occam's Razor says it doesn't exist": the idea that science can stop investigating an unusual phenomenon once someone has created the appearance of the phenomenon by conventional means.
Ridicule and ad-hominem: giving diminutive or derogatory names to one's opponents ("croppies"), mocking their arguments and calling into question their competence.
~~Characterizing opponents as "partisan believers" who are therefore not credible as scientists and begging the question of scientific credibility: the skeptical viewpoint is by definition scientific, so any scientist who has produced anomalous evidence is automatically unscientific.
~~Semantic games: not denying that an anomaly exists, but refusing to call it by its name based on arbitrary notions of what this kind of anomaly "is" or ought to be.
~~Trying to dismiss the scientific significance of correlation as evidence for causation by noting, irrelevantly, that "correlation does not prove causation"
~~Requiring higher standards of scientific conduct and rigor from unconventional claimants than considered acceptable in the conventional science, based on a presumption that the unconventional claimant can not be trusted.
~~Misrepresenting data and statements from opponents to create the appearance of contradiction.
~~Demanding unanimity of opinion among investigators of the unconventional phenomenon, and taking the absence of it as evidence that results are invalid.
~~The "catch-22" of credibility: scientific credibility must precede attempts at replication, and replication is a precondition for scientific credibility.
~~The ontological "catch-22": research can only take place when the phenomenon has already been proven to exist. Developing criteria for proof is considered "circular reasoning".
Originally posted by prevenge
i never said they were "nefarious". i'm just saying they could just as well
be made by Earth humans using ultra tech than extraterrestrials using ultra tech.
just because they're not getting media attention
doesn't mean they're not going to be part of a larger agenda.