Crop Circles 2005

Originally posted by StickyG

Have the Chilbolton formations been confirmed as a hoax or not?

First Contact: 1974 Deep Space Transmission Responded

I haven't read any reasonable information that "debunks" these formations (very well anyway). They are definitely a different style than "genuine" formations which makes me wonder about the author.
Surprisingly, they received little fan-fare in the mainstream media.
I find it hard to believe that "hoaxers" could do the shading, pixelated style as seen in the face with the remarkable accuracy and skill that has been done.





Stomping out circles is one thing, but creating subtle shading effects on a grand scale like this would need a form of higher technology than boards IMO.
One very interesting note about the informational pictograph is that one year to the day earlier, a formation appeared in the exact same spot that looked like this:




Now note how the crop circle above compares to the
bottom of the received pictogram (which represents the information transmission methodology)




The full analysis is done very well (IMO) and can be read HERE:

www.enterprisemission.com...

Peace,

~Jammer+


[edit on 25-8-2005 by jammerman]

Originally posted by jammerman
Stomping out circles is one thing, but creating subtle shading effects on a grand scale like this would need a form of higher technology than boards IMO.

Why? Because you failed math in high school and can't come to grips with reality that this is simple arithmatic? Higher technology? Please, these are wheat fields with bent wheat, what kind of higher technology other than a board and apiece of rope are needed? Please explain your reasoning rather than just babbling aloud.

i agree with you jammerman. Of course the crop circles have a lot to do with math, but some of these crop circles just seem WAY to in depth for someone to do in one night, regardless of if you had 20 people doing it, and everyone had a certain section. Would seem like the more people you have doing this, the harder it would be to orchestrate.

Originally posted by jammerman
To StickyG: Please consider using less sarcasm. It is a form of flaming and closes minds rather than opens them. A polite reminder that a quick search on Google (or even ATS for that matter) can give someone the start they need to do some research on a topic will more likely get a positive response than implying that they are lazy (even if that may be the case). As the old saying goes, "You can catch more flys with sugar than with vinegar." (I'm not sure if that's how the old saying goes or not, but you get the picture

)

Originally posted by Frosty
Why? Because you failed math in high school and can't come to grips with reality that this is simple arithmatic?

Ok, next time I'll just use outright attacks on his intelligence and call him a lazy bastard. Point taken

Peace

maby they worked on them for days? and had all pro's that new what they were doing lol. maby the farmer gave them permision so he could make money off the plublicity.

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by jammerman
Stomping out circles is one thing, but creating subtle shading effects on a grand scale like this would need a form of higher technology than boards IMO.

Why? Because you failed math in high school and can't come to grips with reality that this is simple arithmatic? Higher technology? Please, these are wheat fields with bent wheat, what kind of higher technology other than a board and apiece of rope are needed? Please explain your reasoning rather than just babbling aloud.

What is arithmatic?

Did you mean arithmetic? What does that have to do with what I was saying?

What I was talking about is that it is one thing to be able to create a circle and geometric patterns based upon mathematics, but the face



was NOT done this way and is created more akin to that of a television with pixels creating subtle shading effects and things that CANNOT be done on the ground with boards and certainly not in the dark. Trying thinking a bit and maybe, just maybe doing a bit of research before insulting people. Maybe you'll "warm" up a bit.

Peace,

~Jammer+

Originally posted by jammerman

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by jammerman
Stomping out circles is one thing, but creating subtle shading effects on a grand scale like this would need a form of higher technology than boards IMO.

Why? Because you failed math in high school and can't come to grips with reality that this is simple arithmatic? Higher technology? Please, these are wheat fields with bent wheat, what kind of higher technology other than a board and apiece of rope are needed? Please explain your reasoning rather than just babbling aloud.

What is arithmatic?

Did you mean arithmetic? What does that have to do with what I was saying?

What I was talking about is that it is one thing to be able to create a circle and geometric patterns based upon mathematics, but the face



was NOT done this way and is created more akin to that of a television with pixels creating subtle shading effects and things that CANNOT be done on the ground with boards and certainly not in the dark. Trying thinking a bit and maybe, just maybe doing a bit of research before insulting people. Maybe you'll "warm" up a bit.

