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...with some actual evidence

page: 7
111
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by wayno
I know this thread isn't about "who", but I think that men with boards is the least likely answer. I am split between aliens and our own advanced military/scientific community. Maybe its a collaboration of both.


What about CCs that precedes modern technology?

I really can't make up my mind on the "who"...
Maybe they're generated by some sort of energy that comes from within Earth? I've been pondering that a lot lately...

Anyway, we should not put this discussion in that direction. That's the "go signal" for pie-throwing contests to start.




posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Evidence
Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.

As post states"CC..actual evidence"


But if you did in fact read read this They both go on to say they both stand by there findings even though the data may not be perfect or the way in which it was collected was not, they both do say quite clearly, the matter in which the data was collected has faults, but both stand by there original findings based on the data presented at the time.

So, yes there is some controversy over both of them. But as post states...once again...Evidence..



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Raud
 





Anyway, we should not put this discussion in that direction. That's the "go signal" for pie-throwing contests to start.


agreed.

The ones that precede technology...u mean from way back in the day?
If so, totally agree...but the skeps would just resort to the old wood n rope thoery....



[edit on 27-5-2010 by Software_Pyrate]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raud
reply to post by atlasastro
 


I'm sorry, but I just can't see where you are going at.
That is not my problem.
Read my posts.


Are you "debunking" as in; all CCs are man made?
My post are replied to the OP. They are a discussion.
But I can make that claim like "all CC's are man made" from a sound hypothesis. CC's are all man made would be an assumption a hypothesis makes. But It is one supported by evidence. That is what a hypothesis does.

People seem to expect other to prove that each and every circle was man made in order to rule out other explanations.
If you would like to claim that some CC's are not man made, simply show me something making CC's that is not human.
Then I can included it as a real explanation that exists and not one that is assumed or imagined or injected as a possible explanation.
Is that unreasonable?

BLT simply fail to do this, Haselhoffs commentary is plain in its assessment and if you actually read it, Haselhoff points out that many of BLTs assumptions that are inserted into their formula's for explain BOL "node trends", that these do not actually happen in real life. Read paragraph 1. In paragraph 2 Haselhoof points out that BLT omit data and that some of the results actually contradict what trend is claimed.


Do you base this on that there is no other explaination that you could ever accept?
I base it on the evidence. Haselhoff does not exactly give BLT a glowing reference as being definitive of evidence.
By basing my opinion on evidence I have the luxury of changing my opinion as the evidence becomes available. Put simply, I base my beliefs on the truth and I don't find a truth to fit a belief. I am not new to this topic.


Isn't that what we know as "ignorance"?
Basing my opinion on the best available evidence is not what I would consider ignorance.

Haselhoff relegates BLT to speculation and analysis of circumstantial evidence.
BLT make it clear what significance Node length have, as well as other factors.
Finally, it is a fundamental scientific flaw to use correlation to point to a cause. Yet BLT and the OP do this.

Are you guys happy to call this evidence?
Because I am not.



Or is it just that you still think all "CC believers" also think all CCs are made by aliens?
Where have I said that?

Dude, instead or turning the argument on to what I think, just show me the research.
Lets stick to what the OP claims is Evidence.

BLT and Haselhoff have been flogged to death in this community as evidence when they are not even close to it.
Does it not bother you that 10 years on, it is all that this topic has, still?
Why is that?
CC's have been around 20 years, and no one can show an alternative cause making CC's.


Just because "rigorous research" would bring more further questions than real answers, there is "nothing to see here"?
Did I say that. It is Haselhoff that is critical of including more rigid and specific parameters into BLT's consideration of claimed radiative effects BOL's have on plant cell structures. The idea that this might raise more questions is irrelevant as the idea of the research in the first instance is to ANSWER questions. Raising more is just a consequence of that. Haselhoff seems to forget that more rigorous research could actually answer these questions and claims.
Haselhoff appears reluctant to put BLT under that scrutiny.
This should bother you greatly if you are going to subscribe to BLT and Haselhoff as sources of evidence.


