Crop Circles

Great idea. I know that there are programmable vacuum cleaners and I believe that there are programmable lawn mowers. Not beyond the wit of man to adapt such devices with a roller...

I seriously wonder if they haven't already done it. The increasing complexity of crop patterns might be down to competition between groups of students, but it does also coincide with this kind of technology. Older crop-patterns were mostly based on circles, which can done with pegs, ropes and planks. I hypothesise (though am too lazy to survey the evidence) that the more complex non-circle patterns have only arisen since these kind of robots became feasible.

One of the reasons I asked about GPS earlier is that if a lawnmower-type robot were programmed to go, say, eighteen inches forward and then turn left, its driving wheels/tracks might slip on the crop, and the distance would not be read accurately enough for such complex patterns. GPS would solve this if it could provide fine enough detail.

The other reason I suspected GPS was that in some example I've seen, the crop circles have been on sloping ground, and have actually been elliptical, only appearing circular from directly above.
 
The other thing about a programmable GPS device, HareBrane is that it would allow them to 'trial' the programmed design first. Say on a remote beach where the evidence could easily be destroyed. The GPS co-ordinates could easily be modified / transferred from one location to another.
 
I suppose we could meet in a pub near the beach. That would get the planning off to a good start...

At the very least we could disprove the "drunken student" assumption. Might look like something from an early episode of "Last of the Summer Wine", though.

How fast could such a robot move, any idea? I can only think of bomb-disposal robots that move about 0.0002 m/s.

Also, we must make sure no corncrake nests are harmed.
 
Starbeast.

When you look at something weird like UFO claims, you should start with the assumption that there are hordes of hoaxers out there.

Recently I was in a forum discussion on Bigfoot. The pro-Bigfoot people put up evidence coming from indistinct video and photos of something ape-like, plus photos of Bigfoot footprints. When I did my background literature research, I discovered a number of cases where such evidence was presented, and later on, a confession by a hoaxer was made. People made up strap on Bigfoot footprint makers, or walked in the forest in gorilla suits to be photographed. The real evidence that would be genuinely scientifically convincing involves novel DNA. This can be gained from hair samples, Bigfoot droppings, or a corpse. Not at all difficult if such a beast were out there. Yet, nothing.

In the same way, look for hoaxers in the UFO story. Your youtube showed nothing that could not have been produced by hoaxers. Your 'researcher' seemed to be operating alone. If UFO landing sites are so impressive, why was there not a team of reputable scientists working alongside this guy and publishing results in reputable, peer reviewed scientific journals? This did not happen, which makes me believe the 'researcher' is a fraud. After all, real scientists are frequently open to doing this kind of work.

If extraterrestrial spaceships are landing as often as your fraudulent 'researcher' claims, then why has there never been one filmed in detail by a professional videographer, with the equipment needed? After all, such professionals are bloody near everywhere these days.

Why has no-one ever discovered a genuine alien artifact?

If our hypothetical aliens were trying to be sneaky, why the hell are they zapping around in large, visible craft at all? Humans are already making robots the size of insects. A species capable of flying between the stars would have no problem making spy robots that look like insects, or something else innocuous, that we could not detect.

Sorry, but the obvious rational explanation for the stuff in your youtube is a bunch of hoaxers, and a UFO 'researcher' who is 100% fraud.
 
Maybe so, but why are people so quick to dismiss Buzz Aldrin, or the many VERY credible witnesses in post 40? (on this thread). You can knock 99.99% out of court, if you can, but there are too many. And I don't think SB said anything about bigfoot? :)

EDIT: Sorry the channels on Mars videos below seem to show quite convincingly that the 'canals' were formed not by water, but by electricity. That knocks a lot of Mars theories right off the table -- both 'model' and 'alternative' -- one must remain open-minded to evidence, and the internet cooks, although much is fakery. That is indeed the whole issue with the internet: not one word is necessarily true.

In the course of this thread, because of the 'evidence' posted, I've become fairly convinced that the crop-circles are probably a (very clever) human creation. That doesn't knock the whole extraterrestrial-visitors debate out of court just yet though ...
 
