Washington Farmer Discovers Mysterious Crop Circles in Wheat Field

reply to post by Ectoplasm8

So with your logic of crop circles, "they" created simple circles for over 200 years to just say "Hey we're here!". And of course, there hasn't been any outwardly viewable technological advances before the 80's. So fast forward now to the 80s, and they've bumped up this communication since we now we must have a clearer understanding because of computers and the latest discovery of geometric shapes

I don't know what the purpose of the older circles were. As for computers, read what I said more carefully, I used computers as an EXTERNAL example of advances in consciousness. Consciousness has consistently increased, even before the 80's. As far as the "latest discovery of geometric shapes" it has little to do with the shapes themselves and more to do with advanced pictographs including astronomical and mathematical information for example:

The intersected concentric pattern has been decoded by experts as a “tantalising approximation” of a mathematical formula called Euler’s Identity (e ^ ( i * Pi ) + 1 = 0), widely thought be the most beautiful and profound mathematical equation in the world....

What has happened in this particular crop circle is that there are 12 segments and within each segment there are 8 partly concentric rings. Each of these segments indicates a binary code based on 0 and 1. If you use an Ascii Table [computer calculation system], the pattern transposes itself into a tantalising approximation of Euler’s equation.”...

In July 2008 a photograph of a crop circle near Barbary Castle (also in Wiltshire) caught the attention of retired American astrophysicist Mike Reed when he saw it in a national newspaper. He was struck by its shape and eventually concluded that it was a coded image representing the first ten digits of Pi (3.141592654)

Ascii tables...binary code...what person from 200 years ago could have understood that?

www.independent.co.uk...

Of course you could counter with (and probably will) that those crop circles must've been made by human mathematicians. Maybe, maybe not. But the fact that they contain coded messages is indisputable. Plus, why would someone go to the trouble of making a crop circle that codes pi to 10 digits or encodes Euler's identity? An inside joke for other mathematicians and scientists? Seems unlikely.

On Tuesday 21st August 2001 two new crop formations were reported near Chilbolton radio telescope in Hampshire, UK. Both were very impressive looking and consisted of a large number of small 'pixels', which when viewed from the air formed a recognisable shape - unlike many other crop formations.

One represented a 'human face' and the other resembled a radio transmission that SETI (the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) sent from the Arecibo radio telescope in 1974. This latter formation will be examined in this article, in which I hope to not only describe and explain the original transmission, but also to examine and decode a number of significant changes occurring in the crop formation.

www.cropcircleresearch.com...

I'm not saying that there aren't man-made crop circles, just that they can't all be explained away so easily and especially not by ridicule.

reply to post by coyotepoet


So an alien race receives this radio freq. signal and instead of returning a signal back to us in the same way, knowing that's how we could communicate, they toss that out the window and decide to use "crop circles" to respond? Well that makes logical sense! You can't say "well maybe that's the only way they can", if they posses the capability to receive and understand the signal in the first place. You would know "they" understood the signal by the several changed graphics of the "returned" response. Such as the stereotypical big head/eyed alien replacing the human

Also, this "crop circle" happened to be laid out the same way it was in a book. Even down to the mirrored image mistake in the book!

It was obviously a prank.

reply to post by Ectoplasm8

So an alien race receives this radio freq. signal and instead of returning a signal back to us in the same way, knowing that's how we could communicate, they toss that out the window and decide to use "crop circles" to respond? Well that makes logical sense! You can't say "well maybe that's the only way they can", if they posses the capability to receive and understand the signal in the first place. You would know "they" understood the signal by the several changed graphics of the "returned" response. Such as the stereotypical big head/eyed alien replacing the human Also, this "crop circle" happened to be laid out the same way it was in a book. Even down to the mirrored image mistake in the book! It was obviously a prank

Yep. You're right. You got me. You are so brilliant. Multiple Phd's I'm sure. Everything has a mundane explanation and all of the crop circles around the world were created by 2 guys, or maybe it was swamp gas or chinese lanterns. There is nothing in our universe that we don't know about so we can be certain that your assessment of things is correct based both on your extreme brilliance and ability to know everything about everything. Bravo.

reply to post by coyotepoet

Instead of a sarcastic response, take all the "PHD" educated scientists and ask them what they think about aliens sending this message. Do you think a majority will agree that it's an advanced civilization trying to communicate with humans? Or will they come to logical scientific conclusion that it's not alien at all? I'll guarantee most will say it's not alien created.