Peace,

~Jammer+

What is your claim to labeling the face a shading affects? You can simply see that the spacing between the circles and the size of the circles themselves account for this mysteries shading effect. Just use standard 'arithmetic' to space the circles and manipulate their size on a piece of paper and you can achive the same effect of shading.

Originally posted by Frosty
What is your claim to labeling the face a shading affects? You can simply see that the spacing between the circles and the size of the circles themselves account for this mysteries shading effect. Just use standard 'arithmetic' to space the circles and manipulate their size on a piece of paper and you can achive the same effect of shading.

Perhaps you didn't notice, but this wasn't done on a piece of paper! It was done over several hundred feet in crops at night next to a radio telescope (public facility). You're insinuating that this can easily be duplicated from a piece of paper onto a large scale and leave no signs that humans were involved. OK. SURRRRE!!
Additionally, it was done VERY close to another formation of subsequent size and complexity and next to a public facility where there are scientists TRAINED to notice things and observe. If you insist in believing that humans created this with boards and ropes, you're welcome to believe that. But for those who have OPEN MINDS and are actually WILLING TO DO SOME RESEARCH on the subject, I believe they will come to a different conclusion.

Peace,

~Jammer+

Jammerman: "...was NOT done this way and is created more akin to that of a television with pixels creating subtle shading effects and things that CANNOT be done on the ground with boards and certainly not in the dark. Trying thinking a bit and maybe, just maybe doing a bit of research before insulting people. Maybe you'll "warm" up a bit.".

Great post but why would un-earthly beings, if that is what's suggested, use a picture frame - at least that is what appears to be a picture frame.

Dallas

Originally posted by Dallas
Jammerman: "...was NOT done this way and is created more akin to that of a television with pixels creating subtle shading effects and things that CANNOT be done on the ground with boards and certainly not in the dark. Trying thinking a bit and maybe, just maybe doing a bit of research before insulting people. Maybe you'll "warm" up a bit.".

Great post but why would un-earthly beings, if that is what's suggested, use a picture frame - at least that is what appears to be a picture frame.

Dallas

Thanks Dallas.

There may be many reasons such as making it easier to "program" the technology for the creation process or simply to accentuate the image and make it obvious that it is a picture rather than random blown down crop (lodging - see www.bltresearch.com... ).

Why do you put pictures in frames? Why does anyone?

I think we'll have to wait for the answer to that one

Peace,

~Jammer+

From the picture of the Chilbolton observatory, it looks like it is deactivated: the parking lot is empty and the radiotelescope is at a resting position. One situation is to have formations appear next to an observatory in use. Otherwise the Chilbolton formations are no more extraordinary than others in the middle of a field (in the interest of a scientific approach, I am just concerned with the mechanism of the appearance of the formations, not their supposed meaning, or even worse, "sacred" meaning).
Another interesting question would be, what do actual astronomers think of the Chilbolton formations and crop circles in general, when given all the information and having time to think about it?

Originally posted by jammerman

Originally posted by Frosty
What is your claim to labeling the face a shading affects? You can simply see that the spacing between the circles and the size of the circles themselves account for this mysteries shading effect. Just use standard 'arithmetic' to space the circles and manipulate their size on a piece of paper and you can achive the same effect of shading.

Perhaps you didn't notice, but this wasn't done on a piece of paper! It was done over several hundred feet in crops at night next to a radio telescope (public facility). You're insinuating that this can easily be duplicated from a piece of paper onto a large scale and leave no signs that humans were involved. OK. SURRRRE!!

Additionally, it was done VERY close to another formation of subsequent size and complexity and next to a public facility where there are scientists TRAINED to notice things and observe. If you insist in believing that humans created this with boards and ropes, you're welcome to believe that. But for those who have OPEN MINDS and are actually WILLING TO DO SOME RESEARCH on the subject, I believe they will come to a different conclusion.

Peace,

~Jammer+

Easily done on paper. When people build bridges they usually start on a piece of paper otherwise known as a blueprint. And what do these scientist warrant in the debate? Oh because they are scientist, that makes sense. I do have an open mind, which is why I am debunking you.

Explain to me the shading effect?

