SUBJECT: FRACTALS & CROP CIRCLES FILE: UFO1233




Article 9253 of sci.skeptic:
Path: bilver!tarpit!ge-dab!crdgw1!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state .edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!gvlf3.gvl.unisys.com!tredysvr!cellar!revpk
From: revpk@cellar.UUCP (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Fractals & Crop Circles
Message-ID: <sNH283w164w@cellar.UUCP>
Date: 10 Sep 91 03:46:15 GMT
References: <1991Sep8.202245.27765@bradley.bradley.edu>
Sender: bbs@cellar.UUCP (The Cellar BBS)
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system
Lines: 59

pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:

In <ZsVV810w164w@cellar.UUCP> revpk@cellar.UUCP (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) write >stanley@verga.enet.dec.com writes:

If a mandelbrot set appeared on something like a Mayan bas-relief, we woul >> say that the Mayans did it and wonder at how little we know about an india >> culture that was so obviously advanced in certain areas... some of us woul >> claim they were like ' idiot savants ' ...others would just chalk it up
to coincidence.

Nope, not likely at all. To generate a Mandelbrot Set requires not
only using math that uses the imaginary value i (the square root of -1), but >iterating the same equation roughly 200 times for every pioint on the grid >that the set is beiong plotted on.

And building a large pyramind requires lots of man-hours or intense labor.
As does (presumably) building Stonehenge and other such interesting things.

One could, concievably, do the math
without a computer-- sure, if you want to spend a lifetime doing thousands o >mathematical equations on a project whose significance isn't likely to be >apparent.

Similar things have been said about the great monoliths. Sure, you can do
it without modern machinery, but it would take forever, and why do it?

Why ask why? :) Obviously someone did some of these things anyway...
--
-----
Pete Hartman Bradley University pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
jello is cheaper than horses!

Pete, you've obviously missed the difference betweebn the Pyramids,
Stonehenge, and the like. What was required to build those structurew was
well within the capabilities of the societies that built them. Similarly, any significance they had was evident both in the cultural records available (in the caes of the Pyramids) or directly relevant to their survival (i.e., some theories re Stonehenge's use as a calendar to determine agricultural cycles).

But in order to develop the Mandelbrot Set, as I'd said, doesn't just require technological advancement: it requires a very substantial body of
mathematical work behind it. (The ancients were advanced in mathematics, obviously, but I don't see any evidence that they were aware of such things
as the square root of negative 1.) Similarly, one would have to be willing to expend considerable energies performing lengthy, repetitive calculations on values incorporating the value i, _and_ plot them on a grid in the apropriate manner.

We have a pretty good understanding of how the Egyptians built the Pyramids, and what's more, we also have a very good understanding of _why_ they built them. (And I must remind you that the idea of finding a Mandelbrot Set in
some ancient carvings was hypothetical to begin with-- which makes your original point seem even more nonsensical. Just what were you objecting to?)


""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Brian Siano, Delaware Valley Skeptics
Rev. Philosopher-King of The First Church of the Divine Otis Redding revpk@Cellar.UUCP "Ecrasez l'enfame!" - Voltaire """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


Article 9214 of sci.skeptic:
Path: bilver!tarpit!ge-dab!crdgw1!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com! news.bbn.com!bbn.com!ncramer
From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Executive Summary [was: Fractals...]
Message-ID: <66199@bbn.BBN.COM>
Date: 10 Sep 91 00:24:28 GMT
References: <1991Sep9.162645.6370@engage.pko.dec.com>
Sender: news@bbn.com
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Lines: 20

stanley@verga.enet.dec.com writes:

ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:

[Maryquote#1 deleted]

Isn't this beautiful?

Then, it just keeps getting better...

... crop symbols were the hard evidence you keep saying you require.

...and better.

None are so blind are those who WILL NOT see.

Can't argue with that.

Keep it up Mary. A few more of these and you'll render sci.skeptic --or
any overt defense of rational thought-- wholly superfluous.

N


Article 9230 of sci.skeptic:
Path: bilver!tarpit!ge-dab!crdgw1!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohi o-state.edu!linac!att!news.cs.indiana.edu!lynx!triton.unm.edu!ee5391aa
From: ee5391aa@triton.unm.edu (Duke McMullan n5gax)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Halftime Show! Was: Executive Summary [was: Fractals...]
Message-ID: <a#0b#9_@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: 10 Sep 91 02:56:17 GMT
References: <1991Sep9.162645.6370@engage.pko.dec.com>
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Lines: 215

In article <1991Sep9.162645.6370@engage.pko.dec.com>
stanley@verga.enet.dec.com writes:

You know what? I don't think you really want hard evidence because you
DON'T WANT proof that psi exists. It's your ego that drives you... not
your intellect.

