Spirituality
25 Sep 12
29 Sep 12
Originally posted by TaomanI had a look, i've looked at this topic in the past. I'll check out those other links.
Thanks for the links. As I said these hoaxers are the subject of closer examination by those genuinely interested in CCs., than a BBC show. Here's is an extensive page examining this group and it's claims in detail.
http://www.cropcirclesecrets.org/circlemakers.html
It details the crudity of operation compared to genuine CCs. It shows how they have use ...[text shortened]... sent in response to your request. Is it thus 1-0 in favor of the genuine CCs in that regard?
The youtube video at the bottom showing 'balls of light' making a crop formation is a fake, the guy who made it, John Wabe has revealed how he did it. I'm afraid it doesn't give the website much credibility, in my eyes anyhow, when it keeps a known fake on it's webpage.
Here's a question for you, if some crop circles aren't made by humans then why are aliens flying, at a minimum, 4 light years across our galaxy and making pretty patterns in our crop fields?
29 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by TaomanDone a little more research on stalk bending. It is a common feature on weather damaged crops, particularly in wheat which has suffered from frosts in spring, take a look at figure 16 from this paper -
Thanks for the links. As I said these hoaxers are the subject of closer examination by those genuinely interested in CCs., than a BBC show. Here's is an extensive page examining this group and it's claims in detail.
http://www.cropcirclesecrets.org/circlemakers.html
It details the crudity of operation compared to genuine CCs. It shows how they have use sent in response to your request. Is it thus 1-0 in favor of the genuine CCs in that regard?
http://www.ksre.ksu.edu/library/crpsl2/c646.pdf
That to me looks like a classic paranormal bent crop stem, yet it is explained by purely natural forces.
Show me a crop circle in which every single stem has a bent node such as the one above, not just a handful. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
29 Sep 12
Originally posted by TaomanOddly that page says nothing about molecular changes and only makes some remarkably vague claims about node lengthening then tries to tie it to microwave radiation without any basis whatsoever.
Just one that I can find: http://humansarefree.com/2011/08/scientific-studies-confirm-crop-circles.html
As I said, I want to see comparative studies of a know hoax crop circle and a 'genuine' crop circle showing a clear difference between the stalks in the two instances. And remember that the scientists in question must not know which circle is the hoax.
Any scientist who wants to keep his position/funding is brave indeed to submit this yet,
Unless they had indisputable data. But they don't. When it comes to changes in stalks, one can submit their findings without ever mentioning aliens (as the webpage you referenced one scientist did actually do).
...and full studies must be funded.
I am sure they can get those of you interested in crop circles to chip in a little. I don't believe it would really be all that expensive.
The science arena does not admit some into the door for proper examination, then decries anything without 'peer review'.
And for good reason. Why should governments fund studies into ridiculous claims? Industry certainly wont fund it.
Nevertheless, I do not place it as fully verified, particularly as to origin, yet. But there appears legitimate room for serious questioning, beyond discarding it as "hoax" immediately.
And many of us do not think there is legitimate room so only those of you who do should pay for the studies.
Is it a possible "interdimensional" phenomenon?
I still say fairies. What does "interdimensional" even mean? I bet you don't know either.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
29 Sep 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe serious student may want to read these:
Oddly that page says nothing about molecular changes and only makes some remarkably vague claims about node lengthening then tries to tie it to microwave radiation without any basis whatsoever.
As I said, I want to see comparative studies of a know hoax crop circle and a 'genuine' crop circle showing a clear difference between the stalks in the two insta ...[text shortened]... l say fairies. What does "interdimensional" even mean? I bet you don't know either.
Explanation of rejection by of a subsequent paper by Physiologia Plantarum. The rejected paper was critical of Haselhoff's work. (It appears that the PP editor regrets having accepted Haselhoff's paper, and uses his opinion of that paper as unscientific, as a reason to reject a paper critical of Haselhoff; the reason being that 'to "continue this discussion", when clearly from the citation record there is not a scientific discussion in progress, only gives gives it substance and credibility it does not merit".'
http://www.cicap.org/crops/en/013.htm
The rejected paper (revised to discuss the rejection):
http://www.cicap.org/crops/en/jse_19_2_159-170_2005.pdf
30 Sep 12
Originally posted by Proper KnobMy position is that I find the evidence enough to go beyond maintaining the phenomenon are all hoaxes. Thanks for the You Tube indicator. I agree with you if its a fake it discredits the site management. But not the whole issue, nor is it the only instance of such sightings.
I had a look, i've looked at this topic in the past. I'll check out those other links.
The youtube video at the bottom showing 'balls of light' making a crop formation is a fake, the guy who made it, John Wabe has revealed how he did it. I'm afraid it doesn't give the website much credibility, in my eyes anyhow, when it keeps a known fake on it's web ...[text shortened]... minimum, 4 light years across our galaxy and making pretty patterns in our crop fields?
There are CC sites that are over the top, and I seek credible ones. I am interested in what you made of the peer reviewed site? And not just for point scoring. I am no more into being duped than you are.
I have expressed a couple of thoughts about provenance if they are still inexplicable. And your question is quite valid and one of my principal ones. But that assumes we know all there is to know now, when we may not. An interdimensional theory is an option, as way out as it sounds. But if true, these things are way out there too.
Questions do not a case make, they are the basis for exploring credible coherent theories consistent with what sound evidence thus far there is. If they are fake they are fake and we have all a good laugh. After all, fake is a finding too. But that finding must equally be consistent and coherent. If there is more to know the first way such new knowledge makes itself present is often by quite strange anomalies in the light of the then present knowledge. Quantum physics is a principal exhibit.
