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 are AMAZING...man-made or NOT !!

page: 6
30
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by peashooter
 


But wait! You discredit their work because it wasn't peer-reviewed? (according to one paper)
No. I do not discredit the work because it is not peer reviewed (though pre-publication review is important). The criticism is of the methods and conclusions.


they have appeared more than 300 years ago.
What can you tell me about that?

edit on 6/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I still think it would be awesome to see someone build that thing and give it a whirl.
It would be a great research project for someone with more time and computer savvy than I possess.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by peashooter
 




Here's an electrical engineer talking about his work on crop circles, he spoke with the local farmers and they have stated that the crop circles date back decades, their parents have witnessed the appearance of the circles as well.

Please. Not Colin Andrews. He thinks doppler radar artifacts are evidence of weather control.
www.colinandrews.net...

edit on 6/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


It's interesting you keep trying to find faults with people doing the research on this subject, yet never answer to the questions they have brought up during their research, why is that?

My question is still unanswered: if there are many professionals doing research into the origins of crop circles, what makes you so sure you know ALL are man made?

This is a very simple question.
edit on 6-6-2013 by peashooter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Poor form. Ad hominem?
Glyphs HAVE been around for a long time.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 

That is not an ad hominem. It was pointing out that Colin Andrews is not particularly credible.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


You think his views on doppler radar are relevant to the subject at hand? I don't at all.
I mean, if I post a ridiculous notion on these boards on a topic I am ill informed of, I hope that doesn't destroy my "credibility" on subjects I am more familiar with.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by peashooter
 


This is a very simple question.
Fair enough. I didn't mean to ignore it. My apologies.

1) We know people can and do make crop circles.
2) We know people like fooling people
3) We know people like creating art
4) We know people like making money
5) We don't know of any other agency which can make crop circles.
6) Crop circles have developed over time in complexity.
7) Crop circles, other than the purely abstract designs, seem to follow popular memes.
8) When crop circles are "decoded" they always reflect some sort of current or upcoming event (a warning about a prophesied catastrophe, an threatening astronomical event). Catastrophes which don't occur.
9) There is nothing about crop circles (when the "evidence" is examined with a critical eye) which makes them impossible for people to make. The claims about extraordinary things going on either lack evidence or are completely subjective.

I could probably come up with a few more but does that do it for you?



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 

On that point you are correct. However I haven't seen you post much that can be considered rediculous...that I can recall.
However that is just one example. He is mostly a writer about things...unusual. It's his livelihood. He can only support a mysterious origin.
edit on 6/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I would like to comment on your sixth point.
It is a point that is echoed in the alien threads as well with regards to UFO design and characteristics. The "increasing complexity" argument.

Let's assume for a second that aliens ARE making glyphs. Would it not stand to reason that their technology, like our own, gets better over time?

I mean, skeptics echo this often and it seems they are coming from a standpoint that aliens would have achieved the pinnacle of technological development, so when they see what looks like progress in "alien tech" they use this to discredit the entire hypothesis.

Doesn't hold water.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by peashooter
 


This is a very simple question.
Fair enough. I didn't mean to ignore it. My apologies.

1) We know people can and do make crop circles.
2) We know people like fooling people
3) We know people like creating art
4) We know people like making money
5) We don't know of any other agency which can make crop circles.
6) Crop circles have developed over time in complexity.
7) Crop circles, other than the purely abstract designs, seem to follow popular memes.
8) When crop circles are "decoded" they always reflect some sort of current or upcoming event (a warning about a prophesied catastrophe, an threatening astronomical event). Catastrophes which don't occur.
9) There is nothing about crop circles (when the "evidence" is examined with a critical eye) which makes them impossible for people to make. The claims about extraordinary things going on either lack evidence or are completely subjective.

I could probably come up with a few more but does that do it for you?


1. To a certain extent, yes, and may take weeks to plan/create, correct? Still does not answer for the crop circles which appear overnight (many of them)
2. People like fooling people, that is a blanket statement as you just summed up everyone's personalities.
3. People like creating art, this does not verify that crop circles = man made because people like art... it does not relate logically.
4. People like making money, again does not explain why crop circles appear, if you noticed not many have owned up to creating crop circles, why? Charges for trespassing, damaging property (crops are very important to farmers' income) Who pays people to make crop circles anyways? How much do people earn for crop circles?
5. Exactly, we don't know any other agency which makes crop circles.
6. But according to you if it has always been created with a plank and ropes, since 300 years ago, why would they increase in complexity, surely it can't mirror our technological advances?
7. Memes? Geometric shapes are always present if that's what you mean.
8. I was unaware that every single crop circle had a hidden message to foretell the future
9. Like I said before, the samples/data collected still exists (heated/bent stalks), one report debunking the credibility of a renowned biophysicists with 50 peer-reviewed papers doesn't mean those samples are made up from thin air.

