Post pictures of Crop Circles to doubt could be man-made

As the title suggests, post crop circles which you believe are too intricate to possibly be man-made. You may also include a story behind the crop circles you post to explain why they're so interesting, and even provide some speculation on to what they are symbolizing or what they are for.

Here's one to start with

http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/q...ropcircle1.jpg

Firstly, I do not believe it could be man-made because of the perfectly mathematically correct proportions, and the intricacy of the designs, especially around the crest of the feathers.

I believe this is supposed to represent the Feathered Serpent, Quetzalcoatl, from Mayan Mythology which symbolizes the Milky Way Galaxy. It could represent any number of things, though. I do not know much about its history or any details as far as what happened to the crops themselves, whether or not they were ionized or anything. I will post more but I'd like to see if anyone else know of some particularly interesting ones to share.

EDIT: FUCK I hate it when I mistype the Thread Title :doh: I meant to say "Post Pictures of Crop Circles you doubt could be Man Made"

Awesome thread. I love looking at crop circles. There are a lot in my country in the county of Wiltshire. There was a bloke that lived in the flat below me that wrote a book on them.

http://www.temporarytemples.co.uk/im...0-Wheat-OH.jpg

http://www.temporarytemples.co.uk/im...1_Wheat_OH.jpg

http://www.temporarytemples.co.uk/im...09-WheatOH.jpg

http://www.temporarytemples.co.uk/im...-BarleyOH2.jpg

http://www.temporarytemples.co.uk/im...1_Wheat_OH.jpg

http://www.temporarytemples.co.uk/im...1_Wheat_OH.jpg

lol I actually live where they do most of this shit. In fact it originated from around here. All of the first ones where done by a couple of blokes with a bit of rope and a plank of wood. You can find diagrams on how to create various things that look complex but are actually very simply generated with these items.

As for extra terrestrial intervention; anybody who thinks that mankind can create something like a nanoscale silicon chip but would find it 'impossible' to make a pretty picture by jumping on corn is fucking barmy.

Is it bad that i don't believe those pictures are not photoshopped? :D

They probably aren't photoshopped, people really make them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

They probably aren't photoshopped, people really make them.

---

I know that people make crop circles... but that detailed ones? That must be hard work...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

lol I actually live where they do most of this shit. In fact it originated from around here. All of the first ones where done by a couple of blokes with a bit of rope and a plank of wood. You can find diagrams on how to create various things that look complex but are actually very simply generated with these items.

As for extra terrestrial intervention; anybody who thinks that mankind can create something like a nanoscale silicon chip but would find it 'impossible' to make a pretty picture by jumping on corn is fucking barmy.

---

sigh

I dont know how many times I have to repeat on this forum that there is physical evidence that genuine crop circles aren't made by a bunch of guys walking with planks of wood. There are biological changes that happen to the stalk of grass itself, as the scientists describe, as if the plants were microwaved. This has led crop circle researches to believe that crop circles are created by sound/wave - A sound wave so powerful it could probably fry your brain if you were standing in that field as it happened.

But people continually refuse to listen to this genuine research.

The planking fools were ex-british military, not civilians by any means. They set out with the intention to deceive the population about the truth of crop circles, and they succeeded.

Right, and this natural phenomenon didn't occur a single time in the history of civilisation until the 70s. And once the media reported on it, the natural phenomenon decided to go viral. Makes sense?

Considering you've misunderstood and fabricated scientific conclusions before, juroara, I have no idea why you think I'm going to believe what you say just because you asserted it without providing evidence. On top of this your use of nonsense terms like 'sound/wave' and non-sequiturs like somehow deducing sound waves from microwaves show that you don't actually have a clue.

Rofl Xei there were reports about crop circles in the middle ages. It's not a recent phenomenon. They even have theories dating back to the 1500s that very strange winds would push the crops down.

You should at least try to get the facts on your side.

http://s1.hubimg.com/u/4358616_f520.jpg

There are hardly any accounts of circles in crops from the Middle Ages. There are zero pictures or references to anything like the things in this thread. The tiny number of references that do exist just describe simple circles formed by well understood phenomena (such as tornadoes or fungus).

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. There are accounts of incredible shapes and the way they are explained is not by tornadoes but by square-shaped wind. They were explained about as well back then by skeptics as you are able to explain the phenomenon then. In other words, pathetically.

http://www.reactionface.info/sites/d...9082592656.jpg

Dem sources.