I am being sincere and not as hostile as it might sound.
I just really don't understand what you are trying to prove.

I am not trying to prove anything.
BLT and the OP are.
I am simply discussing BLT as being reliable and accurate as research into this topic.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Software_Pyrate
 


This is a very good find as it entails the "how" and not the "who" but eludes to it.


I don't see any "how" in there. Just exactly how does electromagnetic radiation physically bend plant stalks to the ground? He doesn't explain that, does he?

I like this explanation for the effect. Yes, It's a BOL, it's called the Sun. Plants are known to respond to sunlight, in fact, they tend to bend (or even straighten) toward sunlight when exposed to it (node lengthening). The plants are flattened by people (not a BOL). The BOL (the Sun) causes the plants to grow (not bend) to varying degrees as it moves across the sky. The shadowing effect of the sides of the circle (when the Sun is lower in the sky) allow the center of the circle to receive more sunlight than the edges so the center shows greater node lengthening.

www.ufologie.net...

[edit on 5/27/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





I like this explanation for the effect. Yes, It's a BOL, it's called the Sun. Plants are known to respond to sunlight, in fact, they tend to bend (or even straighten) toward sunlight when exposed to it (what Levengood calls seems to think is some mysterious effect (node lengthening). The plants are flattened by people (not a BOL). The BOL (the Sun) causes the plants to grow (not bend) to varying degrees as it moves across the sky. The shadowing effect of the sides of the circle (when the Sun is lower in the sky) allow the center of the circle to receive more sunlight than the edges so the center shows greater node lengthening.



You believe node elongation as the effect of CC

I believe node elongation is the cause of CC

I do believe this is where we have our differences
I'll agree to disagree



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
If you would like to claim that some CC's are not man made, simply show me something making CC's that is not human.
Then I can included it as a real explanation that exists and not one that is assumed or imagined or injected as a possible explanation.
Is that unreasonable?


Oh, it most certainly is not!
Quite on the contrary actually.

You are giving this discussion "resistance" to fight which is very much needed to make it progress. Without it, this thread would probably never have grown this long, to say the least (and in my oppinion, it has kept a good old fashioned high ATS quality, I've missed that)!
But the attitude does not, by any means, need to be snotty, harsh or demeaning in any way. That brings nothing to neither side of the argument. It will make the sceptics look like pouting, grumpy old farts and the other side like tin foil wearing fanatics. I am sure none of us looks like any of that (...or???).

My personal veiwpoint comes not only from what I read and hear, it comes just as much from experience.
I know that this world has more to offer, and that CCs might be a vital clue to uncover the mysteries. I also think that Dr. Haselhoff is making a valid point and if one follows his lead there might be some big discoveries to be made. I can't speak much for BLT, at least not yet. Dr. Haselhoff has been more of "my" source when it comes to CCs.

I think that's what it's all about; keeping the flame burning, gather forces, keep on digging, making threads, meeting arguments and opposing ideas...
Add some red hot belief to that and you'll have the same rock solid determination that has driven many, if not all, great thinkers and scientists throughout history; the dire want to know more.

One day, I'll have not only evidence but "proof" that CCs does not only come from wood and string, even though in my heart I already know it.

Man, I am really rambling on here but I felt like putting a humane face on this whole discussion since the static "Sceptics vs. Believers" war is getting old now.

We'll keep on providing, and you'll keep on questioning.
If it wasn't for your and our kind, we'd probably still think the Earth was flat.
Just let us refrain from chasing "the last laugh", it's pretty childish.

Now, let's continue where we left off.
Sorry if this was totally OT.

I do however find it frustrating that the Physiologica Planatarum edition authored by Dr. Haselhoff is not available.
I think I'll write them and ask for it... Maybe I'll just write directly to him (via his MySpace, ftw!)



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Software_Pyrate
 

No.

I do not believe node elongation is an effect of the CC. I think it is a result of sunlight. It will happen whether or not there is a CC.