I rather suspect, Mary, that _all_ of us are driven in various degrees by
both ego and intellect. Witness the frequent emotional outbursts (such as yours, above...but by no means limited to the pro-psi side of the stadium)
on this newsgroup as an example.

A proof is a very personal thing, and what constitutes a proof to you
likely will fail as sufficient evidence to another. E.g., this stuff on
crop circles. You remain unconvinced that the mundane answer is true...or,
at least, so I seem to read in your postings. You defend it on the basis
that the declamation of these two fellows doesn't _prove_ that _some_ of the cc's weren't made by extraterrestials...which, of course, it doesn't. How- ever, absence of proof does not constitute disproof, neither does absence of disproof constitute proof...for some people.

The arguments here make me think of children playing games. With the rules set, most will get along pretty well. When the rules are somewhat nebulous,
or when various kids have different ideas of the rules, watch out! The fur's gonna fly!

We have here people programmed to various different sets of rules for "prov- ing" the "reality" of various matters. Mucho years ago, it was proven that
it is _impossible_ to trisect an angle, in the plane, using only the compass and straightedge. The proof is group-theoretic, requiring essentially grad- uate-school standing in mathematics (in most curricula) to find oneself in
a class where such proofs are expounded. Most people with less preparation would be completely bewildered by the proof; it would be beyond their com- prehension and they would be unimpressed by it. The compass and straight- edge, however, are simple to use, and methods of using them are taught in
every decent (note that qualifier ;^) high school in the country. Consequen- tly, many people can understand the nature of the problem of how to trisect
an angle. Many try. Many fail, and admit it. A few, by way either of er-
ror or simple misunderstanding, arrive at what appears to be a trisection, and then become very, very annoyed when math types won't take it seriously.

This last is where ego comes into it...perhaps from both sides.

I see no particular reason to believe in anything except mundane explanations for crop circles, although I should point out explicitly that I've not inves- tigated the matter. Nor will I.

Why not?

Why am I unwilling to investigate this matter? Ego?

One might call it that, but I perceive it differently. I, like yourself and everyone else, have only a certain amount of time and energy to do the things
I want to accomplish. If I wished to make money gambling, I wouldn't play the slots, neither would I bet two dollars to your one on a coin coming up heads
or tails. "Gamblers believe in probability; suckers belive in luck."

If one investigates the various areas of pseudoscience, certain repeated pat- terns emerge. _All_ of the popular (personal opinion:) fuzzy-headednesses of this day, including Ancient Astronauts (in the style of Von Daineken (sp?)), Crystal Power, (ahem) Crop Circles, Channeling, and, yes, _every_ case of parapsychological testing that I've been able to examine (twenty years back, I was _very_ interested in this stuff) have displayed those characteristics.

(I should point out that _reproducibility_ was the most common problem here. All these things fail to be reproducible...if watched too closely, or tested
in ways which are objectively verifiable. Such was, and is, my experience.)

Certainly, this does not constitute _proof_ that these fields/phenomena are baloney, but it does suggest that the probability is rather higher than other- wise might be assumed.

In my undergraduate days, I invested a good deal of time reading about various "paranormal" stuff, attempting various experiments in various fields of psi, attended a number of lectures on such topics as "energy healing", dowsing, "free energy", and a few et ceteras, took several courses purported to in- crease psychic abilities, began studying aikido (trying to understand the principles of "ki"), and...well, the list goes on.

I discovered an interesting mixture. I also developed (EGO WARNING) a bet- ter-than-average bullshit filter. There were certain truths here...and cer- tain untruths. Many things simply were unverifiable. Great claims were made...and very little in the way of convincing (to me) demonstration was man- ifested.

After a while, this stuff ceased to entertain me. My interest lagged. I was not content to "know about" this stuff...I wanted to _do_ it. I concluded
that there was nothing mystical about "ki" as used in martial arts. Bluntly,
I started applying a set of "scientific" (read: objective) criteria to these hobby studies, as well as my scholastic work. I discovered that I could know
a lot about this, but I couldn't do any of it. Neither could anyone else.

I found I had a good deal of "faith" (probability that this will work for me: pretty high) in engineering, math, physics, chemistry, aikijutsu, etc. My "faith" (probability that will work for me: pretty low) in parastuff faded away. I was no longer impressed, for a number of reasons, by the "catch-22" that you have to believe in paranormal phenomena for them to manifest.

Why? Because I couldn't separate the real from the unreal, whether that lat- ter be a fraud, or simply my perception. You see, another of my hobbies is magic, with an emphasis on mentalism. I bamboozle people as a hobby. I
_know_ how easy it is (and how much fun it is) to be fooled.