I would also be interested to see such things

Both the 'microwaved crops' and the 1500s reports.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

I would also be interested to see such things

Both the 'microwaved crops' and the 1500s reports.

---

Because you asked nicely.

http://pages.uoregon.edu/msiuo/taylo...sicsworld).pdf

I found that source on wikipedia, which also has some good information

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_circles

Sorry, what world are you living in where asserting something without evidence is an acceptable argument? Citing sources isn't a matter of manners, it's a matter of barebones adequacy. Apparently you didn't get the memo so here is a brief account of the intellectual culture of 2012:

Age of Enlightenment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyway, as per usual you have not actually bothered to do the work yourself, instead opting to provide large articles you found on Google with sources hidden within them. I scanned through the pdf and the only relevant thing it refers to is this item from 1678:

http://oldcropcircles.weebly.com/upl...365/911347.jpg

The quote that the pdf refers to, 'and placed every straw with that exactness that it would have taken up above an age for any man to perform what he did in that one night', is actually an embellishment from 1989 which does not appear in the text.

I asked for a source for 'incredible shapes' from the Middle Ages, why haven't you provided one?

Thanks Omnis! Interesting article.

From that I went on to read one of these papers which talked about pulvinus length. It seems pretty weak to me.

And here, from this article on the Committee for Skeptical Enquiry: "As well, more mundane hypotheses for the effects-for instance, compressed moist plants steaming in the hot sun-appear to have been insufficiently considered."

I have to say, I'm not convinced that crop circles can be anything more than human work. These pictures from that article show how intricate hoaxers can make their circles:

Spoiler for Crop Circles:

http://i.imgur.com/LYU3D.jpg

Frankly whether or not there were any crop circles in the middle ages or not doesn't diminish the mystery of crop circles. It could well be that crop circles are only appearing now because the (possibly existing) extra terrestrials have decided that humanity is almost ready to recieve first contact.

If these crop circles are just simple hoaxes, why haven't the tricksters been caught besides a pair of former military men. Some of the larger designs would take longer then the (at most) 10 hours they have under darkness. Oh yeah speaking of which: how the fuck do they construct crop circles in the dark? So far all "demonstrations" I've seem pale in comparison to the ones of unknown origin. Also, always at day. This is not even taking into account the radiation anomolies found in the flattened crops. Basicly we're now expected to believe that an unknown global group of tricksters possess advanced electromagnetic equipment for the sole reason of making interesting patterns on someones field without even having the privilage of gaining fame. Yu-Gi-Oh has a more plausible plot!

Uh... there are plenty of people who admit to making crop circles. Some have given accounts of how they do it. And they do it because it's fun and creative. What are you talking about?

An account is not good enough. What I want is a group to be caught in the act. It can't be that difficult can it: some crop circles go through a few days before they're fully complete. As soon as the next crop circle is sighted that is incomplete, place hidden survellence camera equipment in the field. If this is done covertly, it shouldn't be detected by the artists. Some people think that they're caused by aliens but I'm not so sure. If a group of crop circlers are caught in the act of making a large crop circle, it would finally put an end to this contraversy.

A radio astronomer reports on the mathematical relationships within the elements of crop circles in England

An interesting interview (1992) with Gerald S. Hawkins, who earned a Ph D in radio astronomy with Sir Bernard Lovell at Jodrell Bank, England, and a D Sc for astronomical research at the Harvard-Smithsonian Observatories. His undergraduate degrees were in physics and mathematics from London University. Hawkins’ discovery that Stonehenge was built by neolithic people to mark the rising and setting of the sun and moon over an 18.6-year cycle stimulated the new field of archaeoastronomy. From 1957 to 1969 he was Professor of Astronomy and Chairman of the Department at Boston University, and Dean of the College at Dickinson College from 1969 to 1971. He is currently a commission member of the International Astronomical Union, and is engaged in research projects in archaeoastronomy and the crop circle phenomenon.

Monte Leach (interviewer): How did you get interested in the crop circle phenomenon?

Gerald Hawkins: Many years ago, I had worked on the problem of Stonehenge, showing it was an astronomical observatory. My friends and colleagues mentioned that crop circles were occurring around Stonehenge, and suggested that I have a look at them.

I began reading Colin Andrews’ and Pat Delgado’s book, Circular Evidence. I found that the only connection I could find between Stonehenge and the circles was geographic. But I got interested in crop circles for their own sake.

ML: What interested you about them?