If node elongation is the cause of the CC, how can it apply to the complex formations we see? How does the radiative distribution of electromagnetic radiation from a point source account for this:




[edit on 5/27/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Hmmm....

Trying to get hold of the document via Ingenta Connect but all I get is this from the FAQ:


Can you help me find articles for my research?
No, we are not a research service and cannot look for articles for you, or respond to enquiries on general research issues. Ask for help at your library reference desk, or use our search facility to find articles you need.

Crap.


I'll go chase after the Dr. himself instead. He probably has a copy on his computer he'll gladly provide.


As for now, I withdraw for the evening.
I hope this thread will keep on thriving.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Oh, what the heck! I can post one more.

reply to post by Phage
 


I think, or believe (it's either way really), that something, some sort of unknown force, projected with intention, this pattern onto the crops for a reason not fully understood yet.

(And now you'll
and ask "prove it" and I'll answer; "I will. In time!"
You will then, in silence
again and I'll ask of you to prove it was made by wood and string.)

So, I saved you the trouble!


Wishing you a good evening.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Raud
 

I never (very seldom?) ask anyone to prove anything (even though I am often asked to prove various things). But I do ask questions when there is a question to ask and ask for evidence when appropriate. In your case neither applies.

[edit on 5/27/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I never claimed to know the specifics of the issue. I don't know how to build a rocket but I know what they do.

and to answer your Q, its still just a theory right now so don't go pegging me against the wall with, but far more plausible then some wood and rope.

But to enlighten you, I think maybe the field is somehow focused..which is not hard to believe at all.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Software_Pyrate
 

I'm not trying to pin you to the wall. I asked a question (see above).

Your answer leads to more questions but since you seem to be getting defensive ("so don't go pegging me against the wall"), I will refrain from asking them.



[edit on 5/27/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





If node elongation is the cause of the CC, how can it apply to the complex formations we see?


As I have said, i do not know the specifics, only have a working theory. And that is that point source radiation and crop elongation seem to have some similarities If I knew that I sure as hell would not be talking to you.



How does the radiative distribution of electromagnetic radiation from a point source account for this:


Hasselhoff gives (part of) an explanation to this, but you refuse to except or hear the suggestions to the very question you asked.


And I have also offered my own opinion saying I believe it could some how be focused.-but that is just IMO



[edit on 27-5-2010 by Software_Pyrate]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
great thread!


i read the first few pages, and the last page - i don't have as much time today as i'd like, to do "me" stuff, but i'll keep an eye on this thread and eventually read it all.

if the links i'm posting have been mentioned, already, i apologize.

Crop Circles Energetic Effect on Water

interesting page. it talks about electromagnetic fields. the last line is:


Clearly there is need for further research in this area which may give us additional understanding of the manner in which electromagnetic fields effect all living matter.


that's what i think - it is electromagnetic in function.
and the conductor is water.

i've been interested in CC's ever since i first heard of them, years ago. i've done a lot of personal research because i, too, am intensely curious not about WHO but HOW.

my ideas are as follows (with explanations to follow, as well):


  1. CC's are evolving along with humanity
  2. CC's come from the Earth up rather than the sky down
  3. Underground aquifers play a role in the phenomenon
  4. CC's are sentient communication between ethereal and material humanity


explanations:

