reply to post by purplemer
Did anyone, including the OP, actually look at the scale of this thing, taking into account the measurements claimed??? HELLO????
The video maker claims the lines are 10 inches wide, and then an image is shown of the design close up, with there being 4 rows of these lines around
the border. In between each furrowed line there appears to be a gap of approximately 60 inches (I get this from visual estimation, feel free to make
your own estimate); this means the border is about 220 inches wide, or 18 1/3 ft wide. Looking at the "from 9,000" foot view, I again estimate that
this image has a width of about 21 of these border widths (Again, check for yourself, if you don't trust my estimates). If you're going by the
extreme portions of the design, then had 4 more lengths, i.e. 25 instead of 21.
This means this design or dirt diagram -- it is not a crop circle, as there are no plants in this very arid area, which I have driven through -- is
approximately 18 1/3 ft x 21 = 385 feet across; taking the extreme widths, it is 458.33 feet. This is between 0.073 and 0.087 miles, which --
needless to say -- is much less than 13 miles across. I'm not even sure the valley to the east of the Steens Mtns is 13 miles wide; in fact, looking
at its supposed location in the map provided in a newspaper article source given about, and looking at google map, the distance between the Steens and
the Sheepshead Mtns is no more than 12 miles, and the main north-south road hwy there runs between these, splitting this area up.
Also in the same article, it is said that this design is 1,563 ft square, which admittedly is bigger than my estimate (assuming it is 1,563 ft
across), but still not much more than 1/4 of a mile. Actually, in the first sentence of the article it says its about 1/4 of a mile across. And as
said in another post, surveying stakes and strings were found at the site, and it appeared as if it was furrowed by a tractor or rototiller.
So my visual estimates were off, but they were still closer to the fact than the claim of the video and OP: my estimates were off by a factor of 4,
the claims of the video were off by a factor of 52.
In any case, this thing, if it even exists as claimed, is much smaller than claimed by the person on the video. This is really elementary analysis,
folks. But someone on the web says something is so, so you accept it as such. Deny ignorance, good people.
Furthermore, I doubt 10"-wide furrows will show up well at 9,000 feet, so I doubt the image is from 9,000 ft.
And I guess we have to take it on faith that there are no vehicle tracks leading to/away from it too...
edit on 8-5-2013 by MrInquisitive because: (no reason given)