GH: I was very impressed with Andrews’ and Delgado’s book. It provided all the information that a scientist would need to start an analysis. In fact, Colin Andrews has told me that that’s exactly what they intended to happen. I began to analyse their measurements statistically.

The major scale

ML: What did you find?

GH: The measurements of these patterns enabled me to find simple ratios. In one type of pattern, circles were separated from each other, like a big circle surrounded by a group of so-called satellites. In this case, the ratios were the ratios of diameters. A second type of pattern had concentric rings like a target. In this case, I took the ratios of areas. The ratios I found, such as 3/2, 5/4, 9/8, ‘rang a bell’ in my head because they are the numbers which musicologists call the ‘perfect’ intervals of the major scale.

ML: How do the ratios correspond with, for instance, the notes on a piano that people might be familiar with?

GH: If you take the note C on the piano, for instance, then go up to the note G, you’ve increased the frequency of the note (the number of vibrations per second), or its pitch, by 1 1/2 times. One and one-half is 3/2. Each of the notes in the perfect system has an exact ratio — that is, one single number divided by another, like 5/3.

ML: If we were going to go up the major scale from middle C, what ratios would we have?

GH: The notes are C, D, E, F, G, A and B. The ratios are 9/8, 5/4, 4/3, 3/2, 5/3, 15/8, finishing with 2, which would be C octave.

ML: How many formations did you analyse and how many turned out to have diatonic ratios relating to the major scale?

GH: I took every pattern in their book, Circular Evidence. I found that some of them were listed as accurately measured and some were listed as roughly or approximately measured. I finished up with 18 patterns that were accurately measured. Of these, 11 of them turned out to follow the diatonic ratios. Colin Andrews has since given me accurate measurements for one of the circles in the book that had been discarded because it was inaccurate. That one turned out to be diatonic as well. We finished up with 19 accurately measured formations, of which 12 were major diatonic.

The difficulty of hitting a diatonic ratio just by chance is enormous. The probability of hitting 12 out of 19 is only 1 part in 25,000. We’re sure, 25,000 to 1, that this is a real result.

ML: Could this in some way be a ‘music of the spheres’, so to speak?

GH: I am just a conventional scientist analyzing this mathematically. One has to report that the ratios are the same as the ratios of our own Western invention — the diatonic ratios of the (major) scale. We have only developed this diatonic major scale in Western music slowly through history. These are not the ratios that would be used in Japanese music, for instance. But I am not calling the crop circles ‘musical’. They just follow the same mathematical relationships.

Who done it?

ML: You’ve established that there’s a 25,000 to 1 chance that these ratios are random occurrences. What about natural science processes?

GH: Natural science processes, left to their own devices, like whirlwinds, rutting hedgehogs, and bacteria have no relationship to the diatonic ratios. They (the diatonic ratios) are human-invented. They are the human response to sound. The only place I can find diatonic ratios in nature are bird calls and the song of the whale. I don’t think the birds made the circles, nor did the whales.

ML: So we’ve eliminated natural phenomena. What about Douglas Bower and David Chorley (Doug and Dave), the two Englishmen who claimed last year that they created the circles. Could they have formed these diatonic ratios?

GH: They could have, if they knew about the diatonic scale, and wished to put it in the circles. But I think we have to quote their reason for making the circles. They said they “did it for a laugh.” That’s fine. If they did it for a laugh, then it doesn’t fit with putting in such an esoteric piece of information. I did write to them. They never replied.

ML: You wrote to them saying what?

GH: “Why did you put diatonic ratios in?”

ML: And they didn’t reply.

GH: No. I think we can eliminate them. It’s so difficult to make a diatonic ratio. It has to be laid out accurately to within a few inches with a 50 foot circle, for example.

ML: And many if not all of these circles were created at night.

GH: Yes. Mostly they seem to be created at night.

Intellectual profile

ML: That eliminates natural processes and Doug and Dave. What’s left?

GH: Lord Zuckerman [former science adviser to the British Government] wrote a review of Colin Andrews’ and Pat Delgado’s book. He said that before we start building theories we should first investigate what would be perhaps the most pleasant solution for scientists, which is that the formations were made by human hoaxers. In a way, he’s not stating that that is his notion. He thinks it would be the simplest explanation. In fact, I am not supporting the theory that they are made by hoaxers. I am only investigating it.

ML: You’re investigating the theory that it’s done by hoaxers to see if that makes sense?