I'll follow the links you mention. I am interested in the truth alone. Thanks.
30 Sep 12
1 edit
I am a serious student, so I take all the comments made seriously, and will pursue them. Thanks for the input.
There are valid arguments about science not taking up "ridiculous" claims, with associated funding. But that argument has been used before and lead to misdirection in scientific history. There is trail of "ridiculous" stuff that was ostracized on the basis of then current knowledge, later found to be valid.
The peer review system is all we have, but the economic focus of funding these days do not favor less economic dependent science investigation. There is also the problem of the "inbreeding" of peer review adjudicators, who themselves have papers and reputations that they will have doubted and dismissed if they allow correcting findings into the arena.
The issue of anomalous findings by reputable astronomers to the red shift basis of the Big Bang theory is a case in point. The principal adjudicator in those peer review of submissions stood to have a nice financially based position and "Big Bang Theory" reputation destroyed by those findings. Scientists are all too human too sometimes as to their objectivity. The proponents of the case were ostracized and ridiculed and had funding stopped. One prominent cosmologists lost his position. And the evidence remains unanswered, yet supported by a bevy of prominent cosmologists and astronomers.
A nine part Youtube series on this revealing story (one openly participated in by highly respected astronomical scientists in the field) is found and initiated here:
&feature=related
30 Sep 12
1 edit
Here's my craziest belief:
I believe so-called Atheists are unregenerate individuls who--for the time being--can't help but believe what they believe; Atheists are actually and literally potential Christians; currently in denial and dormant until such time as the Holy Spirit regenerates their hearts and minds.
I believe Atheists are not to be held personally responsible for their lack of belief because this lack of belief is what everyone endures in their lives. We are born in a state of unbelief. Those of us who were touched by the Holy Spirit, have regenerated and became Christians. God waited 35 years to touch my heart. God waited 62 years to touch my Father's heart.
Yes. Atheists are best described as potential Christians and we should embrace them and take joy in knowing that one day, in all likelihood, they will become our brother or sister.
30 Sep 12
Originally posted by sumydidI've heard this one before - the 'there is no such thing as an atheist - they all secretly believe in God' one. Yeah, it's pretty nutty. But it's funny to hear it from someone who is so adamant that there is no such thing as a 'former Christian' because they never really knew God, or they would not have left him.
Here's my craziest belief:
I believe so-called Atheists are unregenerate individuls who--for the time being--can't help but believe what they believe; Atheists are actually and literally [b]potential Christians; currently in denial and dormant until such time as the Holy Spirit regenerates their hearts and minds.[/b]
30 Sep 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitA related syndrome is that of some less sophisticated monolingual anglophones who are convinced that everybody, everywhere, can and will understand English as long as you talk slowly enough and, if necessary, shout.
I've heard this one before - the 'there is no such thing as an atheist - they all secretly believe in God' one. Yeah, it's pretty nutty.
30 Sep 12
2 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambitMy belief that all Atheists are potential Chritians is shared by every single Christian on the planet.
I've heard this one before - the 'there is no such thing as an atheist - they all secretly believe in God' one. Yeah, it's pretty nutty. But it's funny to hear it from someone who is so adamant that there is no such thing as a 'former Christian' because they never really knew God, or they would not have left him.
My belief that all non-Christians were never Christians in the first place, is shared by all Reformed Christians.
So, your beef isn't with me, but with billions of people.
But like I said, I don't blame you for talking down to me. You can't help but do it and I expect you'll do it many more times. I can only pray that one day the Holy Spirit touches your heart like He did mine. Yeah, I remember when I used to gain quite a bit of satisfaction by hurling insults at Christians. It was fun! In fact, I still like debating Christians but nowadays the only debate we have is about secondary doctrine and theology and since we are all in the same family, I don't go for the throat anymore. I just enjoy the discussion and debate.
30 Sep 12
Originally posted by sumydidI think you just outdid yourself.
My belief that all Atheists are potential Chritians is shared by every single Christian on the planet.
My belief that all non-Christians were never Christians in the first place, is shared by all Reformed Christians.
So, your beef isn't with me, but with billions of people.
But like I said, I don't blame you for talking down to me. You can't help ...[text shortened]... he same family, I don't go for the throat anymore. I just enjoy the discussion and debate.
Every single Christian on the planet believes all atheists are potential Christians? No, they don't. Some believe that some of the atheists are beyond help. Others believe in predestination, and there is no chance for those who have not been chosen in advance.
"If we're counting heads, the Buddhists are the boys for my money." -William Golding
That's what I think of your billions. Argument by numbers isn't impressive. Next, you'll be telling me Britany Spears was a great musician because of all the fans she had.
30 Sep 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitEvery single person on earth is a potential Brittany Spears fan.
That's what I think of your billions. Argument by numbers isn't impressive. Next, you'll be telling me Britany Spears was a great musician because of all the fans she had.
30 Sep 12
4 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambitI didn't "outdo" myself. I think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. What I said is factually correct.
I think you just outdid yourself.
Every single Christian on the planet believes all atheists are potential Christians? No, they don't. Some believe that some of the atheists are beyond help. Others believe in predestination, and there is no chance for those who have not been chosen in advance.
"If we're counting heads, the Buddhists are the boys fo you'll be telling me Britany Spears was a great musician because of all the fans she had.
"Some Christians believe some Atheists are beyond help"
So what? Some Atheists ARE beyond help, every Christian believes that. But we Christians don't know which Atheists those are. Only God knows. Therefore each and every Atheist is a potential Christian in the eyes of a Christian. Period. Fact. Google it. Start a poll. Do what you gotta do, if you are so convinced I am wrong.