Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [tt-watch] Re: crop-circle eye-witnesses

Expand Messages
  • The Boy Flood
    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
    Message 1 of 49 , Jul 1, 2003
      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
      investigating further?
      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

      -----Original Message-----
      From: padraighaz [mailto:pjh@...]
      Sent: 30 June 2003 19:07
      To: tt-watch@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [tt-watch] Re: crop-circle eye-witnesses

      --- In tt-watch@yahoogroups.com, "The Boy Flood" <paul.francis2@b...>
      > Hi PH,
      > 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
      rigorous reviewing.

      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
      <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Michael L Cunningham
      ... No comment. Michael
      Message 49 of 49 , Jul 7, 2003
        At 07:51 PM 7/7/2003 +0000, you wrote:
        >"Michael L Cunningham" wrote:
        > >
        > > 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
        >based upon
        >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,
        >nor will
        >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
        >reports on
        >the subject, showing that at least some scientists take the phenomena
        >seriously. However, enough is enough. Any more endless arguing
        >about "not
        >enough evidence", and Michael will be back on moderation.

        No comment.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.