byofrcs wrote:I just like to point out that at night in the countryside you do not need a torch to see the ground and plants when the moon is up.

With infrared torches and glasses you can see fine on the darkest night. And of course on a starlit night you can see very well most nights. Night vision goggles are relatively cheap now as well.

There is clearly a reason for those pesky space-aliens to be creating these crop circles ...

I once had this crop-circle guy try and break into my email accounts.

He was a stalker...

Badam, TISH!

Callan wrote:Badam, TISH!

For that Sphinxy should be bent over and microwaved.

Tbickle wrote: <snip>

We have no knowledge of any particular species of plants falling over in patterns. We have no evidence that extraterrestrials or anything supernatural exists. Therefore, it would be highly improbable that these designs are anything but a creation by humans.

Crop Circles are evidence of intelligent falling! It is affecting plants.

Sigh I'm a terrible POE.

Crop Cercles are evidense of intelligent falling. Intelligent falling is effecting plants!

sennekuyl wrote:

Tbickle wrote: <snip>

We have no knowledge of any particular species of plants falling over in patterns. We have no evidence that extraterrestrials or anything supernatural exists. Therefore, it would be highly improbable that these designs are anything but a creation by humans.

Crop Circles are evidence of intelligent falling! It is affecting plants.

Sigh I'm a terrible POE.

Crop Cercles are evidense of intelligent falling. Intelligent falling is effecting plants!

Did you notice the "intelligent falling" in "Avatar"?

If only some of you knew how to argue without being condescending and whatnot, some of your points would come across more often.

I came across this today while looking up crop circles:
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Crop%20circles.htm

Seems fair. We all have our opinions of course.

What do you think of this?

According to BLT Research, there are three major abnormalities that are unexplainable in crop circles: the presence of elongated apical plant stem nodes, expulsion cavities in the plant stems, and 10-50 micron-diameter magnetized iron spherules deposited linearly in the crop circle soils. Along with those 3 criterion, the presence of microwave radiation in crop circles was also studied. By a series of replication experiments to fulfill the 4 criterion, the MIT research team hoped to find a “earthly” explanation for the crop circles. Unfortunately or Fortunately, how ever you want to look at it, the research teams were UNABLE to replicate the criterion in the crop circles. That means that they could duplicate the presence of elongated apical plant stem nodes, expulsion cavities in the plant stems, 10-50 micron-diameter magnetized iron spherules deposited linearly in the crop circle soils, or microwave radiation. One method the reasearchers tried, which I believed was an interesting thought was to use a “particle shooter” and microwave radiation generator to blast the crop [circles] in hopes to magnetize iron spheres and cause heat to be generated to cause both elongated apical plant stems nodes and expulsion cavities.

NeedAnswers wrote:If only some of you knew how to argue without being condescending and whatnot, some of your points would come across more often.

I came across this today while looking up crop circles:
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Crop%20circles.htm

Seems fair. We all have our opinions of course.

What do you think of this?

According to BLT Research, there are three major abnormalities that are unexplainable in crop circles: the presence of elongated apical plant stem nodes, expulsion cavities in the plant stems, and 10-50 micron-diameter magnetized iron spherules deposited linearly in the crop circle soils. Along with those 3 criterion, the presence of microwave radiation in crop circles was also studied. By a series of replication experiments to fulfill the 4 criterion, the MIT research team hoped to find a “earthly” explanation for the crop circles. Unfortunately or Fortunately, how ever you want to look at it, the research teams were UNABLE to replicate the criterion in the crop circles. That means that they could duplicate the presence of elongated apical plant stem nodes, expulsion cavities in the plant stems, 10-50 micron-diameter magnetized iron spherules deposited linearly in the crop circle soils, or microwave radiation. One method the reasearchers tried, which I believed was an interesting thought was to use a “particle shooter” and microwave radiation generator to blast the crop [circles] in hopes to magnetize iron spheres and cause heat to be generated to cause both elongated apical plant stems nodes and expulsion cavities.

The magic words are "According to BLT Research".

