--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <fintlewoodle...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: <snip> > > > Be honest, it isn't very good really is it? > > > All wobbly and amateurish. > > > > Gee, not sure what criteria you're using. It doesn't > > look "wobbly" to me, it looks pretty precise. It can't > > be easy to get all those circles to intersect > > properly. > > I wasn't talking about the ones that intersect but the > smaller ones at the bottom, they aren't very good.
They don't look any wobblier to me than the rest of it. <snip> > > At any rate, it looks to me like about the same > > degree of precision as most of the more elaborate > > crop circles. Crop fields are an inherently > > somewhat fuzzy medium, after all. > > Kind of the point I was making. Well, you said the execution was "amateurish." I'm saying the medium's inherent fuzziness limits precision, so you can't attribute lack of precision to the circle makers being amateurs, unless a given circle is significantly fuzzier than the usual. And this one doesn't look any fuzzier than the usual to me. > > Did you see the "Wave Interaction" diagram that was in > > the original post? Is the diagram actually of wave > > interaction? If so, is that a reasonable guess at what > > the crop pattern is meant to represent? Is there any > > way a wave interaction pattern could have something to > > do with nuclear power generation, as the text > > speculates? > > Yes. Possibly. Possibly. No. OK, thanks.