Bar any PHD, just on a simple logical level, it doesn't make sense that an alien race would be able to receive and understand a RF signal without being capable of sending one back. Just with the sheer fact the signal wasn't sent back as it was received, but, with several changes within the original message. That shows you the ability to read, interpret and change the signal.

-An extraterrestrial race sends us a message in a crop with a mistake that just so happens to be as it was printed in a book. I'm not going to even mention the faces
-Or a bunch of guys creating this "circle" 1000 feet from their telescope poking fun at these people believing in this alien crop circles.
How is the alien part of that more of a realistic answer than the human one??

reply to post by Ectoplasm8

How is the alien part of that more of a realistic answer than the human one??

I'm not saying that it is, nor is the dismissal that they have all been man-made. That is my point and the point of my sarcastic message. Saying that they are all man-made is just as ridiculous and small minded as saying they are all of ET/ED origin. To be so sure that you know all of the possibilities of heaven and earth just because you can't or won't entertain the notion of the existence of ET/ED's that you dismiss any possibility out of hand, that's very small minded. Just because you can't conceive of something based on a small, materialistic point of view does not mean that is hasn't happened.

As a Qi Gung teacher once told me, "The Truth does not require you to believe in it to exist."

reply to post by coyotepoet

Dr. Frank Drake - astronomer and astrophysicist, the original "writer" of this signal in 1974, responded to questions of this 2001 "crop circle message" by saying: -If aliens were intelligent enough to get to earth- "they would know better than to communicate with humans in this ridiculous way." He said this, among other negative comments about the message. Now, this is from someone directly involved in the original project and certainly more intelligent than myself and more than likely you, in regards to this subject. One purpose of being involved in broadcasting this signal, is to communicate with other intelligent beings. A desire for this communication. Knowing that, do you consider him closed or small minded in his evaluation of the returned message?

There is too much proof of all the man made crop circles, none verifiable of alien made crop circles. Just sayin '

reply to post by Ectoplasm8

Dr. Frank Drake - astronomer and astrophysicist, the original "writer" of this signal in 1974, responded to questions of this 2001 "crop circle message" by saying: -If aliens were intelligent enough to get to earth- "they would know better than to communicate with humans in this ridiculous way." He said this, among other negative comments about the message. Now, this is from someone directly involved in the original project and certainly more intelligent than myself and more than likely you, in regards to this subject. One purpose of being involved in broadcasting this signal, is to communicate with other intelligent beings. A desire for this communication. Knowing that, do you consider him closed or small minded in his evaluation of the returned message?

Fine, you've "debunked" one. At least 9,999 to go.

To date there have been over 10,000 reported and documented crop circles throughout the world, with some 90% emerging from southern England

and as for Doug and Dave:

According to TV documentaries, all crop circles up to 1992 were made by two simple, elderly men called Doug and Dave. It has since been discovered by researchers such as George Wingfield and Armen Victorian that the D&D story was tied to the British Ministry of Defense- in collusion with the CIA, among others. Evidence supplied by a high-ranking informant in the British Ministry of Defence suggested that the government had every intent to discredit the phenomenon by putting forward two hoaxers in an effort to quell growing public interest in crop circles (for a fuller story see Crop Circles History 1991). When confronted to provide evidence on certain claimed formations, Doug and Dave changed their story, even reversing previous claims; or they simply remained silent when asked to explain the list of features found in the genuine phenomenon. When they claimed making all the formations around the English county of Hampshire, for example, it was pointed out that half the known formations had actually occured in another county- "Er, no, we didn't do those either," they replied. In the end, not even Doug and Dave knew which ones they had made.

www.cropcircles.net...

One down 9,999 to go. Good luck.

reply to post by coyotepoet


So let me predict your response, I bet you are going to say:

"the burden of proof always lies on a person making an extraordinary claim and not on the ones claiming it doesn't exist."

to which I would respond:

"The burden of proof always lies on a person making a claim, regardless of it. If you claim X exist, then the burden of proof lies on you and if you claim X doesn't exist, then the burden of proof also lies on you. Claiming X exist is equivalent as claiming X doesn't exist. In addition, If you made a claim, you either have justification for it; otherwise, you're being outright dishonest to yourself."

