"Exploded Nodes" in Crop Circles

[EHocking]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by EHocking
While strenously denied by crop circle proponents, it is a fact that the first crop circles to emerge in the UK in 2001 did so only when, and within days of, FMD restrictions were lifted in each of the counties where these circles were found.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by RichardR
I'm not sure that's strictly true.

That's OK - I am.

And I took crop proponents to task on it earlier this year on usenet on sci.skeptic. Briefly, the first cropcircles to appear in the UK are generally in April (Avg is 27th April from 1997-2003). In 2001 the first one was found/created 25th May,

I have a number of timing charts, here's Wiltshire as an example (the cradle of crop circling). Hampshire (the first in 2001) shows a similar trend - as does the total UK circles.

And from the CDC

Here's a usenet post of mine that summarises the Hampshire situation in 2001 - Hampshire being the first of that year.

Compare different years. I'm not convinced there is a difference. [/B]

Here's the plot.
All crop circle data is from the Crop Circle Research site that attempts, by month total rather than timing, to argue that 2001 was no different to other years.

I'm quite happy to take this further on this forum - but if you do a Groups Google search on "FMD ehocking" and restrict the search to to sci.skeptic, you'll see how much fun I have had with this already. Also if you browse the charts from the Yahoo site quoted above, you'll also see that I've already applied some grey matter to the argument.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Just in case you think all cropies are woos, keep in mind that not everyone thinks the circles are made by aliens. Some think it's transdimensionals, and some think it's the government.

~~ Paul

 

[Peter Morris]

Well being as Crop Circles are known to be fake, and have been repeatedly demonstrated to be faked, and the hoaxers freely admit that they are fake, and there are websites that show you how to fake them and competitions on the best faked examples...

To be precise, it is known that many of them are fake, and that some are made by confessed hoaxers. I'm sure that 99% of them are man-made. Doesn't mean that allo of them are. I am open-minded and consider it possible that a small number are natural formations. Some of the single circles, anyway.

Note the word possible. I'm not saying it is so. Just that it's possible.

 

[RichardR]

To be precise, it is known that many of them are fake, and that some are made by confessed hoaxers. I'm sure that 99% of them are man-made. Doesn't mean that allo of them are. I am open-minded and consider it possible that a small number are natural formations. Some of the single circles, anyway.

Note the word possible. I'm not saying it is so. Just that it's possible.

Surely you would agree that there is no reason to believe that any of the complex ones are produced by something other than hoaxers?

 

[RichardR]

EHocking:

An interesting analysis – thanks. Do you have any detailed analyses of when restrictions were lifted in particular areas followed by circles appearing in those areas? Or lists of dates that circles appeared correlated with restrictions being lifted? I'd be interested in any details you have.

 

[Peter Morris]

Surely you would agree that there is no reason to believe that any of the complex ones are produced by something other than hoaxers?

Perhaps you would read the post I wrote. I said that

"some of the single circles" might be natural formations.

Obviously I agree that any complex pattern is man-made. That's why I specified single circles.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I don't see any evidence that would support the idea that single circles would be naturally occurring. Crops just don't have that characteristic, neither do any phenomena that affect crops other than humans.

 

[flyboy217]

I don't see any evidence that would support the idea that single circles would be naturally occurring.

So far, so good...

Crops just don't have that characteristic ...

But this is a non sequitur. That you don't see any evidence (or even if there is no evidence) of something does not imply that it does not happen.

I'm sure you understand the difference, but especially in an environment like this one, I think it's a crucial one to beware of.

 

[thaiboxerken]

But this is a non sequitur. That you don't see any evidence (or even if there is no evidence) of something does not imply that it does not happen

It is not a non-sequitor, it is a fact. Absence of evidence means that there really is no rational reason to believe it to be fact. Your logic would have people believing in psychics and mediums...........but you do, don't you?

 

[Ashles]

To be precise, it is known that many of them are fake, and that some are made by confessed hoaxers. I'm sure that 99% of them are man-made. Doesn't mean that allo of them are. I am open-minded and consider it possible that a small number are natural formations. Some of the single circles, anyway.

Sure it's possible.

It's also possible that chocolate bunnies lay chocolate easter eggs.

The fact that it goes against all observable evidence and known science doesn't get in the way of it being theoretically POSSIBLE somehow, by a mechanism of which we currently know nothing.

Sure, you'd look really stupid and credulous to believe that, but, hey, beliefs are everyone's right.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Perhaps you would read the post I wrote. I said that

"some of the single circles" might be natural formations.

Obviously I agree that any complex pattern is man-made. That's why I specified single circles.

Of course some are natural! Every year a total of thousands of acres of crops are flattened in various, mostly irregular, shapes by rain and wind. It is very likely that some of them are circular or have other interesting shapes. Probably that was what inspired crop circle makers in the first place.

Nothing mysterious about that.

Hans

 

[Ashles]

Of course some are natural! Every year a total of thousands of acres of crops are flattened in various, mostly irregular, shapes by rain and wind. It is very likely that some of them are circular or have other interesting shapes. Probably that was what inspired crop circle makers in the first place.

Sorry I was assuming that Peter Morris was describing some kind of natural weird "energy effect" as mentioned by some Crop Circle believers.