I've never encountered a "believer" in parapsi who wouldn't admit that there were frauds out there, and most would point to entire areas which they regar- ded as fallacious.

At this point, I can't resist quoting Martin Gardner. He wrote a book called _Fads_and_Fallacies_ (In the Name of Science), and this paragraph he wrote as the beginning of the preface to the second edition:

The first edition of this book prompted many curious letters
from irate readers. The most violent letters came from Reichians,
furious because the book considered orgonomy alongside such (to
them) outlandish cults as dianetics. Dianeticians, of course, felt
the same about orgonomy. I heard from homeopaths who were insulted
to find themselves in company with such frauds as osteopathy and
chiropractic, and one chiropractor in Kentucky "pitied" me because
I had turned my spine on God's greatest gift to suffering humanity.
Several admirers of Dr. Bates favored me with letters so badly typed
that I suspect the writers were in urgent need of strong spectacles.
Oddly enough, most of these correspondents objected to one chapter
only, thinking all the others excellent.



Until a good filter is devised which will separate fraud from fair in these matters, skeptical persons will not be convinced.

For myself, I admit the _possibility_ of almost any of these strange things. That doesn't mean I _believe_ in them, and THAT doesn't mean I _disbelieve_
in them. I remain simply unconvinced. There's a difference, although many won't accept that.

It's been said many times before, and I'll repeat it: "Extraordinary matters require extraordinary proof." There's a problem there...it's simply not true. "Extraordinary matters" of the sort we're describing don't require extraordin- ary proofs at all; they require only very ordinary, everyday proofs of the sort we use to demonstrate the existence of, say, magnetism, solid objects, or communication by verbal interchange. The trouble is, these simple, straight- forward proof don't seem to be there.

"Ordinary proof" shouldn't be particularly hard to come by..._if_ the pheno- mena under consideration are real. If they're not...if they're not, then they should behave exactly as they seem to under serious and detailed examination. I.e., they fail to manifest.

Yes, I'll grant the possibility of "shyness effects", "skeptic neutralizing", or whatever the current buzzword is for "real" psi phenomena failing when ex- amined by a skeptic. I'll grant the possibility, but not the reality. I find it...let's just say...less than convincing. It removes our only mechanism for differentiating the genuine from the phoney. And there are _always_ phoneys. Even in the "hard" sciences, there are phoneys. They embarrass their col- legues. There are mechanisms in place (and, to be certain, they don't always work) to reduce this sort of thing, but still, some always seem to get through.


Now, let's land on that question: WHY won't I examine, fairly and in detail, the evidence for/against E.T. causes of crap, excuse me, crop circles?

Because it manifests so many of the characteristics of crackpot foolishness. _Many_ things manifest those characteristics, and why should I choose cc's over, say, Bigfoot or the Marfa Lights?

It seems likely to me that _all_ of these fields of endeavor have very, very small probabilities of turning out to be anything other than the proverbial wild goose chase. There might be, among them, one or two which hide some mighty, world-shaking matter, and would be well worth the pursuit. But which one? Why should I choose cc's over Bigfoot or the Marfa Lights?

At least, the Marfa Lights allegedly manifest a single (long) day's drive from Albuquerque. I might be able to do some real investigations there. But, again, time and money...and always energy. Note that's just to investigate _one_ of these mysteries, and the nearest one that I mentioned, at that. I cannot practically investigate _all_ of these in any useful manner, even if
I could afford it. As for just one...no, I'll not play the slot machines. Neither will I bet two-to-one on the side of the coin that comes up next. Neither will I invest my time in studying the Marfa Lights. Or Bigfoot. Or crop circles. If it pleases you to do so, then have at it, with my blessings. I'll stick with aikijutsu, cave exploring, conjuring, and other "mundane" matters.

I'll bet I come out ahead, too.

None are so blind are those who WILL NOT see.

Nice rhetoric. Here's the response:

"Those who believe illusion, and accept as truth their own vain imaginings,
perceive less that those entirely bereft of eyes."

Pretty snappy, huh? I just coined it myself. And, like your statement above, it establishes nothing useful.

Like the pro/anti firearm matter bouncing across this group, the argument lies with ideology. Most discussions quickly degenerate into name calling, on _both_ sides, establishing that ego indeed is an active principle. There is intellect, too, which is why I haven't long since unsubscribed to this group.

Well, the halftime show's over, and the band (that's I) is returning to the bleachers to watch the rest of the game.