GH: Yes, but now I’ve upgraded the investigation, because I’ve found an intellectual profile. This means I’ve eliminated all natural science processes, so I don’t have to consider any of those any more. The intellectual profile narrows it down.

ML: What have you found in terms of this intellectual profile?

GH: My mathematical friends have commented on my findings. The suspected hoaxers are very erudite and knowledgeable in mathematics. We have equated the intellectual profile, at least at the mathematics level, as senior high school, first year college math major. That’s pushing it to a narrow slot. But there’s more to this than just the diatonic ratios.

Undiscovered theorems

ML: How so?

GH: The year 1988 was a watershed because that was when the first geometry appeared. It is in Circular Evidence. These geometrical patterns were quite a surprise to me. There are only a few of them.

ML: These are in addition to the circles you investigated in terms of the diatonic ratios?

GH: The geometry is really ‘the dog’, and the diatonic ratios of the circles are ‘the tail.’ That is, there is much more involved in the geometry than in those simple diatonic ratios in the circles, although, interestingly, the diatonic ratios are also found in the geometry, without the need for measurement. The ratio is given by logic — mind over matter.

ML: What did you find from these more complex patterns?

GH: Very interesting examples of pure geometry, or Euclidean geometry.

ML: You found Euclidean theorems demonstrated in these other patterns?

GH: These are plane geometry, Euclidean theorems, but they are not in Euclid’s 13 books. Everybody agrees that they are, by definition, theorems. But there’s a big debate now between people who say that Euclid missed them, and those that say he didn’t care about them — in other words, that the theorems are not important. I believe that Euclid missed them, the reason being that I can show you a point in his long treatise where they should be. They should be in Book 13, after proposition 12. There he had a very complicated theorem. These would just naturally follow. Another reason why he missed them was that we are pretty sure that he didn’t know the full set of perfect diatonic ratios in 300 BC.

ML: These are theorems based on Euclid’s work, but ones that Euclid did not write down himself. But they are widely accepted as fulfilling his theorems on geometry?

GH: Only widely accepted after I published them. They were unknown.

ML: Based on your analysis of these crop circles, you discovered the theorems yourself?

GH: Yes. A theorem, if you look it up in the dictionary, is a fact that can be proved. The trouble is, first of all, seeing the fact, and then being able to prove it. But there’s no way out once you’ve done that. The intellectual profile of the hoaxer has moved up one notch. It has the capability of creating theorems not in the books of Euclid.

It does seem that senior high school students can prove these theorems, but the question is, could they have conceived of them to put them in a wheat field? In this regard, we’ve got a very touchy situation in that there is a general theorem from which all of the others can be derived. I stumbled upon it by luck and accident and colleagues advised me to not publish it. None of the readers of Science News [which published an article on this subject] could conceive of that theorem. In a way, it does indicate the difficulty of conceiving these theorems. They may be easy to prove when you’re told them, but difficult to conceive.

ML: And I would assume that the readers of Science News,would be pretty well versed in these areas.

GH: It’s a pretty good cross-section. The circulation is 267,000. We found from the letters that came in that Euclidean geometry is not part of the intellectual profile of our present-day culture. But it is part of the culture of the crop circle makers.

ML: What about the more recent formations?

GH: Now we enter the other types of patterns — the pictograms, the insectograms. Exit Gerald S. Hawkins. I don’t know what to do about those.

ML: Your investigations leave off at the geometric patterns.

GH: The investigations are continuing, but I haven’t gotten anywhere. I see no recognizable mathematical features. I’m approaching it entirely mathematically, because there is the strength of numbers. There’s the unchallengeability of a geometric proof of a theorem, for example. The other patterns involve other types of investigation, such as artistry and images. But everything I’ve told you here shows that we’ve got a developing phenomenon, starting from the very simple arrangement of diatonic ratios, to a very intricate way of showing diatonic ratios in the geometries, and now to something which I think hardly anybody would claim to understand — the pictograms, insectograms, and so forth.

ML: So the major focus of your work right now is looking into these?

GH: Yes. It’s totally absorbing. It’s not a joke. It’s not a laugh. It’s not something that can be just brushed aside.

ML: Is there anybody else who is investigating it seriously in terms of your scientist colleagues?

GH: No. It boils down to two factors. You wouldn’t get a grant to study this sort of thing. And, two, it might endanger your tenure. It is as serious as that. There are whole areas in the scientific community that are not informed about the crop circle phenomenon, and have come to the conclusion that it is ridiculous, a hoax, a joke, and a waste of time.

