--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> The pics Nab posted look like laser cutouts on wood panels > > > when I blow them up in Photoshop. Judy's maze crop cutouts are > > > what cutout crops look like. > > > > Er, the one I just posted was a joke. It's a picture > > of Gerald Ford, for goodness' sake. Nobody's > > pretending it's anything but manmade. It's "crop art," > > not a crop circle. > > I knew that. The guy who does this as a business is really > interesting. I got his info from your link. It shows the > difference between what cut crops look like and the subtle > shading gradients that Photoshopped pictures have. Don't the > pictures Nab's link shows look more like cutouts on wood than > on crops to you?
Nope. > > If you're suggesting the photos are fake, that's > > right out. You can quickly disabuse yourself of > > notion by spending a little time looking around > > the Web, as noted. > > This has not been the case for me so far. Some of the > pictures in the videos I have seen are clearly fake to a > Photoshop user. Cutting crops does not give you the > shading present in some of those photos. But crop circles aren't "cut," Curtis. I don't know where you got that idea. The stems of the plants are flattened, not cut, and typically the flattening itself is patterned within the flattened areas, usually in swirls. There's one that was done in an interwoven herringbone pattern. Even the crop circles made by hoaxers are flattened rather than cut. Often the stems aren't broken, just bent. Here's a bunch of ground photos of crop circles: http://www.korncirkler.dk/cccorner/dan1.html Here's another sequence for one specific crop circle: http://www.cccrn.ca/armstrong2006.html > You don't get exact subtle shading in crop photos that we know > are cut crops like your guy with the corn photos. That's because they aren't cut! Geesh. Cutting is the crudest possible way to make a design in crops. > I appreciate that you are just pointing out the mystery and are not > jumping to "aliens made these!" I haven't caught the mystery yet, > it seems like so many people are having too much fun with the wild > speculation. Yes, you have to sort through a lot of crap to get to the good stuff. I was a skeptic until I started investigating it a little more deeply. <snip> > There are a lot of reports after they are made. What is missing is > the witnesses when they are being made. There are actually a couple of dozen eyewitness accounts of circles being made, but they aren't all that common. They happen mostly at night. One day a field is perfectly normal, the next morning there's a circle in it. But if you realize there are a lot of reports after they're made, why are you still hanging onto the Photoshop theory?? That's why I mentioned the reports in the first place. You'd have to assume every one of these people was lying about having seen the circles on the ground. And then you'd have to explain all the ground-level photos as well. The youtube vidoes are > unsatisfying for me because of the lack of hi res photos. The site > you consider serious below may have some of the hi res photos that I > would like to see. There are gazillions of aerial photos. The research site doesn't feature aerial photos because there are so many other sites that do. I don't think anybody worries about taking hi-res photos because the notion that they're just Photoshop fakes is so incredibly far-fetched. Nobody who's done any reading on the subject has any reason to think that, so the idea that hi-res photos should be taken to disprove it just makes no sense. You are really, really barking up the wrong tree with this Photoshop theory. It's just not worth your time to consider it. It's an Occam's razor first-pass discard, no kidding. It's not even interesting. For pete's sake, some of the farmers whose fields they're found in have started charging admission to the public to come into the fields and walk around in them. Here's a video showing circles at various different aerial angles, including some that are quite close to the ground. I think some of the shots aren't aerial but are taken from a ground structure built for the purpose, maybe 15-20 feet high. http://tinyurl.com/yvlvll Here's another one with aerial footage while the plane is in the air, not just still photos, plus some good ground footage. It's a Brit news report: http://tinyurl.com/2xrwp8 This is a good, fairly objective text intro on the topic: http://www.swirlednews.com/crop.asp
