Mod+ 253. SUZANNE TAYLOR, THE SCIENTIFIC MYSTERY OF CROP CIRCLES

#42
I also think the following. Really good detective work could solve this mystery:
-Get exact dates for circles. Plot them vs weather (was it dry) and against moon phase (was it a full moon or a nearly full moon)
-Interview farmers involved with actual circles. Are they cashing in? What is their attitude to the circles? Are they being paid off by circle makers?
-Study the actual sites. Is there anybody who should have been able to observe the creation of the circle?
-Go into detail with the folks at www.circlemakers.org - how long does it really take them to make circles? What prep are they doing before? What are the ACTUAL logistics involved in making a complex circle (people involved, time, materials, preparation, how much experience do the circlemakers need etc)
-Study the actual circles made. Do they comply with methods? Are there any circles where methods would clearly fail?
-Try to ascertain if there are messed up circles. For example, this circle http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/8995276.Chepstow_crop_circle_astonishes_drivers/ which appeared just 6 miles from my house, looks bad. Some of the circles aren't circular. Try to establish how many mistakes there are. Are mistakes being ignored (and therefore "suppressed") by the true believers?
-Plot number of circles and quality of circles vs time. Is there are pattern? Is there a spike following news interest?
-Study location of circles. Try to establish where different groups are operating. By the way, this one seems pretty damning to me. There are circles around the world but they are poor. They really good circles are all in Wiltshire where things got going first and so where there is hard core group of experienced and motivated circle makers.

I have looked into crop circles before and haven't found this stuff. This is what we need to settle the matter. The problem is that you have the following people involved in this field:
-New age "believers" who believe no matter what.
-Arty hoaxers who clearly can make sophisticated circles and who are motivated to make them. But are there enough of these guys to make all the circles and to achieve the quality observed? Where are the mistakes?
-A press ignoring and/or playing it for laughs. They are never sending out reporter to really dig.
-Armchair folks (like me) gleaning what we can from the internet and then producing more stuff that just looks at other stuff (and doesn't go back to original sources).

All that said, this one IS soluble. If you do the detective work you could establish a reasonable answer to the question: "Can all of these be hoaxes?" But I don't see anybody who has done that work with an open mind. So, anyway, an opportunity. I only live 40/50 miles away from Wiltshire but, er, I'm not going to do it or at least not anytime soon (sorry).

I believe in lots of weird stuff. I even believe some of it has happened in my life but, at the end of the day, I think the circles really might all be hoaxed.
The January 2000 edition of Nature carried a reprint of an article first published in 29 July 1880, in which amateur scientist John Rand Capron reported his investigation into some circles found in a crop field near Guildford in Surrey. Capron's letter described how:

"The storms about this part of Surrey have been lately local and violent, and the effects produced in some instances curious. Visiting a neighbour's farm on Wednesday evening (21st), we found a field of standing wheat considerably knocked about, not as an entirety, but in patches forming, as viewed from a distance, circular spots.

Examined more closely, these all presented much the same character, viz., a few standing stalks as a center, some prostrate stalks with their heads arranged pretty evenly in a direction forming a circle round the center, and outside these a circular wall of stalks which had not suffered,

I sent a sketch made on the spot, giving an idea of the most perfect of these patches. The soil is a sandy loam upon the greensand, and the crop is vigorous, with strong stems, and I could not trace locally any circumstances accounting for the peculiar forms of the patches in the field, nor indicating whether it was wind or rain, or both combined, which had caused them, beyond the general evidence everywhere of heavy rainfall. They were suggestive to me of some cyclonic wind action, and may perhaps have been noticed elsewhere by some of your readers."
 
#43
this obvsicates the overall tone and tenor of these speaches which were very muc
he said: "Get down to Disney World in Florida," he urged just over two weeks after 9/11. "Take your families and enjoy life, the way we want it to be enjoyed."

moreover, these quotes are very much in-line with the tone and tenor of his speeches at the time... i.e. "go on being a dutiful materialist consumer and don't think about stuff."

