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.
One of the more interesting videos concerning crop circles may be seen in this documentary from the U.K.. The documentary showcases an extraordinary video, filmed by John Wheyleigh at Oliver's Castle in August of 1996. The video appears to show two balls of light creating a crop circle.
The producers also interviewed physicist Dr. Eltjo Haselhoff of the Netherlands. Dr. Haselhoff offers scientific proof that at least some crop circles are indeed formed by balls of light. His research and evidence was even accepted after peer review for the internationally recognized scientific journal, Physiologia Plantarum.
Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
Humans create SOME crop circles...Nowhere has it EVER been proven that they create ALL crop circles. It is a subject that is still up for debate. Many may be the product of hoaxers, many may be something else...
Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
Nah, only debunkers only explanation, which is fine. There will always be varying opinions on the subject, and I can respect those differences of opinion.
But did you even bother to listen to what the physicist had to say? Or are you dismissing his claims as well?
Originally posted by TheAmazingK
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
Yeah, humans create the majority of crop circles. Probably about 99% are enterprising people looking to get a rise out of the rest of us. However, what about the cases of rare radioactive isotopes being present in samples taken from some circles? Or extensive botanical damage?
Botanical damage:
www.controversial-science.com...
Radioactivity.
www.cropcirclesecrets.org...
Your skepticism is well founded, but there are ocasionally...anomalies. Which may be entirely terrestrial in origin, but it's still weird and unexplained.
Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
LOL, so then you DO dismiss the findings of the physicist. Well at least we know where you stand.
Redneck-Yeah the physicist is the part that really left me scratching my head, because he went out there and did the hands on with the equipment, and was definitely surprised by the results. And the fact his findings were PUBLISHED in a peer reviewed article means that the scientific community based his findings as legit, solid science.
I've watched a ton of court cases and I'm very familiar with requirement of irrefutable evidence. I've also read quite a few law books dealing with the rules of evidence. Hearsay just doesn't cut it.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
I've watched a ton of court cases and I'm very familiar with requirement of irrefutable evidence. I've also read quite a few law books dealing with the rules of evidence. Hearsay just doesn't cut it.
I have to cut in on this. Court rules of evidence and the Scientific Method are two completely different animals. The former depends more on politics and special interests, while the latter is based on logical progression and experimentation.
TheRedneck
The bottom line is whether in court or in a lab, results count; the end product. In a court, the evidence decides the case. In the lab, results satisfies the scientist. Results are evidence that the system works