  1. If we only consider what might be termed the "modern" phenomenon of CC's - those which have been recorded and documented in the last 40-something years - they started out very simple, as just circle impressions much like fairy rings. As the years have passed, the designs have grown steadily complex in both composition and structure. It is obvious that sacred geometry is involved and i've also run across some very interesting information in my research, related to what, exactly, is being communicated. There is one gentleman, whose name i don't recall, who has a series of videos, on youtube i think, that talks about the scientific messages given in some circles. The ones that i think look like little solar system models are actual molecular diagrams of some sort. Given the fact that there are several different types of CC's as far as design, it seems highly likely that there is a variety of information classes being communicated.
  2. Thinking about electromagnetic energy and the underground aquifers present underneath the areas consistently manifesting CC's (go down to the heading "Underground Water" on this page), water seems to be the mode of transportation if CC's are truly the end-product of a mysterious communication highway, which means they come not from the sky but rather from the deep.
  3. This was basically covered in my previous point. To add to it, within the last year, i found a fascinating 12-part youtube video series related to a phenomenon in which water communicates instantly, regardless of locality and human consciousness. Those videos were taken off, though.
    However, the theories are the brainchild of David Sereda and this link is his blog.
    There is a scientist who experiments with flash-freezing water in order to examine the resulting crystalline structure from various influences of negative and positive attitude - such as music genres and words and the tone of voice in which the words are spoken. For example, the word "peace" makes a very beautiful snow flake! And other words such as "hate" or "fear" create mal-formed ugly flakes. And the results are consistent. The Dr.'s name is Masaru Emoto and that link is to his website.
  4. i really have no explanation for this point other than to reiterate what i've already written.


at the risk of repelling others from my research findings, i will share something personal that backs up my theory, at least to me.

as we (humanity) have been on this course of "awakening" in the last decade, more or less, i've had my own personal course of evolution and developments in ethereal/metaphysical communication.

when i take a shower, or wash dishes, or anything that i have a part of my body immersed in water for more than a few seconds, i somehow am able to receive information far more clearly and directly than when not in contact with water. and it's not subjective type of information - it's usually answers to questions i've been holding in my mind related to this or that unexplained component of earthly life. i'm a metaphysical person but i prefer a scientific approach - i want my explanations and understandings to be based in something that can be empirically shown, either directly or indirectly. the things that i've learned, from the water, have so far been proven to be sound and accurate information.

after watching David Sereda's video series on youtube, i had a new understanding of chemistry and how it not only provides the material to structure the universe but also how it functions within the structure it provides.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and is 2 parts of the triple atomic structure of the water molecule. Because of this, practically speaking, hydrogen is EVERYWHERE.

IF there IS an information super-highway outside of the human neurological system and the world wide web...then it surely might use hydrogen as its vehicle!



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 


That was a very nicely laid out post. And thanks for the other information. I always welcome different and opposing views even though it may contradict my own beliefs.

Very interesting indeed, and will follow up more on those links.


Caution: Using the S word is very dangerous around here.(Serreda)

As I too have a secret admiration for the pulsating wave theory Serreda proposes for STS-75...

[edit on 27-5-2010 by Software_Pyrate]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Software_Pyrate
Caution: Using the S word is very dangerous around here.(Serreda)

As I too have a secret admiration for the pulsating wave theory Serreda proposes for STS-75...


oh, really?

hmmm...i didn't know.
but thanks for the heads-up


i don't know anything about the man other than his water/communication ideas - i know he's got a lot going on but not the details.

i've got a lot going on, too!
have to weed out all the non-relevant things




posted on May, 27 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


is that really your explanation for the complex patterns? most documentaries i've seen only have the plant changes within the circles. Not that I know either way, but i just can't see standard sunlight explaining what i've seen presented to me in the docs i've watched...



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ceetee
 

Sunlight has nothing to do with the creation of circles. That's done by people.

Sunlight causes the uneven growth found in the nodes of the plants which have been flattened (by people). The growth that Levengood attributes to microwave radiation is natural growth caused by the plants growing toward the sunlight during the day.

[edit on 5/27/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





The growth that Levengood attributes to microwave radiation is natural growth caused by the plants growing toward the sunlight during the day.


Nobody here is denying that plants grow towards sunlight...



You say it as thats a fact...

Its the amount of elongation as well as the cause of it that is in question.


And when a plant is stepped on or flattened that it does in fact develop elongation and start growing towards the sun, however, what is in question and is the subject at hand...is...

The time it took for this elognation to happen [ I say short period of time and have numerous eyewitness accounts that testify to this...but is not good enough because the skeps say the farmer is out to make a buck]
How it happened[theories that are similar to source point electromagnetism], and the amount at which the node "grew" in that time....which once again you'd think a farmer kinda knows somtin about his crops....but is still not good enough.




top topics



 
111
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join