Here come the teams; I'm outta here....

d


--
"The French driver's infantile recklessness often annoyed him, but not so much
as did the typical Italian driver's use of the automobile as an extension of
his penis, or the British driver's use of it as a substitute." -- Trevanian
Duke McMullan n5gax nss13429r phon505-255-4642 ee5391aa@triton.cirt.unm.edu


Article 9243 of sci.skeptic:
Path: bilver!tarpit!ge-dab!crdgw1!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!ptimtc!nnt p-server.caltech.edu!sol1.gps.caltech.edu!CARL
From: carl@sol1.gps.caltech.edu (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Executive Summary [was: Fractals...]
Message-ID: <1991Sep10.044919.20694@cco.caltech.edu>
Date: 10 Sep 91 04:49:19 GMT
References: <1991Sep9.162645.6370@engage.pko.dec.com>
Sender: news@cco.caltech.edu
Reply-To: carl@sol1.gps.caltech.edu
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Lines: 27
Nntp-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1991Sep9.162645.6370@engage.pko.dec.com>, stanley@verga.enet.dec.com writes:

Pity all those poor, silly "hard-science, types" and their misguided >>insistence on "repeatable experiments"...
Thank you, Mary.

You've made our case far more succinctly, far more clearly than we could >>ever hope to do.

Do you mean that you don't really want a "repeatable experiment"? That
you'd prefer not to have proof to deal with? That all the talk was just >that... talk?

I didn't insult you. I merely said that the crop symbols were the hard >evidence you keep saying you require. No talk of "pity"... no mention of >"silly"... nothing said of "misguided insistence" at all.

They're hard evidence that crop symbols exist. By what incredibly unfathomable process did you come to the conclusion that they're hard evidence of PSI and not of somebody dragging a board around a field? ------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXes and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.


Article 9220 of sci.skeptic:
Path: bilver!tarpit!ge-dab!crdgw1!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state .edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!utgpu!cunews!software.mitel.com!meier
From: meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Fractals & Crop Circles
Message-ID: <9251@augustus>
Date: 9 Sep 91 16:36:55 GMT
References: <1991Sep6.172310.11183@engage.pko.dec.com> <1991Sep7.235155.26995@javelin.sim.es.com>
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.
Lines: 16

In article <1991Sep7.235155.26995@javelin.sim.es.com> pashdown@javelin.sim.es.com (Pete Ashdown) writes:

stanley@verga.enet.dec.com writes:

Now it's your turn. What symbol would YOU like to see written in
the fields?

Smiley face

etc.


The Mars face. Or maybe the man in the moon.

___________________________________________________________________________ Rolf Meier Mitel Corporation


Article 8892 of sci.skeptic:
Xref: bilver sci.skeptic:8892 alt.paranormal:2538
Path: bilver!tarpit!fang!att!att!linac!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrind e!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!wang!news
From: warren@worlds.com (Warren Burstein)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: Physics: Separate Particles Communicate at a Distance
Message-ID: <601@vaccine.UUCP>
Date: 3 Sep 91 21:20:37 GMT
References: <1991Aug23.221620.8570@beta.lanl.gov> <1991Aug28.212833.14211@rosevax.rosemount.com> <1991Aug29.000836.27078@beta.lanl.gov>
Sender: news@wang.com
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: WorldWide Software
Lines: 13

jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:

EPR means never having to look at your shoes.

When I took a course in QM there were no chairs in the room so we sat
on the floor with our backs to the wall which made it very obvious to
the professor that my socks didn't match. I told him I was
color-coding my feet.
--
/|/-\/-\ The entire world Jerusalem
|__/__/_/ is a very strange carrot
|warren@ But the farmer
/ worlds.COM is not worried at all.


Article 9242 of sci.skeptic:
Path: bilver!tarpit!ge-dab!crdgw1!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!bo nnie.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.c c.lehigh.edu!lehigh.bitnet!PML3
From: PML3@NS.CC.LEHIGH.EDU (King of Birds (AKA: Paul Lewis))
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: RE: Crop Circles ... Solved! (??????)
Message-ID: <09099122.25.40PML3@lehigh.bitnet>
Date: 10 Sep 91 03:26:08 GMT
Lines: 14

Whether or not a plasma ball can crush wheat or not, I don't know, but
there's no way in hell that one could create a design like that on
the Led Zeppelin box set cover...