The BLT Research LLC seem to have created a set of criteria that they say is indicative of genuine crop circles and now expect that if people can't reproduce these exact criteria then they have not made a genuine crop circle.

This is a self-fulfilling prophesy in which they control the criteria as to what is a prophesy. That makes it very suspect indeed.

I think we can safely ignore what BLT Research claim as unreliable.

I'm not a botanical expert by any means but I've heard it claimed that grasses specifically rise up from the stem nodes after being trampled, while rape (another type of crop beloved by the hypothetical alien cropstompers) stands up from the ground level. This might well explain at least some cases of "elongated stem nodes". Maybe I should test this theory (there's plenty of grasses around the house)?

The point is that the known evidence is it is most likely to be humans as it has been shown that CCs are well within the human technology. The sub-point is human imagination is likely to be all that is need to add most of the special effects that give some individuals the idea CCs are non-human in origin.

Just as detectives don't go out and grab the first suspect that happened to cross the site of the crime, but make a case based on motive, opportunity and ... Null! I know there was third criteria*...

Now if the third criteria is particularly good, one may be arrested despite the former two being very weak. But when the third criteria is weak as well as the former two, it goes to the bottom of the hypotheses until the stronger cases are completely ruled out.

While on holidays recently, I saw a tv show on ?AuStar? (an Australian pay-tv network) that showed CC-makers creating CCs. It got down to the last hour and even the CC-makers didn't think they were going to finish it in time. They did.

The show also had scientist in each field explaining why they didn't think the phenomenon particular to their science fields was the result of aliens. I think that there was one scientist still thought the CCs were alien in origin even though that scientist explained why bending of stalks wasn't?
http://www.skepticssa.org.au/html/cropcircles.html
Funny how the aliens began arriving in significant numbers proportional to human awareness of CCs

The problem with the argument for non-human crop-circles is the strongest case has not been ruled out. The strongest case is that humans are making them, all of them. That doesn't mean we know how humans set up individual cases to look like aliens did it. There are still clever people out there who love a joke.

*Can we stop asking for the third criteria by name and just call it the third criteria?

byofrcs wrote:

NeedAnswers wrote:If only some of you knew how to argue without being condescending and whatnot, some of your points would come across more often.

I came across this today while looking up crop circles:
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Crop%20circles.htm

Seems fair. We all have our opinions of course.

What do you think of this?

According to BLT Research, there are three major abnormalities that are unexplainable in crop circles: the presence of elongated apical plant stem nodes, expulsion cavities in the plant stems, and 10-50 micron-diameter magnetized iron spherules deposited linearly in the crop circle soils. Along with those 3 criterion, the presence of microwave radiation in crop circles was also studied. By a series of replication experiments to fulfill the 4 criterion, the MIT research team hoped to find a “earthly” explanation for the crop circles. Unfortunately or Fortunately, how ever you want to look at it, the research teams were UNABLE to replicate the criterion in the crop circles. That means that they could duplicate the presence of elongated apical plant stem nodes, expulsion cavities in the plant stems, 10-50 micron-diameter magnetized iron spherules deposited linearly in the crop circle soils, or microwave radiation. One method the reasearchers tried, which I believed was an interesting thought was to use a “particle shooter” and microwave radiation generator to blast the crop [circles] in hopes to magnetize iron spheres and cause heat to be generated to cause both elongated apical plant stems nodes and expulsion cavities.

The magic words are "According to BLT Research".

The BLT Research LLC seem to have created a set of criteria that they say is indicative of genuine crop circles and now expect that if people can't reproduce these exact criteria then they have not made a genuine crop circle.

This is a self-fulfilling prophesy in which they control the criteria as to what is a prophesy. That makes it very suspect indeed.

I think we can safely ignore what BLT Research claim as unreliable.

BLT research published papers:
http://www.bltresearch.com/published.php

BLT scientific consultants:
http://www.bltresearch.com/proffcons.php

Soil and plant lab reports:
http://www.bltresearch.com/labreports.php

Field reports:
http://www.bltresearch.com/fieldreports.php

Seems fairly legit to me I'll keep looking for anything that might be off.