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by jammerman

Originally posted by Frosty
What is your claim to labeling the face a shading affects? You can simply see that the spacing between the circles and the size of the circles themselves account for this mysteries shading effect. Just use standard 'arithmetic' to space the circles and manipulate their size on a piece of paper and you can achive the same effect of shading.

Perhaps you didn't notice, but this wasn't done on a piece of paper! It was done over several hundred feet in crops at night next to a radio telescope (public facility). You're insinuating that this can easily be duplicated from a piece of paper onto a large scale and leave no signs that humans were involved. OK. SURRRRE!!

Additionally, it was done VERY close to another formation of subsequent size and complexity and next to a public facility where there are scientists TRAINED to notice things and observe. If you insist in believing that humans created this with boards and ropes, you're welcome to believe that. But for those who have OPEN MINDS and are actually WILLING TO DO SOME RESEARCH on the subject, I believe they will come to a different conclusion.

Peace,

~Jammer+

Easily done on paper. When people build bridges they usually start on a piece of paper otherwise known as a blueprint. And what do these scientist warrant in the debate? Oh because they are scientist, that makes sense.

I do have an open mind, which is why I am debunking you.

Explain to me the shading effect?

I'm sorry Frosty, but I can't continue this conversation with you. I'm not sure if it's a language thing or cultural difference or what but you DON'T seem to be having the same conversation that I am.

Also, why are you debunking ME? I'd like to assure you that I am quite real even though some philosophers may argue otherwise. To be more blunt, this conversation is not worth my time.
Please do some research rather than ask redundant questions of someone who is doing real research.

It's becoming painfully clear you have done little to no real research on this topic and are simply hanging around in here to bother people. I don't mind a skeptical approach to a point, but when NOTHING is ever conceeded it becomes clear what the intentions are and yours are becoming clear.

I respect your choice to be an "unbeliever" and to question everything. But please don't waste everyone's time trying to turn this place into a circus by behaving like an annoying clown. Some of us are seriously interested in the truth in our investigations into the unknown and have real jobs t'boot and this kind of dialog simply wastes everyone's time.

If you insist on carrying on this conversation, I need you to do something first and that is to state what you KNOW are FACTS about the crop circle phenomenon. Please include a reference list of all books that you have read and any videos/programs you have watched on the subject. Please, FACTS ONLY!
Otherwise, you can consider this conversation with you on ignore.

Peace,

~Jammer+

Don't get cranky, just explain to me the complex shading and why it requires higher technology and why a blueprint cannot be used. Don't just make an assertion and not back it up. I've clearly explained my theory of the shading effect, please explain what is so complex about it.

Originally posted by Frosty
Don't get cranky, just explain to me the complex shading and why it requires higher technology and why a blueprint cannot be used. Don't just make an assertion and not back it up. I've clearly explained my theory of the shading effect, please explain what is so complex about it.

Could you explain a plausable way of reproducing this design at night?
Lets here how you'd do it and we could take it from there. The point of debate is to discuss to alternatives, Jammerman knows his side of the story very well and could provide a lot of info but the problem is, you don't seem to receptive of his ideas.

So, tell us exactly how you think it was done and then Jammerman will have something to debate you with and a level of detail to respond back too.

Sounds fair to me, obviously Jammerman has experience in these things and can provide good information so meet your own challange and give him something to debate so he doesn't just waste his time explaining something to deaf ears who have already made up their mind.

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Originally posted by Frosty
Don't get cranky, just explain to me the complex shading and why it requires higher technology and why a blueprint cannot be used. Don't just make an assertion and not back it up. I've clearly explained my theory of the shading effect, please explain what is so complex about it.

Could you explain a plausable way of reproducing this design at night?
Lets here how you'd do it and we could take it from there. The point of debate is to discuss to alternatives, Jammerman knows his side of the story very well and could provide a lot of info but the problem is, you don't seem to receptive of his ideas.

So, tell us exactly how you think it was done and then Jammerman will have something to debate you with and a level of detail to respond back too.

Sounds fair to me, obviously Jammerman has experience in these things and can provide good information so meet your own challange and give him something to debate so he doesn't just waste his time explaining something to deaf ears who have already made up their mind.

I have, and if anyone who uses their imagination it is very pausible to duplicate the results if you are a criminal.

