--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > There's a lady in FF who's really into crop circles. She's Marlene > > Stanley, > > Alex Stanley's sister-in-law, wife of Raja Tom of the Kingdom of > > Denver. She > > > gave a presentation recently and has some interesting stories to > > tell. I'll > > > try to tell them later as time allows. > > > > I hope you do Rick because I really don't "get" the crop circles > > thing. 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? > 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. You don't get exact subtle shading in crop photos that we know are cut crops like your guy with the corn photos. 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. Thanks for the link, I'll check it out. > > Many of the pics I have seen look like a > > simple Photoshop layers imposition of an image onto a picture of a > > field. I guess I am missing the link of someone on the ground we > > can trust telling us what we are looking at. > > No problem. There are zillions of eyewitness accounts, > photos, and videos of crop circles from the ground. > Just Google "crop circles"; search for "crop circles" > on YouTube. They're even visible using Google Earth > and Google Maps. There are a lot of reports after they are made. What is missing is the witnesses when they are being made. 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. > > Here's a video of a bunch via Google Earth: > > http://tinyurl.com/yqjbod > > Somebody created a Google Map of crop circles, > but you have to have a Google account to use it: > > http://tinyurl.com/yv8ev9 > > > Of course the jump from "We don't know what caused this" to "We do > > know what caused this and it is aliens" is gunna be an even harder > > jump for me > > Here's where I've jumped to, after reading quite > a bit of material on crop circles: Many of them > are hoaxes, some are not. We have NO idea what > causes the ones that aren't, and whatever it is, > is very, very, VERY weird. > > , but I would like to start with the support basis for the > > pictures themselves. How are they distinguishing them for > > Photoshopped pics? > > 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. > > There's a veritable army of researchers studying > crop circles on the ground. Some of them are from > La-La Land but quite a few are dead serious, and > quite credible. > > Here's the Web site of a serious outfit: > > http://www.bltresearch.com > > Prowl around on that site a bit and see if you > don't get the heebee jeebees. > > There are a lot of crazy people and hoaxters > of various sorts associated with the phenomenon, > as well as folks exploiting it commercially, but > if you dig around, you'll find the more reliable > reporting and theorizing. >