It's just as extraordinary a claim to say that ALL 10,000+ crop circles were man-made as it is to say that ALL of them were made by ET's.

Ever hear of pseudoskepticism?

The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:[1]

1. The tendency to deny, rather than doubt
2. Double standards in the application of criticism
3. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate
4. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
5. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
6. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
7. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
8. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for completely dismissing a claim

en.wikipedia.org...

Hmmm..so because the circle you have just picked apart is unconvincing that means all of them are human made. It's implausible to think that there are ET/ED life. And you are so certain that all of them are man made that you deny that any of them are ET/ED made rather than coming from a place of agnostic doubt. I've never claimed that all of them are of ET/ED origin while you have claimed that all of them are of human origin. So like I said: 1 down, 9,999 to go.

Yeah well, as I'm sure you know, Carl Sagan used to say: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Which is basically the same thing and completely true.

You're right as to how I would respond. It's up to the believers in ET communication to prove that these are created by ETs. Why? Like in the quote above, its an extraordinary claim. My claim that it could be made by humans is a fact. It could be. Your claim of ETs could do it, is not a proven fact as of yet. Therefore, prove aliens are here or visit us, then compare notes if its human or alien. If you take the Chilbolton message for example. I read through the article, and while all the detailed jargon might be impressive, when it comes down to simple logic, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Someone reading that with bias toward an alien answer, might fall into believing this guy really knows what he's talking about. I don't fall into that. My bias is fact and not maybe, could be, or someones seemingly expertise in an unproven field. You referenced that one case and I responded to it. That one case doesn't prove they're all wrong. The fact that aliens have not been proven to have visited, proves it.


And sure, I'll get right on that 9,999 challenge! I can use the recent August 4th crop circle contact claim, as another example. One that's as good of proof as any, that there in fact was no "message" within those circles. Isn't that the so-called experts allowing the circle to debunk itself? How many more wrong "contact dates" have to go by before the believers start to understand "Wait a minute, maybe this circle isn't a message from outer space"? Then, how many of those people will allow that to creep into their brain and start to think logically that maybe they should try to fully understand it first, before believing these "experts"? Unfortunately, very few.

You can search and slap on any definition of the way I think you want. I think I'm in good company. I never said there wasn't a possibility of intelligent life in the universe. But, the fact still remains, there hasn't been any scientific proof they've been here.

reply to post by Ectoplasm8

You're right as to how I would respond. It's up to the believers in ET communication to prove that these are created by ETs. Why? Like in the quote above, its an extraordinary claim. My claim that it could be made by humans is a fact. It could be. Your claim of ETs could do it, is not a proven fact as of yet. Therefore, prove aliens are here or visit us, then compare notes if its human or alien.

And I think this gets at the crux of all the going back and forth. What is proof? Thousands of documented sightings of UFO's by pilots, military, Barry Goldwater, etc (in other words, those that would be in a position to know it wasn't a plane?) I would take that as proof, but the skeptic could argue it away as just being a black ops human made thing. Thousands of reports of alien abduction? A skeptic could argue it away as night terrors, lying, or again, a human black ops project. The starchild skull DNA analysis? The skeptic would argue that the methods were faulty or that the guy was just flat out lying to make money. Project Bluebook, the recently released Australian UFO files, etc. Get my point. There has been lots of proof over the years that we are being visited, but no proof is good enough for a person inclined not to believe it because they can always find a way to explain it away in their own minds, whether valid or not. There are literally thousands and thousands of the examples I listed above, but it is still not enough for some people. And that is understandable because the cognitive dissonance involved in restructuring one's world view to include aliens as fact is a lot for some people. For some, the only proof that is going to be good enough is if they see an alien with their own eyes or if someone in an official position of authority comes right out and says, "Yes we have been visited." These are the people that are not worth arguing with because for them, there is no proof until they are confronted with something in front of their own eyes that they cannot deny. Until then, you can continue to disregard all the proof that is already out there.