Paul Lewis | 'The love you take is equal to the love you make.' |
| -The Beatles, 'The End' |
Are you | 'Forcing the issue was always worth it.' |
sure that | -Jello Biafra |
Oswald | 'You always said yes. Yes to anyone with a badge or a flag.
killed | -Bruce Wayne to Clark Kent, 'The Dark Knight Returns' J.F.K.? | 'We turned in horror toward the back of the grassy knoll |
| where it seemed the sounds had originated.' | ___________|_______-Cheryl McKinnon, witness to the murder of J.F.K.___|


Article 9216 of sci.skeptic:
Path: bilver!tarpit!ge-dab!crdgw1!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toront o.edu!daniel
From: daniel@psych.toronto.edu (Daniel Read)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Dates (Re: UFOs and Abductees)
Message-ID: <1991Sep10.010300.20473@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: 10 Sep 91 01:03:00 GMT
References: <l65b3#h@lynx.unm.edu> <1842@tuegate.tue.nl> <1991Sep6.130130.4768@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, University of Toronto
Lines: 25

In article <1991Sep6.130130.4768@uoft02.utoledo.edu> grx0435@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:

In article <1842@tuegate.tue.nl>, wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl

Might I recommend that you find a good Astronomy 101 textbook
and read up on Frank Drake's 1961 equation:

N = R * Fp * Ne * Fl * Fi * Fc * L

where N = # of civiliztions in our galaxy that can contact each other.
R = stellar formation rate of our galaxy
Fp = fraction of stars with planets
Ne = avg # planets / solar system with sutable environmental
conditions.
Fl = fraction which develop life
Fi = " " " intellegent life
Fc = " " heve the ability and *choose* to communicate
L = the average lifetime of a civiliztion

I appreciate this formula being posted, but is it strictly correct? Why
take the product of Fl, Fi and Fc? I think you should use Fl * (Fi|FL) * (Fc|Fi|Fl) ... otherwise you are erroneously reducing the value of N.
[NB, (Fi|fl) is the fraction of those planets that develop life which also
have intelligent life].

daniel


Article 9149 of sci.skeptic:
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Path: bilver!tarpit!fang!att!att!linac!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu! lanl!jlg
From: jlg@beta.lanl.gov (Jim Giles)
Subject: Re: UFOs and Abductees
Message-ID: <1991Sep9.180944.24266@beta.lanl.gov>
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
References: <GERRY.91Sep9123814@onion.frc.ri.cmu.edu>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1991 18:09:44 GMT

In article <1991Sep7.053041.5389@ohsu.edu> lawder@ohsu3b2.ohsu.EDU (Kathryn Lawder) writes:
[...]
Or maybe they also have advanced ethics on the order of a prime
directive?

The 'prime directive' is not advanced ethics, it's a blatant sci-fi plot restriction ploy. It's an unsubtle way of restricting the actions of
the advanced high-tech characters so that low-tech environments can
still be hazardous and uncertain. As a practical matter, there would be
no way for it to work as it does fictionally: how do you land on a
planet and just "blend in" with the culture there when you're an oxygen breathing, water drinking, carbon-based life form and they're monoxide breathing, ammonia drinking, silicone-based life forms (with, in
addition, a considerably different appearance from yours)?

J. Giles


Article 9227 of sci.skeptic:
Path: bilver!tarpit!ge-dab!crdgw1!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state .edu!usc!ucsd!nosc!watop!north
From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Crop Circles/Ascended Masters/Sound
Keywords: Imagination is a great thing, it just *may* exceed skepticism! Message-ID: <north.684469762@watop>
Date: 10 Sep 91 02:29:22 GMT
References: <1991Sep7.193234.743@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>
Sender: nobody@nosc.NOSC.MIL
Distribution: usa
Lines: 13

jtg@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Redheaded Goddess) writes:

[a bunch of stuff missing a lot of spaces]

I read your post and want to comment on it.
Try hitting your space bar more frequently.

Note: I am not a frequent reader of this newsgroup, if any one
wishes to respond to this, please email me privately.

Surely you jest.

Mark


Article 9254 of sci.skeptic:
Path: bilver!tarpit!ge-dab!crdgw1!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state .edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!gvlf3.gvl.unisys.com!tredysvr!cellar!revpk
From: revpk@cellar.UUCP (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Crop Circles Solved (per CNN)
Message-ID: <kPH284w164w@cellar.UUCP>
Date: 10 Sep 91 03:47:19 GMT
References: <rdippold.684428876@cancun>
Sender: bbs@cellar.UUCP (The Cellar BBS)
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system
Lines: 24

rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:

john@anasaz.uucp (John Moore) writes:

CNN reported tonight that the mystery of crop circles in England may
have been solved. 2 gentlemen in their 60's reportedly demonstrated
their method for creating crop circles to a number of reporters. An >"expert" on crop circles (unnamed) admitted that the circles that they >created appeared genuine.

Anyone have any more info on this? You guys in the UK have some more
data?