NeedAnswers wrote:

byofrcs wrote:

NeedAnswers wrote:If only some of you knew how to argue without being condescending and whatnot, some of your points would come across more often.

I came across this today while looking up crop circles:
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Crop%20circles.htm

Seems fair. We all have our opinions of course.

What do you think of this?

According to BLT Research, there are three major abnormalities that are unexplainable in crop circles: the presence of elongated apical plant stem nodes, expulsion cavities in the plant stems, and 10-50 micron-diameter magnetized iron spherules deposited linearly in the crop circle soils. Along with those 3 criterion, the presence of microwave radiation in crop circles was also studied. By a series of replication experiments to fulfill the 4 criterion, the MIT research team hoped to find a “earthly” explanation for the crop circles. Unfortunately or Fortunately, how ever you want to look at it, the research teams were UNABLE to replicate the criterion in the crop circles. That means that they could duplicate the presence of elongated apical plant stem nodes, expulsion cavities in the plant stems, 10-50 micron-diameter magnetized iron spherules deposited linearly in the crop circle soils, or microwave radiation. One method the reasearchers tried, which I believed was an interesting thought was to use a “particle shooter” and microwave radiation generator to blast the crop [circles] in hopes to magnetize iron spheres and cause heat to be generated to cause both elongated apical plant stems nodes and expulsion cavities.

The magic words are "According to BLT Research".

The BLT Research LLC seem to have created a set of criteria that they say is indicative of genuine crop circles and now expect that if people can't reproduce these exact criteria then they have not made a genuine crop circle.

This is a self-fulfilling prophesy in which they control the criteria as to what is a prophesy. That makes it very suspect indeed.

I think we can safely ignore what BLT Research claim as unreliable.

BLT research published papers:
http://www.bltresearch.com/published.php

BLT scientific consultants:
http://www.bltresearch.com/proffcons.php

Soil and plant lab reports:
http://www.bltresearch.com/labreports.php

Field reports:
http://www.bltresearch.com/fieldreports.php

Seems fairly legit to me I'll keep looking for anything that might be off.

I think you should go back and check the credibility of the journal in which some of this "research" has been published.

BLT Research sounds like a backyard operation (or possibly a sandwich making business). If you read its history carefully, you see little evidence of credentials there:

http://www.bltresearch.com/history.php

twistor59 wrote:BLT Research sounds like a backyard operation (or possibly a sandwich making business). If you read its history carefully, you see little evidence of credentials there:

http://www.bltresearch.com/history.php

Well are you expecting a large corporation to handle this type of thing? I can't hardly even mention aliens here without getting owned by several members at a time, do you think a large, well funded group of people could seriously go about doing an alien or crop circle investigation without being laughed at, booed, and pooh pooed considerably by scientific peers and members of the public?

Not everyone is willing to risk their scientific careers on UFO's, which would be a worthwhile journey even if we didn't find anything, because some people are unable to discuss something without making fun of people or being condescending.

The BLT site claims a "magnetic glaze" on wheat stems.

Here are some comments on that claim
http://www.xstreamscience.org/H_Glaze/H_Glaze_0.htm

As soon as I began investigating this case, I became aware that Rob Irving had claimed that he had created the formation and the deposit.

From the beginning of this investigation, I have been looking for the one piece of physical evidence that could explain the strikingly different properties of different samples of H-glaze. Finally, thanks to being given the opportunity to examine the iron powder in Rob Irving's possession, I can offer a credible explanation for this deposit.

Finally, if, after reading the forgoing, you are still unconvinced that the mundane explanation for the H-glaze is correct, then I would ask you to consider this last question. Do you really believe that any natural phenomenon could exhibit that most human of characteristic - namely, fashion consciousness?

NeedAnswers wrote:

twistor59 wrote:BLT Research sounds like a backyard operation (or possibly a sandwich making business). If you read its history carefully, you see little evidence of credentials there:

http://www.bltresearch.com/history.php

Well are you expecting a large corporation to handle this type of thing? I can't hardly even mention aliens here without getting owned by several members at a time, do you think a large, well funded group of people could seriously go about doing an alien or crop circle investigation without being laughed at, booed, and pooh pooed considerably by scientific peers and members of the public?