It’s a difficult topic because it tends to raise a knee-jerk solution in people’s minds. Then they are stuck. Their minds are closed. One can’t do much about it. But if they can keep an open mind, I think they’ll find they’ve got a very interesting phenomenon.

---

McWillis - Some are made by humans but I think some are made by ET's

Cool article mcwillis.

I think it's quite obvious that relatively skilled mathematicians form a significant part of the crop circle community. In the last couple of decades they have made fractal patterns like the Mandelbrot set, which at least shows a relatively deep layman's understanding of mathematics.

As for geometric theorems, it is not possible to make any conclusions without knowing what exactly the guy is referring to. I don't know how you could be said to represent a theorem with just a figure.

Edit: I was interested and looked further, there's a good page here:

http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_06_30_03.html

His claims are nonsense. The crop circles do not attempt to codify theorems. They are just very simple compass and straightedge figures, which are exactly the kind of figures you would expect to be created by people using a piece of rope. Hawkins deduced various theorems about them, but to then ascribe those theorems to whoever made the figure is patent nonsense. In addition, his theorems are actually rather simple and were known long ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_06_30_03.html

---

Thanks I found that interesting to read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Considering you've misunderstood and fabricated scientific conclusions before, juroara, I have no idea why you think I'm going to believe what you say just because you asserted it without providing evidence. On top of this your use of nonsense terms like 'sound/wave' and non-sequiturs like somehow deducing sound waves from microwaves show that you don't actually have a clue.

---

You're right, I'm not a scientist. Which is why I don't find myself in a position to question scientific research just because it challenges conventional wisdom.

I'm too lazy to post my sources because I made AN ENTIRE THREAD on this subject years ago. In that thread I took the time to direct readers to the research that I found showing that plants in genuine crop circles have been internally altered as if they were put in a microwave (instantly super heated with water rapidly escaping).

I also posted sources showing that soil samples had also been altered in genuine crop circles. The soil samples had also been super heated.

I also posted sources showing that seed samples had also been altered. But my memory is failing me and I don't remember how the seed samples were altered.

I also posted sources showing that the research was done as unbiased as possible. The scientists were given samples from two sources, a crop circle in question, and some random patch of land. The scientists were not told which sample came from a crop circle.

Basically the nay-sayers of my thread simply decided they were the holy priests of scientist research and decided out of their arse that some scientific research must be a hoax because it goes against their own beliefs. I'm not interested in repeating history, the information is out there.

Its my belief that crop circles are created by a high frequency sound. Sound can form beautiful geometric shapes and we can see lots of fun videos of this on youtube, where people put sand on their boombox.

Crop circles also illustrate beautiful geometric shapes THAT CAN be duplicated if you find the right sound

Sound is frequency-wave whatever I get the two confused. Point is, so is a microwave. A high frequency sound can literally explode your brain, which is why the military has considered using sound as weapon.

Or in this case, a high frequency sound can make plants explode their watery innards.

Eye witness reports - actually that's an irony because no ones seen anything - report a ball of light and a high pitch hissing sound. People who have had the opportunity to walk into a genuine crop circles within the first few hours or even minutes report the hissing sound is still in the environment.

They also get headaches and dizziness. Which can also be the effect of a high frequency sound.

Genuine crop circles are mathematically perfect.

Human made crop circles are not.

Ps. Before I learned about this research on the net, I saw it in a documentary over 15 years ago when the research first began. That documentary showing the alteration of plants and soil was aired on a huge network, like discovery channel, I can't remember. I have never seen that documentary again, and all documentaries there after conveniently ignore this body of research.

Also, I dont understand why the hoaxers would continue to hoax over a decade later

It makes no sense in terms of hoaxing

A hoaxer generally takes a lot of pride in fooling people. So to come out the very next day to say "IT WAS ME!", what kind of hoaxing is that? And to continue doing it, year after year, after you admitted you did it to fool people? That makes even less sense

The only hoax here is the hoax that has people ignoring the alteration the plants and soil in genuine crop circles. Thats why the hoaxers work so hard to fool everyone into thinking every crop circle is theirs. Because thats what hoaxers do. Fool people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcwillis

http://www.temporarytemples.co.uk/im...1_Wheat_OH.jpg

---

No, no, no no, SHENANIGANS!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supernova

No, no, no no, SHENANIGANS!

---

Absolutely, of course. I completely missed the point of Omnis' thread initially and just posted pics that I liked.

