In general I don’t have much to say about crop circles. However, I was perusing this post at forgetomori and have spent much of the afternoon hopping about the Interzone. I still don’t have much to say about any of it other than how draining it is to peruse so many unsubstantiated statements of fact. One of these days, I’m going to proclaim myself an Expert on something too.
The forgetomori site has done some extensive writing on the subject without (in my opinion) becoming overly biased. I also enjoyed some of this gents “making of” vids.
I won’t say that I know every single crop circle has been created by humans, but a very large number absolutely have. I find the military angle a little off-putting. I just don’t get the motivation. The New World (Dis)Order doesn’t really need the social theater. Maybe we should check for declines in circle formation as military funding gets tighter.
What I do know is that people can do some amazing shite. As soon as you think something can’t be done, some knucklehead rises to the challenge.
Now, here I go again with my word-fancies. Descriptors such as “astonishingly complex” are all too commonplace. It implants the idea of near impossibility right from the start. Often the real deal circles are revealed to be human creations. This is a disaster for some of the advocates. Not the least for how absolute their original findings were or even for being proven wrong, but for how they react after the reality is discovered.
Some researchers have suggested (claimed in 2000, I think) that about 80% of circles are man-made (the other 20% were made by women…har har!) This is where the cereologists come in (such as BLT Research). Studying plant and soil abnormalities at circle sites as well as other factors such as atmospheric readings (lodging certainly accounts for non-complex patterns and non-patterned patches). This would seem like a good approach. It isn’t entirely unreasonable to suggest that some as-yet understood earthly force is creating some of the unexplained circles. The evidence is not entirely compelling right now, but I can leave some wiggle room for these people. Research and data collection is always something I can support…when done correctly and without bias.
Now, what I come away with from all of this is that skeptics note that there is no truly compelling and irrefutable evidence that anything supremely bizarre is going on. On the other hand, believers note that it can’t be proven that people made all of those freakin’ circles (or formations, if you will, since we are now getting Hello Kitty and other equally crop not-circles) and that there are obvious unexplainable elements.
I haven’t really seen much to get me supporting much beyond human creations. There seems to be a ton of work being done to support and document the factors that would indicate some other source. The problem is that the noise to signal ratio is just too damn high. I’m not willing to entirely dismiss an entirely non-human cause (in my view, probably some earthly force, if anything), but I have no real desire to sort through all the self-proclaimed experts and their findings. As such, I require multiple sources verifying and published findings in a respected periodical or other relevant outlet.
As in most things, there is a trust factor for published knowledge and without that trust (Level 1 would be akin to me doing the research and field testing myself and Level 10 being some whackadoo on the Internet posted some “findings” online), we are all left to make our own judgment (or just not give a rat’s ass). You can shout at me for forming opinions from my desk chair, but we can’t all cover everything in person.
I’m stopping now as I think I already disproved my first sentence and am wending dangerously down the path toward oblivion. Drooling in my beer and drawing patterns in the carpet :)