Last edited:
Are there hordes of hoaxers out there? Really?
Who finances these pro nutbags? What is their mission... to convince people of UFOs even though they don't exist? Huh?
Thousands of UFO sightings, a few hoaxers exposed, don't see how it relates.
I don't think there's many amateur hoaxers out there.... unless it's a gang of rich bored people with a really, really weird agenda.
I've never known a hoaxer - as opposed to the people who run around writing and rewriting history as if it's a job. They do exist, but I think the word 'criminals' fits as well as hoaxers, which makes it sound like fun.
'Hoaxers' sounds like rich bored kids, maybe someone has a clue what they are trying to achieve?
 
RJM

No wanting to upset your belief system, but there are no canals on Mars. There are some features that look exactly like they were created by flowing water, and it seems clear from the minerals analysed by the Mars rovers that, at one time, there was indeed surface water on Mars. The electric hypothesis is totally unnecessary.

The only reason anyone ever talked of canals on Mars is a single reference, in the early days of large telescopes, of 'canali'. This is an Italian word that means channels - not canals. In fact, the channels described were illusions - artifacts of poor optics in early primitive telescopes. The water courses we now know of are too small to be visible from Earth.

Dismissing Buzz Aldrin?
Yes, I do. Because he is merely human, and humans make loads of mistakes. You only need to look at the number of "murderers" sent to prison for life on the testimony of credible eye witnesses, who have since been discovered through DNA evidence, to be innocent. Everyone makes mistakes.

To accept UFOs as extraterrestrial craft, we need stronger evidence. We cannot rely on defective human perception and memory, and we cannot rely on solitary crackpots, and we cannot rely on any evidence that might be produced by hoaxers. That still leaves room for lots of kinds of evidence that would be convincing. So far, we have not seen it.
 
Are there hordes of hoaxers out there? Really?
Who finances these pro nutbags? What is their mission... to convince people of UFOs even though they don't exist? Huh?
Thousands of UFO sightings, a few hoaxers exposed, don't see how it relates.
I don't think there's many amateur hoaxers out there.... unless it's a gang of rich bored people with a really, really weird agenda.
I've never known a hoaxer - as opposed to the people who run around writing and rewriting history as if it's a job. They do exist, but I think the word 'criminals' fits as well as hoaxers, which makes it sound like fun.
'Hoaxers' sounds like rich bored kids, maybe someone has a clue what they are trying to achieve?

Yeah, but Riff that's why a lot of stuff DOESN'T get reported in newspapers, etc. A newspaper or TV network can be sued for serious libel. Really big money. So they have to check it out pretty good before publication.

But a video on You Tube under a username can be anything. And there seem to be A LOT of people out there who really enjoy hoaxing -- it's like computer viruses, they compete with each other...

EDIT: sorry skeptical, your post landed while I was typing. Haven't read it yet ... :)
 
Are there hordes of hoaxers out there? Really?
Who finances these pro nutbags? What is their mission... to convince people of UFOs even though they don't exist? Huh?
Thousands of UFO sightings, a few hoaxers exposed, don't see how it relates.
I don't think there's many amateur hoaxers out there.... unless it's a gang of rich bored people with a really, really weird agenda.
I've never known a hoaxer - as opposed to the people who run around writing and rewriting history as if it's a job. They do exist, but I think the word 'criminals' fits as well as hoaxers, which makes it sound like fun.
'Hoaxers' sounds like rich bored kids, maybe someone has a clue what they are trying to achieve?

Yep.
Loads of hoaxers. Take George Adamski for example, who in the 1950's made a lot of money writing books about extraterrestrials visiting Earth. He put photos in his books of flying saucers. They were all replicated by one of his critics who threw things like hub caps into the air, spinning, and got photographed against the sky and distant mountains.

I have since seen a very large number of photos from a wide range of people, of purported UFOs. All those photos could be made by the same technique. You will see a few in Starbeast's referenced youtube video.

These days, you do not even have to do that. Photoshop will make excellent fakes! I have seen photos of UFOs in which I have recognised the spacecraft as coming from a TV show or movie. The value of being keen on scifi.