Do you believe the pyramids of Giza are extraterrestrial power plants too?

Genuine question to anyone who believes in the ET authenticity of crop circles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcwillis

Absolutely, of course. I completely missed the point of Omnis' thread initially and just posted pics that I liked.

---

Or theres the alternative very real possibility aliens thinking pot's awesome! :D

@wolfwood
While your question was not really directed at me (I have no idea if crop circles are purely hoaxes or not),
Its possible that the pyramids might have been used as the moulds of giant toblerone choclate pieces to feed the gigantic godzilla that lives in the centre of this hollow earth (as proven by shyyeeensss). If you suspend your disbelief for just one moment and hold this concept in your head, it'll start to make sense. Why else did the multidimensional lizards censor that leaked youtube video that showed Osama Bin Ladin and SpongeBob having a picnic and how Chuck Norris can slam shut a revolving door but only Justin Beiber is capable of knocking his head into one. If you don't why these facts correlate or even relate to my original proposition then its likely that you have been blinded by the lizards or you are one, in which case: GTFO NWO satanist/jew/lizard/Mom!!!!

Wow, you'd make a convincing nut.

Why even go to the field and spend all that time and effort when most of the audience viewing it will be on the internet? I'd just sit comfortably indoors and Photoshop one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

Why even go to the field and spend all that time and effort when most of the audience viewing it will be on the internet? I'd just sit comfortably indoors and Photoshop one.

---

You call me a convincing nut but you're the one whos just unknownly become a crop circle theorist :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

Do you believe the pyramids of Giza are extraterrestrial power plants too?

Genuine question to anyone who believes in the ET authenticity of crop circles.

---

......we only have two options? :( the worlds a lot stranger than that




http://www.bltresearch.com/images/plantab/s-1sm.jpg

I was being facetious, and I suspect you are too. ^_^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

I was being facetious, and I suspect you are too. ^_^

---

not really

people have such a huge bias against anything involving UFOs, that they won't even look at the research and come up with their own explanation

I have NO IDEA what causes crop circles. But I believe the research has proven they aren't caused by a bunch of dudes and wooden planks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

I have NO IDEA what causes crop circles. But I believe the research has proven they aren't caused by a bunch of dudes and wooden planks

---

Of course, they have more modern equipment to do it now. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Sorry, what world are you living in where asserting something without evidence is an acceptable argument? Citing sources isn't a matter of manners, it's a matter of barebones adequacy. Apparently you didn't get the memo so here is a brief account of the intellectual culture of 2012:

Age of Enlightenment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyway, as per usual you have not actually bothered to do the work yourself, instead opting to provide large articles you found on Google with sources hidden within them. I scanned through the pdf and the only relevant thing it refers to is this item from 1678:

http://oldcropcircles.weebly.com/upl...365/911347.jpg

The quote that the pdf refers to, 'and placed every straw with that exactness that it would have taken up above an age for any man to perform what he did in that one night', is actually an embellishment from 1989 which does not appear in the text.

I asked for a source for 'incredible shapes' from the Middle Ages, why haven't you provided one?

---

I wasn't aware I was attending Cambridge. Oh wait, I'm not, and I don't owe you shit. I'm afraid my memory just isn't good enough to know exactly where I read every drop of information I acquire. But I thought it was well enough implied by the source I provided that strangely shaped winds were provided as an excuse for ancient crop circles. There's even a specific quote mentioning it, but I won't find it for you because like I said before, I don't give a shit. No matter what proof I give you, you'll always respond obtusely. So I see no point in proving anything to you. Pensive Patrick, on the other hand, seems at least open minded enough to give me the benefit of the doubt. It's my prediction due to his higher teachability, he will be generally more successful. You, on the other hand, are just a dogmatist.

> Make unlikely claim
> Sceptical person requests source for claim
> Fail to provide any sources
> Maintain absolute certainty in claim
> Other person is a dogmatist for not agreeing

Rofl, the mind of Omnis. Back on the ignore list he goes for another couple of months. It's a shame, he was making some insightful posts elsewhere.

I thought the same of you. But you regressed back to your pretentious and dismissive old ways. Frankly, it's not worth my time to deal with you when you approach ideas from that attitude. I'd be a fool to try the same thing over and over again anticipating different results. And I spend enough time rolling boulders up hill in my life as it is. Hopefully when you remove me from your ignore list, you'll be ready to approach my posts from a less obdurate position.

Aaaah, l'amour