Obama has done a lot to resurrect Bush's reputation, but such re-writing of history can only go so far.
 
#45
It is not as simple as are they man made or not, or are aliens responsible. The circle makers themselves have some interesting stuff to add.
great point! I believe the evidence of them not all being "100% man made" is overwhelming, but I can't say much beyond that. much like NDEs/STEs where you can say "consciousness survives death", but can't say a lot more.
 
#46
I don't see how Alex can come to his definite-seeming conclusion without spending a lot of time doing research in this area. On just a few nights of looking around the web, I found a lot of stuff that made me go "Oh wait... not so fast". (That doesn't mean I would rule out aliens being responsible for some crop circles, or that there are very intriguing phenomena associated with some circles.)
I'll agree that I am guilty of doing a drive by on the topic... and the evidence is murky. then again, most of the mud is coming from folks that hold to the idea the UFO/alien/other phenomenon is swamp gas and hysteria. this is an absurd position.

so, I'm very open to someone saying, "of course UFOs are real and the grudgingly declassified government accounts, and numerous reports from military and law enforcement are solid... I'm just skeptical of those dang crop circles." Does anyone know of any doubters/debunkers that fall into this category?
 
#47
I'll agree that I am guilty of doing a drive by on the topic... and the evidence is murky. then again, most of the mud is coming from folks that hold to the idea the UFO/alien/other phenomenon is swamp gas and hysteria. this is an absurd position.

so, I'm very open to someone saying, "of course UFOs are real and the grudgingly declassified government accounts, and numerous reports from military and law enforcement are solid... I'm just skeptical of those dang crop circles." Does anyone know of any doubters/debunkers that fall into this category?
Hmmm... honestly I am not sure if it really matters.
If they have good arguments to help shedding more light on the phenomenon I would accept them regardless their position on UFOs & C.
Debunking is not bad per se, it's bad when it turns into pathetic clutching at straws and irrational denial, no?

cheers
 
#48
It would be interesting to know when crop circles and aliens first became associated in the popular consciousness. I suspect it was an elaboration of UFO landing marks which had been reported elsewhere. There may be a cereal crop collapse phenomenon, but I don't believe these pictograms are it. I recall a letter (possibly in Fortean Times in the 1990s) in which a woman and her partner felt panic associated with a kinetic vortex which laid down the wheat field in front of them in an apparently motivated way, which may have been a response to a hummadruz report (memory isn't what it was): http://www.northernearth.co.uk/permhum.htm

The degree of hoaxing and ostension makes it impossible to conclude anything paranormal about crop marks in SW England.
 
Last edited:
#49
11 Add "supernatural" touches to your crop circle. Add a hoax-like dimension to your work by making it appear as if aliens authored the crop circles. Here are some suggestions.
  • Bend some stalks around by exposing them to a blue light source for a few hours. Applying small amounts of natural gum or plaster will lock their new shape. Sadly, this approach may not satisfy a detailed or scientific inspection.
  • Create swirled nests in the flattened areas by your clever weaving of stalks.
  • Melt some iron filings into droplets on-site and sprinkle them around the flattened area to leave "meteorite particles" and magnetized stalks.
  • Try varying the direction you flatten the corn, wavy lines or up a line then back a line. This creates amazing shiny lay patterns visible from the air.
At first blush that list seems to help discredit the non-ordinary explanation of crop circles but I'll bet the list wasn't created before the phenomena were observed in the field. The list doesn't prove that the observed phenomena can be mimicked in detail, it merely gives that impression, which is all that is needed to muddy the waters. Experts may be able to demonstrate that the list is facile, but the damage is done.

It's like the UFO flap over Arizona in 1997 when Governor Fife Symington marched out his assistant in an ET suit wearing handcuffs at a press conference to ridicule the notion that anything strange could be going on. Years later he apologized and admitted he'd seen the UFOs too and was convinced there was no ordinary explanation, but the damage was done. This article is worth reading if you aren't familiar with the incident:

www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/11/09/simington.ufocommentary/index.html?_s=PM:TECH%2520

Muddy the waters! Muddy the waters! That's all the 'debunkers' need to do.