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
reply to post by coyotepoet

 

So with your logic of crop circles, "they" created simple circles for over 200 years to just say "Hey we're here!". And of course, there hasn't been any outwardly viewable technological advances before the 80's. So fast forward now to the 80s, and they've bumped up this communication since we now we must have a clearer understanding because of computers and the latest discovery of geometric shapes

Hell we all are just guessing here as to motives and reasonings assuming some of these forms are not man made.
The most reasonable discussions on crop circles assuming we all are interested in finding out truth is to look to the fields them selves and at the analysis that has been done on the crop stems. That should be debated, the rest of this is all simply conjecture and opinion. Someone posted a link on that analysis earlier in the thread. Another place to focus is on the logisitics of how it is possible some of these incredibly complex forms can form in a very short amount of time, with no evidence left behind of human contact with the fields themselves.

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by Ectoplasm8

 

You're right as to how I would respond. It's up to the believers in ET communication to prove that these are created by ETs. Why? Like in the quote above, its an extraordinary claim. My claim that it could be made by humans is a fact. It could be. Your claim of ETs could do it, is not a proven fact as of yet. Therefore, prove aliens are here or visit us, then compare notes if its human or alien.

And I think this gets at the crux of all the going back and forth. What is proof? Thousands of documented sightings of UFO's by pilots, military, Barry Goldwater, etc (in other words, those that would be in a position to know it wasn't a plane?) I would take that as proof, but the skeptic could argue it away as just being a black ops human made thing. Thousands of reports of alien abduction? A skeptic could argue it away as night terrors, lying, or again, a human black ops project. The starchild skull DNA analysis? The skeptic would argue that the methods were faulty or that the guy was just flat out lying to make money. Project Bluebook, the recently released Australian UFO files, etc. Get my point. There has been lots of proof over the years that we are being visited, but no proof is good enough for a person inclined not to believe it because they can always find a way to explain it away in their own minds, whether valid or not. There are literally thousands and thousands of the examples I listed above, but it is still not enough for some people. And that is understandable because the cognitive dissonance involved in restructuring one's world view to include aliens as fact is a lot for some people. For some, the only proof that is going to be good enough is if they see an alien with their own eyes or if someone in an official position of authority comes right out and says, "Yes we have been visited." These are the people that are not worth arguing with because for them, there is no proof until they are confronted with something in front of their own eyes that they cannot deny. Until then, you can continue to disregard all the proof that is already out there.

Yes, and the believers, like yourself, will continue to follow the naive gullible path that these "experts" lay, in lieu of any personal logical reasoning. Like the initial reasoning I did, all by my lonesome, with the Chilbolton message you posted. See, it's simple! Yes yes I'm sure you still think it's alien with all your own deciphering. I'm sure you're still waiting for the next date to pop up from the circles too. Lots of proof in those circles as well. UFOs? Well, Barry Goldwater wants answers so it must be true they're alien driven. J Allen Hynek? He has no proof of the ET/UFO connection, but its proof enough that he thinks they're alien!

Quite the scientific deduction you believers have. The word of the word, throw in some maybes and could-bes, BAM, you got proof!

ad nauseam.......... /end

reply to post by Ectoplasm8

Yes, and the believers, like yourself, will continue to follow the naive gullible path that these "experts" lay, in lieu of any personal logical reasoning. Like the initial reasoning I did, all by my lonesome, with the Chilbolton message you posted. See, it's simple! Yes yes I'm sure you still think it's alien with all your own deciphering. I'm sure you're still waiting for the next date to pop up from the circles too. Lots of proof in those circles as well. UFOs? Well, Barry Goldwater wants answers so it must be true they're alien driven. J Allen Hynek? He has no proof of the ET/UFO connection, but its proof enough that he thinks they're alien! Quite the scientific deduction you believers have. The word of the word, throw in some maybes and could-bes, BAM, you got proof! ad nauseam.......... /end

Yep, and when full and total disclosure does happen, we will be smiling while people like you are shi**ing their pants trying to integrate that new information....

but of course, in your pseudoskeptic way, I'm sure you will say it will never happen. I say, we'll see.

reply to post by coyotepoet


It could happen and if it ever does in my lifetime, dully shatted.

reply to post by Ectoplasm8

It could happen and if it ever does in my lifetime, dully shatted.

That made me laugh. Thank you.