It is really easy to set up a UFO hoax. All that is needed is one or a few people who want a bit of nefarious entertainment.
 
RJM

No wanting to upset your belief system, but there are no canals on Mars. There are some features that look exactly like they were created by flowing water, and it seems clear from the minerals analysed by the Mars rovers that, at one time, there was indeed surface water on Mars. The electric hypothesis is totally unnecessary.

The only reason anyone ever talked of canals on Mars is a single reference, in the early days of large telescopes, of 'canali'. This is an Italian word that means channels - not canals. In fact, the channels described were illusions - artifacts of poor optics in early primitive telescopes. The water courses we now know of are too small to be visible from Earth.

Dismissing Buzz Aldrin?
Yes, I do. Because he is merely human, and humans make loads of mistakes. You only need to look at the number of "murderers" sent to prison for life on the testimony of credible eye witnesses, who have since been discovered through DNA evidence, to be innocent. Everyone makes mistakes.

To accept UFOs as extraterrestrial craft, we need stronger evidence. We cannot rely on defective human perception and memory, and we cannot rely on solitary crackpots, and we cannot rely on any evidence that might be produced by hoaxers. That still leaves room for lots of kinds of evidence that would be convincing. So far, we have not seen it.

Yes, but there you go, you see? You say: my belief system.

You assume Aldrin is talking sunshine, and I assume an astronaut knows what he's talking about when it comes to his own area of particular expertise, which is to travel to the moon, walk on it, look around, and then come back and tell people what he saw?

That may not reinforce your belief system, but it doesn't change the event.

Re: Mars: unnecessary to whom? I don't know why you're talking about telescopes when the various Mars missions have photographed every inch of Mars in glorious high resolution. I don't know what you're getting at? Do you mean you're not interested in the evidence for electrical patterns because it's 'unnecessary'? The electrical research is both recent, scientific and very convincing. It would explain all those features on Mars, that water cannot -- all of them. It's nothing to do with ufo's, by the way.

It's lightening, but lightening like you wouldn't believe. Huge lightening bolts.

I'm prepared to bet it will become the model. Science doesn't have to come from billion dollar labs ...
 
Last edited:
RJM
Dismissing Buzz Aldrin?
Yes, I do. Because he is merely human, and humans make loads of mistakes. You only need to look at the number of "murderers" sent to prison for life on the testimony of credible eye witnesses, who have since been discovered through DNA evidence, to be innocent. Everyone makes mistakes.

I'd just like to back up what what skeptical is saying with two experiences of my own.

1) I was witness to a shoplifting offence. I was about six feet from the guy. After he had gone I reported it to the shop assistant, the police were called and they caught the guy in the street a short distance away. I was called to the magistrates court about two months later to give evidence. I didn't recognise the man in the dock as the same person I remembered in the shop and would have had to say so if called. Fortunately he pleaded guilty.

2) I was on the third floor of an office block one evening and witnessed a guy with an iron bar breaking shop windows across the street. I phoned the police and watched two policemen arrive in a car. One of them wrestled the guy to the ground and hand-cuff him and they both got him into the car and drove off. The police rang me back and asked me to go to the police station to make a statement. I was taken into an interview room and the conversation went along the lines of:

Policeman: Did you see a policeman arrest the offender?

Me: Yes.

Policeman: Would you recognise the policeman again?

Me: Yes.

Policeman: Have you seen this policeman since you've arrived at the station?

Me: No.

Policeman: It was me.
 
Last edited:
You miss the point. These people have an organized agenda, and spend money on it steadily, for years. Why?
There are thousands of reports of UFOs, thousands more than there are crop circles.
Hard to imagine there are still people who argue as if they know something... about something witnessed and documented far more times than needed to prove it's existence.
Major league conditioning of human beings is one obvious answer to why the uninformed scoffing continues.
The motive has to be profit for one human gang or another, and I can't see that with crop circles.
Again - are there really gangs of rich, spoiled, English.... kids... doing this weird, weird act? For who, and why?
Another thing - what does a tractor have to do with it? Are they supposedly using a tractor to pull planks around, flattening the area with them, to a prearranged pattern? Seems fairly complicated. So, rich, bored and smart... kids... are... no, aliens makes more sense.:)
 
I have seen photos of UFOs in which I have recognised the spacecraft as coming from a TV show or movie.

