About Those Beliefs You're Ashamed of Holding..

[Luger187]

[video=youtube;2SGuXfGl3z8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SGuXfGl3z8&feature=player_embedded[/video]

 

[karri0n]

Considering the number of crop circles that have been investigated, and considering the sheer determination they put into finding something abnormal, I would think it strange if they didn't produce odd findings. This is called anomaly hunting, and is the reverse procedure of the scientific method. If those anomalies were typical of crop circles, as you guys elude to, then that would be evidence, but all we have are some strange readings from a certain piece of land, while they admit a crop circle made around the same time in the same area did not have these anomalies, and they called this the control sample?

It's not anomaly hunting. It would seem to me that with the growing popularity of crp circles as well as more and more widespread knowledge of the techniques for making them is spread via the internet, that the majority of crop circles, especially recent ones, would be man made. The minority would be genuine crop circles, and it's in the minority that we do see these anomalies. I never claimed or inferred(and if I did unintentionally I apologize) that the majorityof crop circles have these anomalies or that they were typical. However, The prevalence of the anomalies referenced is much higher than your proposed solution of an "exploding meteor" would point to, especially when there is no other evidence of a meteor exploding in the vicinity.

I'm not sure you interpreted the paper correctly - the control sample was an area "several dozen feet away" from the circle they were investigating. They referenced another formation in the paper, but once again referenced "control" samples that they had taken from there, presumably meaning they took the control several dozen feet away from the formation, just as they did in this investigation. Anomalies were recorded in this one as well. The control sample was taken several dozen feet away from the circle that contained the anomalies, and it did not have them. This also rules out the potential "exploding meteor" hypothesis because it would be expected that the same anomalies would be present, if not in slightly lower quantities. Instead, the sample did not show them at all.

Please bear in mind that I am not making any sort of jump to "aliens did it". I'll ask you to not assume that I am making conclusions that I'm not. Here's what I, and the research paper, are saying.

1. there is a circle
2. there are nuclear anomalies found inside but not immediately surrounding the circle
3. hoaxsters could not have produced these anomalies.
4. There is no known natural phenomena that could have produced these anomalies
5. There was no known exposure to equipment or other radioactive decay (such as from chernobyl or a nearby nuclear reactor) that would have affected the test sample but not the control.

These are the only conclusions anyone is making in regards to this paper.

There is by no means whatsoever evidence to support that crop circles are man-made 100% of the time.

 

[Heisenberg]

It's not anomaly hunting. It would seem to me that with the growing popularity of crp circles as well as more and more widespread knowledge of the techniques for making them is spread via the internet, that the majority of crop circles, especially recent ones, would be man made. The minority would be genuine crop circles, and it's in the minority that we do see these anomalies. I never claimed or inferred(and if I did unintentionally I apologize) that the majorityof crop circles have these anomalies or that they were typical. However, The prevalence of the anomalies referenced is much higher than your proposed solution of an "exploding meteor" would point to, especially when there is no other evidence of a meteor exploding in the vicinity.

I'm not sure you interpreted the paper correctly - the control sample was an area "several dozen feet away" from the circle they were investigating. They referenced another formation in the paper, but once again referenced "control" samples that they had taken from there, presumably meaning they took the control several dozen feet away from the formation, just as they did in this investigation. Anomalies were recorded in this one as well. The control sample was taken several dozen feet away from the circle that contained the anomalies, and it did not have them. This also rules out the potential "exploding meteor" hypothesis because it would be expected that the same anomalies would be present, if not in slightly lower quantities. Instead, the sample did not show them at all.

Please bear in mind that I am not making any sort of jump to "aliens did it". I'll ask you to not assume that I am making conclusions that I'm not. Here's what I, and the research paper, are saying.

1. there is a circle
2. there are nuclear anomalies found inside but not immediately surrounding the circle
3. hoaxsters could not have produced these anomalies.
4. There is no known natural phenomena that could have produced these anomalies
5. There was no known exposure to equipment or other radioactive decay (such as from chernobyl or a nearby nuclear reactor) that would have affected the test sample but not the control.

These are the only conclusions anyone is making in regards to this paper.

There is by no means whatsoever evidence to support that crop circles are man-made 100% of the time.

So these anomalies have not become typical of crop circles, nor has any sort of pattern emerged? It's been 20 years since this paper, which seems to be the only source of this information out there. Assuming the paper is accurate, we are still left with simply an unknown that may or may not be connected with the crop circle, and can not be used to make any sort of predictions. From this you assume that most crop circles are hoaxed and a small amount are genuine, which may be an accurate assumption, but it doesn't seem to be backed up by the evidence, and to me it simply says that within the sheer number of crop circles studied a few were found to have unexplained and inconclusive data which may or may not be qualities, which is what I would expect.

The crude and sloppy circles which you say often point to being man made are the only ones we saw in the late 70's and early 80's. The complex patterns that mystify didn't start showing up till 90's-ish. To me this says that as the hoaxers got more practice the art evolved, which is typical of hoax phenomena. If only the complex or anomalous circles are non-human creations, then some intelligent force had to step in and start mimicking humans, and with no apparent reason, mechanism, or definitive distinction.

Considering the overwhelming amount of evidence that humans are responsible, the overwhelming lack of evidence that anything else is responsible, and the relatively tiny amount of unknown data that may or may not mean anything, I think I have done my job of supporting my conclusion that crop circles are evidently created by men 100% of the time.