Yes, apparently they are aliens.
--
Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks. | Ron Dippold

The current issue of Science has a neat bit on the crop circles, as well. Joe bob sez check it out.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Brian Siano, Delaware Valley Skeptics
Rev. Philosopher-King of The First Church of the Divine Otis Redding revpk@Cellar.UUCP "Ecrasez l'enfame!" - Voltaire """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


Article 9207 of sci.skeptic:
Path: bilver!tarpit!ge-dab!crdgw1!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio -state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cleveland.Freenet.Edu!ai065
From: ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Crop Circles Solved (per CNN)
Message-ID: <1991Sep9.231038.18886@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
Date: 9 Sep 91 23:10:38 GMT
Sender: news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Lines: 24
Nntp-Posting-Host: cwns1.ins.cwru.edu


The old men demonstrated how they used a board (about the size and shape
of a yardstick) with a single rope that is tied to both ends, looking
something like this:

____
/ \
( ) <---ROPE
======== <---BOARD

They would simply hold the rope in their hand and then walk with the board under their foot. This quickly squashed large areas of crop. That's good
enough for me, but I still have two questions: What about the crops being
bent but not broke? Can this be done via this method? And, what about the
large areas were no circles were found the night before? Is this method fast enough to produce large circles?

Tom
--
__ Make no bones about it, I'm an avid promoter of the Amiga computer. If
__/// you resent that because you were ripped off then that is your problem.
\XX/ :') "In every revolution.....there is one man...with a vision!" - Kirk
The Cryptozoology Information Network Want on our Email mailing list?


Article 9225 of sci.skeptic:
Path: bilver!tarpit!ge-dab!crdgw1!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!qu alcom.qualcomm.com!cancun!rdippold
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Crop Circles Solved (per CNN)
Message-ID: <rdippold.684462827@cancun>
Date: 10 Sep 91 00:33:47 GMT
References: <1991Sep9.231038.18886@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
Sender: news@qualcomm.com
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Lines: 25
Nntp-Posting-Host: cancun.qualcomm.com

ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes:

The old men demonstrated how they used a board (about the size and shape
of a yardstick) with a single rope that is tied to both ends, looking >something like this:

____
/ \
( ) <---ROPE
======== <---BOARD

They would simply hold the rope in their hand and then walk with the board
under their foot. This quickly squashed large areas of crop. That's good >enough for me, but I still have two questions: What about the crops being >bent but not broke? Can this be done via this method? And, what about the >large areas were no circles were found the night before? Is this method fast >enough to produce large circles?

Yes and yes. The news report I heard today went further into detail.
They bent the crops instead of breaking them so that the farmer would
still be able to harvest the crops. So it wasn't destruction of
property. And yes, apparently with their method you can make the
circle quite big. Obviously, there's a limit, I don't know what it
is, but they had plenty of time to do it.
--
Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks. | Ron Dippold


Article 9217 of sci.skeptic:
Path: bilver!tarpit!ge-dab!crdgw1!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate. wisc.edu!ra!cee1
From: cee1@ra.MsState.Edu (The Chuckmeister)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Crop circles are a hoax.
Message-ID: <cee1.684465711@Ra.MsState.Edu>
Date: 10 Sep 91 01:21:51 GMT
References: <27178@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>
Lines: 30

cook@vcsesu.enet.dec.com (Peter R. Cook) writes:

In article <1991Sep9.133407.6311@aber.ac.uk>, aro@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Ormsby) writes...

Today's "Today" newspaper (a UK national tabloid) exposes corn circles
as a hoax. The story is the lead on page 1, and there is accompanying >>information explaining how the hoax is carried out inside.

I don't believe it. Explain the circles that have appeared
in Asia, Canada, and America.

It seems, if these people had done this for _TWENTY_ years, SOMMMMMEONE
would have seen it, with all the hundreds there. ANd what about all the
other shapes Diamonds, antennae, other geometric things.

About other nations with them, maybe toher people 'know' how to do them.
I just don't buy it. They would have been spotted long ago. And what about
the high E-fields in the centers?

This was just on an NBC News-minute thingie. I still am not convinced.

Peter R. Cook | Disclaimer: "Quoth the Raven, eat my shorts man!"

--

+------------------------------------------\\ -------------
| Internet: cee1@Ra.MsState.Edu \\ --------------------
| Bitnet: cee1@MSSTATE.BITNET >> Jesus Christ is Lord
| Real Identity: Charles Edward Evans // --------------------
+------------------------------------------// --------------


Article 9210 of sci.skeptic:
Path: bilver!tarpit!ge-dab!crdgw1!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rphroy!caen!spo ol.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au!chook.cs. adelaide.edu.au!andrewd
From: andrewd@chook.cs.adelaide.edu.au (Andrew Dunstan)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Crop circles are a hoax.
Message-ID: <4521@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au>
Date: 9 Sep 91 23:38:59 GMT
References: <1991Sep9.133407.6311@aber.ac.uk>
Sender: news@ucs.adelaide.edu.au
Reply-To: andrewd@chook.cs.adelaide.edu.au (Andrew Dunstan)
Lines: 19
Nntp-Posting-Host: chook.ua.oz.au

In article <1991Sep9.133407.6311@aber.ac.uk>, aro@aber.ac.uk (Andrew
Ormsby) writes:

Further comment seems unecessary.

