Unknown ancient(sacred)geometry

[Unidian]

The basic dynamic with all of these things is that people want to believe. Hey, I want to believe, too. Crop circles and such are a hell of a lot of fun, and it's quite fascinating to speculate about all sorts of possibilities for life in the cosmos and such. I've spent dozens of hours checking out such things, in fact, simply because it's very interesting and entertaining. But simply because we might want there to be something to it doesn't mean there is.

Like DHodges pointed out, there have been cases where people have shown all kinds of apparently compelling "evidence" and arguments, only to have the whole thing revealed as a simple hoax. This happens because those looking at the evidence and making the arguiments allow their own desire for it to be true to cloud their judgment. Although red faces are the inevitable result, those who still want to believe have a short memory and get behind the very next claim to come down the pike as if nothing had happened.

It's just human nature - one of the odd side-effects of having the sort of brains we do.

[brokenhead]

Yeah, there was one crop circle a while back that some people were getting very excited about, claiming it had all sorts of strange properties and couldn't possibly have been man made.

Then someone pointed out that it was in the shape of the BMW logo.

Copyright infringement. BMW should sue the aliens.

[Carl G]

Nat,

I ask for scientific consideration and I get superstition.

It's not about "all these things" or crop circles "and such." It's about crop formations specifically.

It's not about fascinating or fun or speculation about "all sorts of possibilities for life in the cosmos and such." It's about examining evidence.

It's not about "want to believe" or "because we might want there to be something." It's about systematic investigation.

It's not about people being shown "all kinds of apparently compelling "evidence" and arguments, only to have the whole thing revealed as a simple hoax." It's about serious inquiry by those dedicated and seriously interested in studying the phenomena.

It's not about "allowing their own desire for it to be true to cloud their judgment." It's about using scientific procedure to examine the evidence.

It is not about those inclined to "still want to believe." It is not about those who "get behind the very next claim to come down the pike as if nothing had happened." That sort of empty headed behavior is not what the investigation is about. It is not the modus operandi of serious investigators.

Red faces are not the "inevitable result." That in itself is a predisposition, one of several in your post.

That you would adopt such a cartoonish stance after I spoke of scientific method is sort of comical itself.

[Jamesh]

The basic dynamic with all of these things is that people want to believe. Hey, I want to believe, too. Crop circles and such are a hell of a lot of fun, and it's quite fascinating to speculate about all sorts of possibilities for life in the cosmos and such. I've spent dozens of hours checking out such things, in fact, simply because it's very interesting and entertaining. But simply because we might want there to be something to it doesn't mean there is.

This problem is problematic. For instance Australian TV is showing a series called Sensing Murder. This is a show that is presented to people as being legitimate. It is rather convincing - but only because of lies regarding the method. Many people will be convinced that there is Reality contained in the show, particularly as there are a number of similar kinds of US shows, though tyhey generally they are less documentary styled - they will be lead to view psychics as being legitimate.

If I had a spare 500k, I would be taking the TV company that shows this to court.

Presented by award-winning actress Rebecca Gibney, Sensing Murder offers a unique approach to crime solving. Gifted psychic mediums are challenged to uncover new leads in some of the most chilling unsolved murders. A team of investigators follow up their leads, with startling results.

Armed with only a photograph of the victim, and with no prior knowledge of the case, the mediums use only their psychic ability to uncover details of the victim's life and death. Dramatic reconstructions of the victim's last moments are based on forensic information, extensive research with police, case experts and family.

Over 170 psychics auditioned and were tested for Sensing Murder. Out of that number, only eight were able to provide intimate details of the murder case chosen for the testing procedure. These psychics include Deb Webber and Scott Russell Hill from Australia, and Kelvin Cruickshank and Sue Nicholson from New Zealand. Their extraordinary gift enables them to help investigators uncover the truth behind these heinous crimes.

The actual reality
http://www.keypoint.com.au/~skeptics/Sensing_Murder

[Unidian]

That you would adopt such a cartoonish stance after I spoke of scientific method is sort of comical itself.

Okay Carl, since you insist, it's crunch time. Let's have a link to a case of a crop formation for which there is significant and scientifically valid evidence that it is not man-made.

Let's see it - and their precise methodology in reaching that conclusion had better be exhaustively documented. Otherwise, it's just their word against anyone's that the evidence was properly processed and interpreted.

[Carl G]

It has been "crunch time" for a good fifteen years. Feel free to Google, or visit a bookstore, for books on the ongoing investigation. As I've previously mentioned there are electronic readings being done, seed tests, study of stalk anomalies, analysis of eyewitness and video data regarding time frame, location, and weather, as well as thorough on site examination of the ground and crop lay of numerous formations each year.

[Unidian]

You mean the stuff I see on the Discovery channel, where it's some unpaid researcher talking about how the wheat stalks have totally unexplainable bulges and such in them, and then they have an actual university biologist on and he says that happens all the time? That sort of thing? The microwave residues, maybe? Skeptics replicated that with the magnetron from a $50 microwave oven. Etc, etc. Also, your post did not contain a link.

Clearly you're a believer, Carl. That's fine. Who knows, maybe you're right. But if they are not man-made, who or what is making them? Got a hypothesis on that?