But if he is talking about known whether effects

Yes Peter, it is certainly possible that some crops have been flattened by wind and other weather effects and have occasionally formed a sort of circle shape.

I didn't realise we were going to have to take this down to quite this level of obviousness.

 

[flyboy217]

It is not a non-sequitor, it is a fact. Absence of evidence means that there really is no rational reason to believe it to be fact.

Let's revisit what you said in your last post. You did not say:

there really is no rational reason to believe it to be fact

which I have already made clear that I agree with. You did say:

Crops just don't have that characteristic

which is a non sequitur.

Your logic would have people believing in psychics and mediums...........but you do, don't you?

Please explain how my logic would have people believing in psychics and mediums. Also please explain why you think I believe in them.

I'll explain it to you one more time in case you misunderstood the first time. This statement:

I don't see any evidence that would support the idea that single circles would be naturally occurring.

does NOT imply this one:

Crops just don't have that characteristic

any more than "we have no evidence for psychics" implies "psychic powers are not real." That is what we call a "non sequitur." Capice?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Sorry I was assuming that Peter Morris was describing some kind of natural weird "energy effect" as mentioned by some Crop Circle believers.

*snip*

Wispering: I suspect he possibly was. Still..........

Hans

 

[thaiboxerken]

Crops just don't have that characteristic

which is a non sequitur.

I am not claiming that because "I don't see any evidence that would support the idea that single circles would be naturally occuring." leads to the conclusion of "Crops just don't have the characteristic".

These are two seperate statement and not a logical argument on my part. Two separate facts that I am simply bringing up.

1. No evidence.
2. Crops don't have that characteristic

These are just facts that lead me to conclude that the claim that these circles could be naturally occuring is simply absurd.

 

[flyboy217]

I am not claiming that because "I don't see any evidence that would support the idea that single circles would be naturally occuring." leads to the conclusion of "Crops just don't have the characteristic".

These are two seperate statement and not a logical argument on my part. Two separate facts that I am simply bringing up.

1. No evidence.
2. Crops don't have that characteristic

These are just facts that lead me to conclude that the claim that these circles could be naturally occuring is simply absurd.

I understand what you are trying to say. But let's look at the claim you made:

Crops just don't have that characteristic

How can you possibly know that crops don't have that characteristic? Isn't that precisely the thing we're seaching for evidence for?

This is no different from claims like "people just can't see the future," "astrology just can't work," and "reindeer just can't fly." Do you believe those are valid claims, too? Do you not see the difference between those and valid claims like "we don't have any reason to believe that people can see the future," "astrology has never been shown to work," etc.?

When someone says something like "but frogs can't teleport!," what they really mean (presumably) is that there is no evidence to support teleporting frogs, and hence the idea that frogs teleport is absurd. Fine. But why repeat yourself, first saying "we don't have evidence for X" followed by "X just doesn't exist?"

Also, you never explained your bizarre veiled attack:

Your logic would have people believing in psychics and mediums...........but you do, don't you?

 

[thaiboxerken]

How can you possibly know that crops don't have that characteristic? Isn't that precisely the thing we're seaching for evidence for?

I know because it never happens. Until it does happen, then it still stands that it never happens.

This is no different from claims like "people just can't see the future," "astrology just can't work," and "reindeer just can't fly." Do you believe those are valid claims, too?

They are not only valid claims, but facts.

Do you not see the difference between those and valid claims like "we don't have any reason to believe that people can see the future," "astrology has never been shown to work," etc.?

These claims are valid as well, and facts also.

When someone says something like "but frogs can't teleport!," what they really mean (presumably) is that there is no evidence to support teleporting frogs, and hence the idea that frogs teleport is absurd.

No, they're saying that it's a definitive fact that frogs can't teleport.

Fine. But why repeat yourself, first saying "we don't have evidence for X" followed by "X just doesn't exist?"

It's hardly a repetition of the claim.

Also, you never explained your bizarre veiled attack: [/B]

Who's being attacked?

 

[flyboy217]

Who's being attacked?

I understood this strange quote:

Your logic would have people believing in psychics and mediums...........but you do, don't you?

to be some sort of insult. Please do explain to me how "my logic" would do this, and what you mean by "you do, don't you?" This kind of odd vague insult seems to get spouted often by members of this forum, and I'm curious to see where they're supposed to lead.

As for whether or not the above are facts, I suspect we'll get nowhere by arguing back and forth in this thread. Since this topic is currently spanning across multiple threads (and has not much to do with crop circles), I'm going to start a new thread for it.

 

[thaiboxerken]

to be some sort of insult. Please do explain to me how "my logic" would do this, and what you mean by "you do, don't you?"

Your argument is used often by woo woos to justify their beleifs in the paranormal. Because of this, I suspect you are one of them. If you feel insulted, then it's your own fault.

 

[flyboy217]

to be some sort of insult. Please do explain to me how "my logic" would do this, and what you mean by "you do, don't you?"

Your argument is used often by woo woos to justify their beleifs in the paranormal. Because of this, I suspect you are one of them. If you feel insulted, then it's your own fault.

Okay, let's try this one. All reported alien sightings have been exposed as frauds. We have no physical evidence for aliens. Therefore, it is a fact that aliens do not exist. If you do not agree, then you are a woo woo.

This is the argument you are making. You honestly believe it?