By the way, it's important to remember that in order to debunk, you have to have bunk in the first place. Bunk is defined as complete nonsense, or something that is meant to deceive. But debunkers don't stop with exposing complete nonsense, but proceed to turn their well-oiled tools of innuendo and misdirection towards hypotheses made in good faith in an effort to explain elusive phenomena. People who proudly proclaim theselves debunkers are often just closed-minded assassins of ideas they don't like. Muddy the waters, they cry as they do their deeds!
 
#50
Why does whatever-it-is not finish other works of art? Why not paintings or garden landscaping? Why only cereal crops in southern England? Why do the cereal shapes mostly mimic the iconography of cyberpunk, alt. pagan and new age travellers who gravitate towards south west England?
I think you missed my angle. Whatever it is might be completely by the hand of man. But that is not the end of the story. As I said the circle makers themselves can shine a different perspective on it. It would seem not all phenomena surrounding the glyphs may be connected to their creation. I think the best way to investigate is get out and make some. That seems to be where the action is.

Southern England is the hot spot but not the only spot. Many glyphs are ancient symbols, fractals, mathematical pictorials and as I mentioned some are actual frequency patterns matching cymatic formations. And some are just art after all. But I can't rule out some having an unknown cause. Some are truly spectaculular, and there are organised groups of circle makers and occasionaly even the experts are dazzled by some unknown artists.
 
#52
Here's a sample of what I found. I put these together several years ago, now they are all over the web.







Also...

The Pythagorean Lambdoma, used to convert mathematical ratios to harmonics.

 
#53
If you are interested in interpreting crop circles you might download my free ebook at http://www.kennethmheck.com/aboutthebook.html
It contains over 2,000 deciphered crop circles and a complete explanation of why they are made.
Even man-made circles can be pertinent, especially when the makers are influenced by unknown forces.
Unfortunately, the truth is seldom what we would want it to be.
 
#54
It's late here in the UK, but I just heard this podcast now, and checked out this thread, and couldn't help making a few comments quickly.

Personally, like some of the other posters here, I've looked into it (from the comfort of my armchair) a fair bit, and can't help but think (like Gabriel, I think), that the more recent, complex circles are most likely man made, whilst some of the simpler ones may, just perhaps, having something more "mysterious" about them. I've heard arguments from both sides, and I personally feel the "man-made" theory, at least for the vast majority, is far more convincing. Sorry, I wasn't convinced by Suzanne, and I find the counter-arguments to all the alleged scientific "anomalies" more plausible. Just my 2 pennies.

Anyway, just a few things I was surprised hadn't been mentioned in this thread, to perhaps provide alternative perspectives:

1) That there is certain element of the "anomalous" even to the man-made "hoax" circles. I first became aware of this when I stumbled upon this episode on UK TV a few years ago (and now painstakingly located at the loss of precious sleep, as I had forgot every reference to what this was called & the names of those in it :) :


I highly recommend watching this if you have an interest in crop circles.

As I was searching for this, I found another UK doc I haven't seen by someone else who has a show on UK TV (or at least used to, I don't have those channels any more)

http://blip.tv/richplanet/crop-circles-the-hidden-truth-2976936

I only link this because it seems to suggest a link between secret services in the UK with the circle creation. I found that interesting as Suzanne mentions she really enjoys Graham Hancock, who I recently read a fascinating book about I wrote in the thread "Stargate Conspiracy"....it all ties up if you know the sources I refer to. Just odd coincidences.

2) I'm astonished nobody in this thread has mentioned fairy circles and rings:

http://anamkaracentre.com/Celtic_Fairy_Ring.html

http://www.strangerdimensions.com/2014/03/17/fairy-rings-myth-nature/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_circle_(Africa)#Myths

Or anything by Vallee.....

This perhaps ties in with Gabriel's idea that the simpler rings have more of a ring of truth around them. I apologise for the pun.