Not to me! I cannot refrain from gloating. Now, will all those who were
sucked in admit their absurd credulity?

(I bet they won't.)

#######################################################################
# Andrew Dunstan # There's nothing good or bad #
# Department of Computer Science # but thinking makes it so. #
# University of Adelaide # #
# South Australia # - Shakespeare #
# net: andrewd@cs.adelaide.edu.au # # #######################################################################


Article 9252 of sci.skeptic:
Path: bilver!tarpit!ge-dab!crdgw1!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utex as.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!bruce!trlluna!titan!medici!jbm
From: jbm@medici.trl.oz.au (Jacques Guy)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Crop circles are a hoax.
Message-ID: <1991Sep9.234416.15686@trl.oz.au>
Date: 9 Sep 91 23:44:16 GMT
References: <1991Sep9.133407.6311@aber.ac.uk>
Sender: news@trl.oz.au (USENET News System)
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Lines: 3


For those of you who read French, crop circles were exposed for the hoax
they are in the October (or November, I'm not sure) 1990 of "Science et Vie".


Article 9241 of sci.skeptic:
Path: bilver!tarpit!ge-dab!crdgw1!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohi o-state.edu!linac!unixhub!slacvm!doctorj
From: DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Crop circles are a hoax.
Message-ID: <91252.212352DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
Date: 10 Sep 91 05:23:52 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Lines: 15

andrewd@chook.cs.adelaide.edu.au (Andrew Dunstan) says:

aro@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Ormsby) writes:

Further comment seems unecessary.

Not to me! I cannot refrain from gloating. Now, will all those who were sucked in admit their absurd credulity?

(I bet they won't.)

Of course not. They will complain that because *NOT ALL* of the circles
have been proven to be hoaxes, they obviously *MUST* be heralding the
imminent return of the King (I mean Elvis, of course...).


Article 9286 of sci.skeptic:
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Path: bilver!dona
From: dona@bilver.uucp (Don Allen)
Subject: Re: Crop circles are a hoax.
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1991 01:54:31 GMT
Message-ID: <1991Sep12.015431.23621@bilver.uucp>
References: <1991Sep9.133407.6311@aber.ac.uk> <4521@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au>

In article <4521@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au> andrewd@chook.cs.adelaide.edu.au (Andrew Dunstan) writes:

In article <1991Sep9.133407.6311@aber.ac.uk>, aro@aber.ac.uk (Andrew
Ormsby) writes:

Further comment seems unecessary.

Not to me! I cannot refrain from gloating. Now, will all those who were >sucked in admit their absurd credulity?

(I bet they won't.)

# University of Adelaide # #
# South Australia # - Shakespeare #
# net: andrewd@cs.adelaide.edu.au # # >#######################################################################

Why that's fine and dandy..but how do you explain and account for all
the circles that have been created in the UK for the last couple of
hundred years? (yes it has gone on that long)..and while you're
working up a "pat" answer for that..how about giving us the benefit
of you accumulated wisdom on explaining all the various crop circles
in other parts of the world.

Before you enjoy your (premature) gloating..best do your homework first.

A number of these circles are created each night..how do you explain the
method that the 2 old geezers use to span the whole of the UK to do _that_.

*plus* leap over to this continent and make circles in Canada and all over
the US.

Please explain to me what the "object" is in plate 50, page 92 of "Circular Evidence" is to me. It sure *don't* look like 2 old guys with a "board".

Some of these "objects" have been videotaped buzzing over the newly created circle. In fact, this tape was shown at the MUFON conference at Chicago, complete with helicopters hovering *over* the object, watching it do it's "thing".

I have absolutely no doubt that these 2 *could* hoax a credible looking
circle, however to lump the _whole phenomenon_ in with these 2 bozos
and claim that they hoaxed all the circles in the UK is in error.

Here's a simple enough test..the next few that are created in the UK..let's
see if fric and frac are anywhere near..no? they were in a pub the night
that an elaborate one is created? Tsk Tsk...

No doubt that some people are ingenious enough to hoax a circle..but
let's examine closely what _kind_ of circle they do produce and what
the evidence says by looking at all of it..do they press and swirl
the crop with the board and is it uniform with - no - breakage..no
damage,etc.