Well, if they undertook the research with proper regard to the scientific method and submitted their research to reputable peer review I don't think there would be any problems. Except of course for the cherished beliefs of yourself and other believers. But just imagine what you might have achieved if you had actually bothered to undertake some research yourself instead of spending all these hours on the internetz. Examine the facts, establish a falsifiable hypothesis and examine those circles before the harvest is in.

Not everyone is willing to risk their scientific careers on UFO's, which would be a worthwhile journey even if we didn't find anything, because some people are unable to discuss something without making fun of people or being condescending.

I think you have hit the nail on the head here, although as usual you do so while accidentally striking your own thumb. The reason "proper" science doesn't spend its time investigating UFOs is there is nothing to investigate and it's impossible to right a research proposal and expect funding to investigate nothing.

Aspire, I don't have to go out in the field myself to be interested in the findings of something. You spend an awful lot of time responding to me here, so you're on the internet too. My "beliefs" aren't cherished, not necessarily, as they are open to change quite often. What you and other members don't understand, is that your scalding words mean nothing to anybody, especially when they're not backed up by any interest in the subject itself. The way you, Tbickle, and others come across is that you're not interested in extraterrestrials or the UFO phenomenon, you've seen everything there is to see and you're not even the slightest bit convinced, and that having the opinion that ET's visiting Earth is irrational and foolish. If, instead of making jokes and condescending people like me, you would provide actual arguments (not arguments of ignorance or incredulity) but actual facts that show you have taken the time to investigate as well, then I would pay more attention and be able to see what you're saying.

aspire1670 wrote:I think you have hit the nail on the head here, although as usual you do so while accidentally striking your own thumb. The reason "proper" science doesn't spend its time investigating UFOs is there is nothing to investigate and it's impossible to right a research proposal and expect funding to investigate nothing.

I'm sick of all this "proper" science elitism. It's really annoying. Anyone can do science, yes some people are more reputable for it, but everything in the universe is open to science. Do you really think that by condescending people who are interesting in unorthodox studies, you are furthering science as a whole? No. There are things to investigate. If you paid attention to the facts in UFO cases or case studies, you'd see that there's quite a bit that could be studied. Also, if it's nothing to be worried about, the US government shouldn't bother people when they do try to get to the bottom of things. I'm perfectly fine with the idea that UFO's are not all extraterrestrial, or that we haven't been visited by aliens. But, do you know what that means? That would mean that the technology we possess as a species is probably much more advanced than we know of.

NeedAnswers, I'm interested in you providing some evidence instead you reel off a series of theory to reality slides. Do you have any evidence that will stand up to scrutiny or will you set off on another gish gallop?

NeedAnswers wrote:If only some of you knew how to argue without being condescending and whatnot, some of your points would come across more often.

I came across this today while looking up crop circles:
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Crop%20circles.htm

Seems fair. We all have our opinions of course.

What do you think of this?

According to BLT Research, there are three major abnormalities that are unexplainable in crop circles: the presence of elongated apical plant stem nodes, expulsion cavities in the plant stems, and 10-50 micron-diameter magnetized iron spherules deposited linearly in the crop circle soils. Along with those 3 criterion, the presence of microwave radiation in crop circles was also studied. By a series of replication experiments to fulfill the 4 criterion, the MIT research team hoped to find a “earthly” explanation for the crop circles. Unfortunately or Fortunately, how ever you want to look at it, the research teams were UNABLE to replicate the criterion in the crop circles. That means that they could duplicate the presence of elongated apical plant stem nodes, expulsion cavities in the plant stems, 10-50 micron-diameter magnetized iron spherules deposited linearly in the crop circle soils, or microwave radiation. One method the reasearchers tried, which I believed was an interesting thought was to use a “particle shooter” and microwave radiation generator to blast the crop [circles] in hopes to magnetize iron spheres and cause heat to be generated to cause both elongated apical plant stems nodes and expulsion cavities.

This is exactly why you get laughed at.