Simply a creative mind, artistic makes a sketch and decides to apply it to a wheat field. He then measures out a predetermined field after staking out and taking measurements: Area and perimeter and then reapplies it to the original blue print. Meo his sketch fits the demintions of the field. This guy must have studied other crop circles to realize that smasking down the crop enhances the brightness(?) from above in a helopcopter.

He then takes string and a stake, marks off the appropriate areas and begins stomping down the crop. You can see he makes diagnol rows or possibly vertical or horizontal, stomps the crop in various directions and overlaps them and then finishes off with the circles.

Frosty, do some reading for peets sake! You're are just making yourself look stupid. Do us a favour, go try your crop circle making method. We would love to see some pics of your results.

Here is a start for some edumecation:

www.lovely.clara.net...

[edit on 30/8/2005 by ANOK]

I had doubts about the Chilbolton observatory being in use, and found that it is: "CAMRa (Chilbolton Advanced Meteorological Radar), a 3 GHz Doppler-Polarisation radar, is the main facility at CFARR. CAMRa is the world's largest fully steerable meteorological radar."
From: www.cclrc.ac.uk...

So, for skeptics like Frosty, to put it in perspective, what is a crop circle doing next to the largest meteorological radar in the world?

Originally posted by ANOK
Frosty, do some reading for peets sake! You're are just making yourself look stupid. Do us a favour, go try your crop circle making method. We would love to see some pics of your results.

Here is a start for some edumecation:

www.lovely.clara.net...

[edit on 30/8/2005 by ANOK]

Please just quote something from the link, I'm not going to go through 15 pages of internet to try and debunk myself, that is for you to do. Put some effort into it.

[edit on 30-8-2005 by Frosty]

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Could you explain a plausable way of reproducing this design at night?
Lets here how you'd do it and we could take it from there. The point of debate is to discuss to alternatives, Jammerman knows his side of the story very well and could provide a lot of info but the problem is, you don't seem to receptive of his ideas.

So, tell us exactly how you think it was done and then Jammerman will have something to debate you with and a level of detail to respond back too.

Originally posted by Frosty
I have, and if anyone who uses their imagination it is very pausible to duplicate the results if you are a criminal.

OK, lets begin...

Originally posted by Frosty
1. Simply a creative mind, artistic makes a sketch and decides to apply it to a wheat field.

2. He then measures out a predetermined field after staking out and taking measurements: Area and perimeter and then reapplies it to the original blue print.

How does this artist stake and plot this field in the dark?
How long do you estimate this plotting and staking to take?
What do you mean 'reapplies it to the original blue print'?

Originally posted by Frosty
Meo his sketch fits the demintions of the field. This guy must have studied other crop circles to realize that smasking down the crop enhances the brightness(?) from above in a helopcopter.

So, at the moment we have a plotted out field in the middle of the night.
Now the artist is going to create the blueprint, in the dark, using the plot points they've laid out in the dark so during the day when a helicopter flies over it, the image will make sense. OK...

Originally posted by Frosty
He then takes string and a stake, marks off the appropriate areas and begins stomping down the crop. You can see he makes diagnol rows or possibly vertical or horizontal, stomps the crop in various directions and overlaps them and then finishes off with the circles.

How exactly does he take the string and stake to mark off the areas?
Can you provide a plausable way this design was mapped out in the dark, using string and stake plots to be followed by a stomping board?

Doe he make diagonal or vertical or horizontal lines? That's not very clear in your answer. Surely to be plotting and stomping this in the dark the artist would of had to of had some reference points.

Where would place reference points for this artist to begin with this design?

Are you able to show us how someone would plot this design since your claiming such ease in being able to create this? Can you draw plot lines on this design and show the movement and direction the crop stomper would of taken?

Basically, you've assumed a lot of stuff here but you haven't given any details to what it actually takes. Even if this was created by humans there are a few factors that would be needed which you haven't addressed, a lot of time being the most obvious.

Have you ever plotted anything out for landscaping or in building? If it takes a half-day to plot the frame positions for putting up walls on a concret slab using string line method and a detailed plan when building an average sized one story house, do you realise how long it would take to plot something in the night which isn't based on right angles, doesn't have a flat surface and which only reveals it's true self from high in the air?

When 'debunking' you MUST provide valid reasoning that contain technical analysis, not assumptions that have no basis.