Sorry, but I just don't buy the explanation that's been given thus
far in all of this thread. Flimsy, verrryy flimsy.A Joke :-)

Don


--
-* Don Allen *- InterNet: dona@bilver.UUCP // Amiga..for the best of us. USnail: 1818G Landing Dr, Sanford Fl 32771 \X/ Why use anything else? :-)
UUCP: ..uunet!tarpit!bilver!vicstoy!dona KING George Bush?? Just say NO!
UFO's in commercials....is the GOVT getting us ready for OCTOBER of 1992?


Article 9296 of sci.skeptic:
Path: bilver!tarpit!ge-dab!crdgw1!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!cs.uo regon.edu!ogicse!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!xn.ll .mit.edu!xn!olson
From: olson@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Steve Olson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Crop Circles ... Solved! (??????)
Message-ID: <OLSON.91Sep10145740@goneril.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
Date: 10 Sep 91 21:57:40 GMT
References: <09099122.25.40PML3@lehigh.bitnet>
Sender: usenet@xn.ll.mit.edu
Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab - Group 43
Lines: 35
In-Reply-To: PML3@NS.CC.LEHIGH.EDU's message of 10 Sep 91 03:26:08 GMT

In article <09099122.25.40PML3@lehigh.bitnet> PML3@NS.CC.LEHIGH.EDU (King of Birds (AKA: Paul Lewis)) writes:

Whether or not a plasma ball can crush wheat or not, I don't know, but
there's no way in hell that one could create a design like that on
the Led Zeppelin box set cover...

Paul Lewis | 'The love you take is equal to the love you make.' |

You're almost certainly correct on that score, the hoax explaination accounts for both the very complex shapes and the concentration of the circles
in England. Another problem with the plasma ball hypothesis is that it
didn't explain why so many circles were in southern England.

I'm a bit puzzled, though, about the non-English circles. We are somewhat
at the mercy of the qualilty, or the lack thereof, of the reports on non-English circles. Did they all have the bent-but-not-broken effect?
If so, how come everybody who guesses the secret immediately goes and and hoaxes a circle himself instead of announcing his discovery? Its interesting that some people, Randi comes to mind, came close to the truth without
hitting on the board trick.

I regard that it is possible (OK, slightly possible - OK, *very* slightly possible) that a few of the simplest circles might have a natural origin.
After all, even the English hoaxers (BTW, great timing for the _The Economist_ article, huh?) were inspired by earlier incidents. Not that that really
proves anything, of course.

This plasma ball/ball lightning stuff sounds pretty cool, although we still need an explaination on how these things could be created naturally.

--
-- Steve Olson
-- MIT Lincoln Laboratory
-- olson@juliet.ll.mit.edu
--


Article 9333 of sci.skeptic:
Path: bilver!tarpit!ge-dab!crdgw1!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.ed u!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!anasaz!qip!john
From: john@anasaz (John Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Crop circles are a hoax.
Message-ID: <1991Sep10.150517.19086@anasaz>
Date: 10 Sep 91 15:05:17 GMT
References: <27178@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> <rdippold.684452251@cancun>
Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, Az
Lines: 20

In article <rdippold.684452251@cancun> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
]But, of course, this doesn't prove that all crop circles were hoaxes.
]After all, one of them _could_ have been done somewhere by an alien,
]that looked just like all the rest. How are you going to prove that
]it wasn't? I expect to see a lot of that argument coming up soon.

If I remember correctly, there is somewhat of a tradition of elegant hoaxes
in England. These gentlemen were continuing in that tradition.

There may also be natural crop circles. A fellow here at the office used to
be a wheat farmer in Kansas. He said that he occasionally would find circles
of downed wheat in his fields. He never thought much of it, since it seemed
to be a natural phenomenon. These observations were in the 50's and 60's in Kansas.
--
John Moore HAM:NJ7E/CAP:T-Bird 381 ames!ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john
USnail: 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale,AZ 85253 anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
Voice: (602) 951-9326 john@anasaz.UUCP
Opinion: Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are all my fault, and no one elses.


Article 9272 of sci.skeptic:
Path: bilver!tarpit!ge-dab!crdgw1!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.o hio-state.edu!sei.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!netnews.srv. cs.cmu.edu!gerry
From: gerry@frc2.frc.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Crop circles are a hoax.
Message-ID: <GERRY.91Sep10111454@onion.frc.ri.cmu.edu>
Date: 10 Sep 91 16:14:54 GMT
References: <27178@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> <cee1.684465711@Ra.MsState.Edu>
Reply-To: gerry@cs.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU
Lines: 20
Nntp-Posting-Host:
SEEN-BY: 124/5016 153/757 154/30 203/0 221/0 6 240/1120 5832 263/1 280/464 SEEN-BY: 280/5003 5006 292/854 8125 301/1 341/66 200 207 234 396/45 423/120 SEEN-BY: 460/58 633/280 712/848 770/1 902/26 5020/400