RE: [tt-watch] Re: crop-circle eye-witnesses
- Hi PH,
One week later and you have covered all avenues. Amazing ;)
One week later and you have taken the first things to be presented to
you as de-facto
One week later and we reach this point........
a. - Your investiagtions must have produced compelling eviedence that
they are man made. Can I have a copy please?
b. - Excellent you made progress. But why stop there? How about
c. - Simply because you have not found any evidence showing them being
created in seconds you write it off (when bacteria were discovered they
knew they were there but because they could not seen, it does not mean
they wrote off the idea). How about investigating further?
d. - There is other research mentioned in write up's not just BLT. How
about investigating further?
e. - So you found some published papers - but you never read them. How
about investigating further?
f. - Yes very suspicious. A very good reason for investigating further.
g. - Left unimpressed? I've had that feeling a thousand times when
researching but I investigated further.
No I do not think it was a good faith effort. Re-hahses are bound to
happen as other people join the research. Evidence will have to be
looked at time and time again.
There has been very liitle sign of PX existing other than the
translations from Mr Sitchin and fellow scholars yet many other keep
digging with an o p e n mind.
Again, I have to say that having an interest in this particular field
helps. Maybe crop circles do not animate you as much as I, and as a
result the need to dig deeper is less than I. If this a factor in your
decision then fine, I commend you for giving it a go. But if you truely
are interested and want to get to the bottom of them, then you need to
push on. But not on your own. There are others here :)
The Boy Flood
From: padraighaz [mailto:pjh@...]
Sent: 30 June 2003 19:07
Subject: [tt-watch] Re: crop-circle eye-witnesses
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "The Boy Flood" <paul.francis2@b...>
> Hi PH,are
> Obviously some things will interest us more than others, meaning that
> greater effort will be made to investigate as a result. But after less
> than a week of discussion and even less of actuall investigation you
> willing to write off this subject?Hi Paul,
Within that week:
a. I encountered claims that crop-circle patterns required
sophisticated technology - I demonstrated how complex ones could
be created using string and pegs to lay them out.
b. I was told there were eye-witness reports to their formation
which excluded the possibility of hoaxsters - I found the report
to refer to what appears to be a whirlwind observation, and this
has no bearing on fractal crop circles.
c. I was told that some could not be created by hoaxsters since
they were created within seconds - I found that this was a
significant overstatement and that it also relied on assuming
one could infer the timescale from what people did **not** see,
which is a very poor piece of evidence.
d. I was told there was scientific research being
done on crop-circles - I found the BLT website with a statement
of purpose that showed their intent was to find evidence to support
their assumption that crop-circles were 'extraordinary.' This
is terrible methodology since one needs to detect the effect before
trying to analyze it further - here they admit to assuming it exists
e. I was told that there were published papers on crop circles - I
found references to 2 in pretty obscure and apparently
non-mainstream journals where there was a possibility of less
f. I pointed out that even in mainstream science there are
'rogue' researchers who go against the majority. However, their
papers are published because they adhere to rigorous methodology
even if people don't like their conclusions. This suggests that
if crop-circle researchers were rigorous, they should have
dozens (maybe hundreds) of papers published in referreed
journals by now. That they don't, is highly suspicious.
g. I found a website that seemed to support the assertion that
measureable changes occur near crop-circles; The list
was bizarre, to say the least, including menstrual cycles,
dead porcupines, and time dilation. With 29 items on the list,
and being unable to still make a scientific case, I'm
left very unimpressed.
So, yes, after 1 week, I'm willing to write off the subject.
Do you think the above did not constitute a good-faith effort
to study the claims? Not one shred of evidence survived close
scrutiny! If some new evidence comes to light, I would
be curious about it, but rehashes of the current "research"
is of no interest to me.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
enattogyo?YH=3313099&yhad=1595053> Click Here!
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- At 07:51 PM 7/7/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>"Michael L Cunningham" wrote:No comment.
> > I think you missed the point of my examples.
> > You need to find a few more web sites supporting your theories
> > other than bltresearch.
>And I think Michael is missing the point, and/or revealing his true
>No matter what level of information and research that may be provided
>concerning crop circles or any other of the mysteries of our planet,
>will always be the cry for more evidence, more research etc. This is a
>classic evasion technique, and will eventually tire out the other
>I have not seen any crop circles with my own eyes. Maybe I will make
>time to go on such a tour the next time I'm in the U.K.? Anyhow,
>distinguishing the hoaxes from the real thing seems rather simple
>the pictures, as the hoaxes generally are far less sophisticated, less
>accurate etc. I don't believe the quoted scientists have offered any
>explanation as to who are making the genuine crop circles and why,
>I. However, it should be obvious to all that pranks with planks are
>that, and have nothing to do with the real crop circles.
>This debate has been rather valuable in the provided links and
>the subject, showing that at least some scientists take the phenomena
>seriously. However, enough is enough. Any more endless arguing
>enough evidence", and Michael will be back on moderation.