Or cutting edge fighter planes being tested by the US Navy? I can understand someone getting away with this before a movie is released if they happen to acquire some preview images. A friend got this e-mail about a year ago—and he had seen the movie, but did not remember the design of the fighter. He forwarded the e-mail to me, and when I reminded him of the movie Stealth, he did very convincing Homer: "D'oh!"
 
I'd just like to back up what what skeptical is saying with two experiences of my own.

1) I was witness to a shoplifting offence. I was about six feet from the guy. After he had gone I reported it to the shop assistant, the police were called and they caught the guy in street a short distance away. I was called to the magistrates court about two months later to give evidence. I didn't recognise the man in the dock as the same person I remembered in the shop and would have had to say so if called. Fortunately he pleaded guilty.

2) I was on the third floor of an office block one evening and witnessed a guy with an iron bar breaking shop windows across the street. I phoned the police and watched two policemen arrive in a car. One of them wrestled the guy to the ground and hand-cuff him and they both got him into the car and drove off. The police rang me back and asked me to go to the police station to make a statement. I was taken into an interview room and the conversation went along the lines of:

Policeman: Did you see a policeman arrest the offender?

Me: Yes.

Policeman: Would you recognise the policeman again?

Me: Yes.

Policeman: Have you seen this policeman since you've arrived at the station?

Me: No.

Policeman: It was me.

Ha ha. Don't become a cop then :)
Seriously, cops are trained to make that sort of observation though, aren't they? It's an essential job skill?
 
... Again - are there really gangs of rich, spoiled, English.... kids... doing this weird, weird act? For who, and why?

There probably are. And they would do it just to prove they can -- like graffiti or computer viruses.


Another thing - what does a tractor have to do with it? Are they supposedly using a tractor to pull planks around, flattening the area with them, to a prearranged pattern? Seems fairly complicated. So, rich, bored and smart... kids... are... no, aliens makes more sense.:)

No, the tractor road through the field would enable them to access and leave the site without leaving tracks in the barley -- if it's kids ...
 
Ha ha. Don't become a cop then :)
Seriously, cops are trained to make that sort of observation though, aren't they? It's an essential job skill?

I know what you are saying, RJM but on both occasions what I witnessed weren't fleeting events that happened in a second or two. I was aware that what was happening, on each occasion, was a crime and that in all likelihood I would be called to give evidence. With this in mind I was trying to remember what I was seeing as accurately as possible.
 
On human error.

There is a woman at Auckland University, who is a psychology professor. She works with teams of Ph. D. students doing research on human behaviour, and I have attended two of her lectures on the subject of the imperfection of human perception.

I don't know how many of you have heard about the moving door experiment? You send someone to talk to a person in the street, to ask directions. As they are engaged in discussion, your stooges walk towards them carrying a door. They rudely walk right between the two people in discussion.

As the door blocks off the view of the man in the street from the person asking directions, that person is switched with another person who has hid by walking behind the door. The man in the street is then left facing a totally different person when the door goes past.

Believe it or not, most of the time this experiment is done, the victim fails to realise that a switch has been made, and will continue giving directions to the person who has switched.

This is an extreme example of human perception error, but as mosaix points out, major errors are normal.

Memory is also variable. I like to reference the 'growing trout' phenomenon. A man catches a 30 cm trout. When he tells his buddies in the pub about it, the trout is 35 cm. A year later, the story is a 40 cm trout, and five years later, it is 50. This is not due to dishonesty. The teller of fishy tales genuinely believes that was how big the fish was. Human nature at work, and imperfect memory.

There has been heaps of research done on imperfect perception and malleable memory. This applies to everyone, including Buzz Aldrin.

In this, I am not wilfully insulting Aldrin. This process screws up everyone, and probably me also.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top