It goes without saying there are numerous other elements of the fairy folklore which strongly relate to the UFO folklore.

3) Interesting case of Robert Van de Broek which perhaps brings another perspective to the issue?:

http://www.bltresearch.com/robbert/ufophotos.php

(first link I found that wasn't his own site)

Cheers.
 

Ian Gordon

Ninshub
Member
#55
I think Suzanne was talking of the vast Milk hill circle -the one with over 400 circles
it made national news at the time

I can't believe that it was made by a group of people overnight - Its perfect , without a single mistake.

At the time the hoaxers were making pretty rough and pretty basic circles







www.youtube.com/watch?v=1upFc7FDhH8#t=37

http://www.lucypringle.co.uk/photos/2001/uk2001df.shtml
A skeptic site says this about the 2001 Milk Hill Galaxy glyph:

Whenever photos of the Galaxy are re-produced they usually use the same picture, just like the one at the top of the page. However, in the picture below, a very evident construction line is seen arcing through one of the arms of the formation. (It is the slightly brighter line). IF this was made by paranormal means, then why is there a construction line there? Construction lines are used by human circle makers to make crop circles.


http://circularstateofmind.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/the-crop-circle-challenge/

Also: There is this myth (and it is a myth, passed from armchair croppie to armchair croppie who never actually go to crop circles) that there were no broken stems within this formation. Which is nonsense. There were broken stems. I know, I saw them. In fact there are many myths associated with this formation. Allegedly there were significant radiation levels within the centre circle, but everyone I have spoken to cannot actually tell me what these levels were, who took the readings...
 
Last edited:
#56
A skeptic site says this about the 2001 Milk Hill Galaxy glyph:

IF this was made by paranormal means, then why is there a construction line there?
why assume it is a 'construction line'

Surely if hoaxers had the skill, and went to such trouble to create such a vast formation they could easily have covered any evidence by folding the crop in a suitable manner !

but if that's what the debunkers want to believe good luck to them
at least it's a step up from the Hedgehog theory.
 
Last edited:
#57
The January 2000 edition of Nature carried a reprint of an article first published in 29 July 1880, in which amateur scientist John Rand Capron reported his investigation into some circles found in a crop field near Guildford in Surrey. Capron's letter described how:

"The storms about this part of Surrey have been lately local and violent, and the effects produced in some instances curious. Visiting a neighbour's farm on Wednesday evening (21st), we found a field of standing wheat considerably knocked about, not as an entirety, but in patches forming, as viewed from a distance, circular spots.

Examined more closely, these all presented much the same character, viz., a few standing stalks as a center, some prostrate stalks with their heads arranged pretty evenly in a direction forming a circle round the center, and outside these a circular wall of stalks which had not suffered,

I sent a sketch made on the spot, giving an idea of the most perfect of these patches. The soil is a sandy loam upon the greensand, and the crop is vigorous, with strong stems, and I could not trace locally any circumstances accounting for the peculiar forms of the patches in the field, nor indicating whether it was wind or rain, or both combined, which had caused them, beyond the general evidence everywhere of heavy rainfall. They were suggestive to me of some cyclonic wind action, and may perhaps have been noticed elsewhere by some of your readers."
To be honest, I don't find this compelling though it is interesting. One: he talks about violent storms. Two: he says "knocked about" which implies disorder Three: he himself suggests cyclonic wind action. So interesting but not compelling.

Crop Circles are interesting. They deserve a show. They probably deserve several shows but I think we need to be very careful as there is a vocal group of proponents who are strong "believers" and they are not going to change their minds. They put forward certain things to advance their point of view. There is sloppy thinking going on here.

All "Skeptiko" topics have a terrible "signal to noise" ratio problem. We need to be careful about listening to the noise because it is interesting rather than drilling down on the signal (which, sometimes, may not exist).

When your paradigm shifts away from the mainstream (my paradigm is very shifted) then it is easy to get caught up in the topic of "what does it all mean". We are all desperate to know this. That said, we aren't going to make progress until we separate the signal from the noise. I have looked into crop circles hard in the past and, to be honest, I am not convinced. I can't categorically say that there is nothing to them but it is very clear that there are very motivated and capable circlemakers who are doing this as art.