I still don't find this to be solid evidence that all crop circles are man made, to each their own though.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Well thanks for that.
I haven't really given Andrews much attention, to be honest. Like I said before, I abandoned the entire bent node argument long ago and I try looking at the glyphs with my OWN eyes to see if I can catch stuff people may have missed. Like the Arecibo Reply glyph.

I would rather try and make my own arguments than regurgitate some crap that skeptics such as yourself have already dismissed anyways.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


I mean, skeptics echo this often and it seems they are coming from a standpoint that aliens would have achieved the pinnacle of technological development, so when they see what looks like progress in "alien tech" they use this to discredit the entire hypothesis.
I don't consider it in the case of alien visitation. But I see the reasoning. If a civiliaztion is capable of travel across interstellar space the idea is that they are thousands, if not millions of years advanced. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that such a civilization would, after such a great period of time, have "matured" technologically. Not to say that they don't advance at all, but that "mundane" things like their spacecraft would seem to reach a certain level of stability in their development. Form follows function...that sort of thing.


As to how it relates to crop circles. I don't see it. I see the increase in complexity being a more human thing. A competition sort of thing as well as improved technology (computers, gps, laser instruments) as well as a demonstration of art for art's sake and the art gets better.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 




I would rather try and make my own arguments than regurgitate some crap that skeptics such as yourself have already dismissed anyways.

Good. I'm tired of all the old arguments too.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 11:14 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skeptico
Crop circles are a beautiful phenomena with plenty of logical explanations of their existence.




a phenomenon (singular), various phenomena (plural); from the greek.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Yeah, I understand your point and I don't necessarily disagree. However I just wanted to note it is not really a valid point. Of course you have an entire list of points and number 6 does not stand alone, but it is something I see repeated often enough that I feel the distinction is necessary.

I have been slowly researching a "grand case", if you will, for crop circles over the last couple of months and one of the things I have found is that there is indeed a long history of genuine crop circles in this particular region of the world (England).
It is actually quite strange. I have found numerous cases of people reporting these things since the '40s.. Several accounts of people being witness to their formation even. Back in the day they were regarded as a nuisance, more than anything and their common name was "devils twists" that was the cause.

As I said before, thus far, my conclusion is that there really is a genuine element to many of these glyphs. So to dismiss the entire phenomenon due to increasing complexity is a little short sighted and worth pointing out, imo.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by peashooter
 


1. There is no problem with creating circles overnight from a logistical point of view.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

2. I didn't think it was necessary to say "some" people. Do you deny that people get a kick out of pranks? There are at least a couple of TV shows based on that premise.

3. No it doesn't. But it is a reason for people to do it.

4. The circle tour promoters. You'll have to ask them about how much they charge. They don't necessarily create the circles themselves but they certainly don't have any interest in telling anyone that people make them.

5. Exactly. A prime consideration for the application of Occam's razor.

6. I asked you for more information about that 300 year claim.

7. It relates, but is not the same as #8.

8. I didn't say they did.

9. There is no evidence that the stalks are heated. You didn't read the paper, did you?



I still don't find this to be solid evidence that all crop circles are man made, to each their own though.
It isn't evidence, any more than the claims about non-human origins are.

That's the point. There is no reason to think they are not human made because there is no evidence that they are not. Does that "prove" that they are not man-made? Nope. But an application of critical thought indicates that they are for the reasons given above. Occam's razor, the hypothesis which requires the least "additional" data is probably the correct one.

The BOL hypothesis requires some unknown form and source of electromagnetic energy capable of doing something that electromagnetic energy is not known to be capable of.

The ET hypothesis requires...ET. Something which has not known to be here. It requires some purpose for ET to smash crops.

edit on 6/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 11:25 PM
link   
I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record on this subject but I think many of the Crop Circles could possibly be created by Direct Energy weapons from a orbiting satellite. (No, not HAARP) The military can test and calibrate it in plain site and just allow our imaginations to run wild. The designs could be a protocol they use so people will be mystified. It also keeps other countries oblivious to the knowledge of the satellites existence as a weapon. If the results of it's testing is thought to be everything from Celestial to Alien in origin you can test it and all that really happens is a little banter on the internet and Lucy Pringle takes a photo of it.

Many of the circles look as though they were printed across the fields so I think they possibly were actually printed using the microwaves of a Direct Energy weapon.

The technology has been around since Tesla but since at least the 70's it has been looked more into and applied in the military. This is about the time the Crop Circle phenomenon started. There has been earlier accounts of circle formations but all that I've seen can be explained away as regular circles caused by weather events.

It's possible that some of these circle are people who go out and emulate them in a reminisce of the "Cargo Cult" phenomenon. Maybe they think they are communicating back.

Are crop circles the product of Direct...
edit on 6-6-2013 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 




So to dismiss the entire phenomenon due to increasing complexity is a little short sighted and worth pointing out, imo.

The point is not to dismiss. The point is to point out a reason why human origin is likely.
It's clear how the point applies to a human origin. It is not clear how it would apply to an ET origin or a BOL. Not without adding more unknown factors.

edit on 6/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
30
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join