[DHodges]

It's not about "want to believe" or "because we might want there to be something." It's about systematic investigation.

This makes me think of a kid who thinks he can fly to the moon by flapping his arms really hard.

It's really going to work this time, though, because he has a new way of flapping that no one has tried, and he's going to flap harder than anyone ever has before.

[Carl G]

Clearly you're a believer, Carl.

Yes, I am. In scientific method.

However, I'm not a crop circle researcher, but I have read enough to know that there are formations which are obviously man-made and others which are not.

That's fine. Who knows, maybe you're right. But if they are not man-made, who or what is making them? Got a hypothesis on that?

No.

[Carl G]

It's not about "want to believe" or "because we might want there to be something." It's about systematic investigation.

This makes me think of a kid who thinks he can fly to the moon by flapping his arms really hard.

It's really going to work this time, though, because he has a new way of flapping that no one has tried, and he's going to flap harder than anyone ever has before.

The idea of systematic investigation makes you think of that?

[Philosophaster]

But if they are not man-made, who or what is making them? Got a hypothesis on that?

Unicorns!

[Dan Rowden]

Other than what I regard as the bogus argument about complexity, what are the salient reasons for even thinking they are not man made? Is it possible to state them in a couple of sentences?

http://www.circlemakers.org/new_documents.html

[Unidian]

Other than what I regard as the bogus argument about complexity, what are the salient reasons for even thinking they are not man made?

I think I can field this one.

1. It would be cool as hell if they weren't.

2. Microwaves and bulges in wheat stalks.

3. ????????

4. Aliens!

5. Ancient scared geometry.

6. I like turtles!

7. Therefore, crop circles are not man-made.

[Dan Rowden]

Hmm, cogent and convincing. Can't help but wonder if there's an alternate version, though. Just because I like variety, of course.

[Unidian]

Carl,

However, I'm not a crop circle researcher, but I have read enough to know that there are formations which are obviously man-made and others which are not.

Sorry, but a lot of people "know" a lot of things. For example, I know that Baby Elvis is watching over me and blowing my cigarette smoke in the other direction, so I won't get emphysema. In fact, I can prove it. Every time I look at the smoke, it's always blowing in the other direction. Therefore, Baby Elvis is real.

I know that's patronizing and borderline insulting, but I don't know how else to respond when an intelligent person is so obviously engaging in blatant wishful thinking.

[Carl G]

It is not wishful thinking to differentiate between those which are obviously man-made and those which are not obviously so.

[Carl G]

Really, Nat, you're trying awfully fucking hard to read more into what I am saying than I am actually saying.

[Unidian]

Am I? I can't see where. You're saying that some crop circles aren't man-made, and that scientific inquiry establishes this.

I'm saying I'm incredibly skeptical of that, and the burden is on you to substantiate the claim.

What's the trouble with that?

[Carl G]

Am I? I can't see where. You're saying that some crop circles aren't man-made, and that scientific inquiry establishes this.

I'm saying I'm incredibly skeptical of that, and the burden is on you to substantiate the claim.

What's the trouble with that?

I didn't say that. I said some are obviously man-made and some are not obviously man-made. Those which are not obviously man-made -- that is to say easily distinguished as such, by, say, footprints, stake marks and the like -- deserve detailed further investigation, to establish whether they are man made or not. I'm saying a number of such formations appear each year.

[Unidian]

Or, alternatively, it might make just as much (or more) sense to investigate known crop-circle creators (human ones) and determine whether they might be using new and better techniques. They do have a history of doing that, after all. It isn't just the rope and plank anymore - some outfits are now using sophisticated computer-aided drafting software and all sorts of things.

[Carl G]

Naturally. With the scientific method all avenues of investigation are open,.

[DHodges]

It's really going to work this time, though, because he has a new way of flapping that no one has tried, and he's going to flap harder than anyone ever has before.

The idea of systematic investigation makes you think of that?

You do not need to systematically investigate every possible way of flapping your arms to conclude that you are not going to get to the moon by flapping your arms.

[andymonk]

These people like to take credit for crop formations but they are yet to show how they create the jaw droppers ..... http://www.circlemakers.org/exhibit_a.html . Here`s their best effort which took them 5 hours in daylight to do........ http://www.lifeinthefastlane.ca/wp-cont ... cle_7b.jpg . Not on the same level or scale as this...... http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/crop-circle-5.jpg . If all crop formations are man made,why dont they show us how the spectacular formations are created?

[Unidian]

That last one is pretty awesome.

I gotta admit, I do occasionally wonder where the circle creators are getting the extensive philosophical background I would expect them to have in order to create some of the deeply meaningful symbols that appear. Sure, anybody can just make a symbol up or copy one from a book, but that isn't what I see in some of the formations. There are formations that definitely point to an intimate familiarity with non-dualism and other fairly tough philosophical nuts to crack. Do they have thinker-types on the team? Perhaps so...

Threw you a bone there, Carl. :) I'm not a blinkered skeptic, and in fact I find those types obnoxious. I just have high standards for what constitutes "evidence."

[DHodges]

Forget crop circles