That said, there is one website that makes me wonder. Here it is: http://www.cropcirclesandmore.com/content/welcome.html

Pay attention to the "thoughts" and "geometries". There is some very interesting stuff there - especially about squaring the circle. To me the real question is this - "Does squaring the circle naturally occur in many geometric figures if one looks hard enough?" Bert Janssen, proprietor of Crop Circles and More has certainly tried hard. Has he found anything real? I don't know. Anyway. Bert Janssen would make a great guest for following up on crop circles.
 
#58
I haven't listened to the interview yet - mainly reluctant because I've tangled with Suzanne in the past and was not impressed.

After years of looking into all this and having a personal friendship with Colin Andrews, the guy who first coined the phrase 'crop circle', I am convinced that all - or nearly all - are human made.

A good overview of what it's all about is this lecture by Rob Buckle:

Stick with the video - Rob's not a debunker and no stranger to the esoteric.

Basically rather like Colin Andrews, he believes that many of the 'hoaxers' - (and the word hoax maybe is not appropriate if there is no 'genuine' phenomenon) - are influenced by some other intelligence so in a sense the formations are 'channelled'.

It seems a way-out idea but I've spoken to several circlemakers who confirm that one of the main reasons they go out in the fields is because they are fascinated by paranormal phenomena which sometimes manifests as they do their work.

You'll hear some of them speak on Rob's video.

As for Terje Toftenes and his documentary, he has confirmed to me privately that he is now embarrassed he made it because his pre-beliefs affected his judgement.

Confidentiality prevents me saying more but Terje says he agrees with pre-CC researcher and now circlemaker Peter Sorensen who stated, "When they started to get fancy, that's when humans had taken over the show"

But like Rob Buckle, Terje is convinced there is a paranormal factor involved.

If there are such things as paranormally created crop circles I'd have to put my money on what's happening in Holland with Robbert van den Broeke - his latest here http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2014/Hoeven3/Hoeven2014c.html

I find his paranormal photography convincing so feel it's unlikely he'd wreck his chances of acceptance by getting involved with hoaxed crop circles. But I could be wrong......
 
#59
why assume it is a 'construction line'

Surely if hoaxers had the skill, and went to such trouble to create such a vast formation they could easily have covered any evidence by folding the crop in a suitable manner !

but if that's what the debunkers want to believe good luck to them
at least it's a step up from the Hedgehog theory.
You have to find a reason for a line coinciding exactly with the circumference of the pictogram. It has no similarities to the glyphs in form or line weight, so we can rule out intentionality. It's clearly a redundant construction artefact revealed under acute angled sunlight. I don't consider this debunking, all art works reveal the hand of the maker somewhere in the process.
 
#60
this obvsicates the overall tone and tenor of these speaches which were very muc


he said: "Get down to Disney World in Florida," he urged just over two weeks after 9/11. "Take your families and enjoy life, the way we want it to be enjoyed."

moreover, these quotes are very much in-line with the tone and tenor of his speeches at the time... i.e. "go on being a dutiful materialist consumer and don't think about stuff."

Obama has done a lot to resurrect Bush's reputation, but such re-writing of history can only go so far.

I think you interpret the Disney World quotes to suit an anti-Dubya bias. To me what he said was close to what I hope any President would say . ."Don't let the terrorists succeed by making you live in fear." Many people had already started to wonder if Disney World and such places of large congregating were safe. It's a completely different meaning and tone to "go shopping." No re-writing needed. And let's be clear - I still give the "worst President so far" award to Dubya,

More importantly IMO is your use of "materialist" in conjunction with consumer. In that you steer the term back to its colloquial usage of "someone who enjoys having a lot of things" and away from the more meaningful meaning (yes I did. lol) of "someone who thinks that nothing exists other than physical phenomena." As you know I'm anything but a materialist yet I do enjoy "toys." Much.
 
Top