This is a great discussion for finding out how we each approach epistemology. I've been doing some Web hunting as well as following the links Judy sent.
A few points first: I see that crop circles are not cut now, thanks. I didn't know if all of them are flattened but I haven't found any cut ones. Every picture on the Web has been through picture processing software. the question is not "Were the pictures Photoshopped, or the equivalent " but "which aspects of the photo processing software was used aside from the cropping and compression features of the program." It is not that the pictures all had to be created from the ground up in Photoshop, but tweeked to appear more amazing then they really are on the ground. Think O.J.'s darkened face on the cover of Time for a "tweek" that matters. When photos are used as evidence of something amazing, the participation of image editing software can't be Occom's razored out. I am not doubting that there are crop circles in fields, I am questioning if all the pictures I have seen are in fields. As an expert Photoshop user and digital photographer its influence in Web photos particularly always has to be accounted for and tracked. This leads to the most important distinction for me. Who is the source of our information? This is where life is simple for Nabby and not so much for Judy and me. For Nabby he has an authority whom he trusts, Benjamin Creme. So that ends his epistemological issues. Since I don't see him as an authority on anything I have to go further. I don't know Judy's position on his authority but I suspect she had to go through the process I am in right now, whose information from the ground do I trust. Judy: This is a good, fairly objective text intro on the topic: http://www.swirlednews.com/crop.asp ME: I found that this group reveals their bias in their own words: "Swirled News is edited by Andy Thomas, author of five books on crop circles including Vital Signs, which has been described by many as the definitive guide to the circle phenomenon." Like many of the links this group is economically invested in the belief that these are more than man-made art projects. Like Steve and Karen Alexander, they are part of the business of selling the photos. Having read all of Steve's site I have a suspicion that he may view these more on their artistic merit than their supernatural implications, but he also includes that info. Although many cottage industries that have popped up around this phenomenon, this doesn't rule out that something amazing is happening, it just means that the term "objective" shouldn't be applied to people who sell stuff related to the belief. In my Web searchs many of the the visible "experts" in this field are photographers who sell these images. So for me the question is who on the ground claiming that something amazing has happened can I believe? Here is a good summery of some of the questions that should be accounted for: Nice summary of the questions that don't have answers yet: http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa021802a.htm Some of these "problems" are merely claims made by people who need to be examined further. This is where peer reviewed science is really called for. It is also an area that Judy can help me with if she wouldn't mind posting some sources she trusts. Here is an example of a guy who I do not trust so far: An example of a guy who believes: http://www.greatdreams.com/crop/hoax/hoax.htm His first sentence damns him in my book: "Most serious crop circle researchers agree that a majority of the formations are not being made by the human specie, and seem to be symbolic messages from an unknown, high intelligence." >From my research even the believers in the theory that man didn't make some of these, put the hoax number closer to 80%. His inability to understand that saying we don't know how something was made doesn't mean that we have evidence that they are "symbolic messages from and unknown, high intelligence" makes me doubt he has the mental chops to sincerely approach any mystery objectively. But he refers to others who may have more credibility: http://www.bltresearch.com/ Judy is familiar with this group sent me the link before. Although they are economically invested, they are a nonprofit supported by donations and possibly lectures (I don't know if they charge for these) they seem sincerely interested in the phenomenon and I haven't drawn any conclusions about their information yet. I need to dig in deeper. If what they say is really based on objectively corroborated facts, then we are on the trail of a mystery. Hopefully Judy can help me get to the bottom of these guys as well as offering other groups that seem to approach this topic with the same seriousness. Finally here are some very clever students who have shown me how complex you can make these things without alien help: Students demonstrate crop circles http://www.amtsgym-sdbg.dk/as/ufo-2001/cirkleri-uk.htm Here are clever students who make circles claimed to be impossible for humans: http://circlemakers.org/ So this is still a work in progress for me. It is an exploration in how I approach mysteries. This is a great topic for ferreting out prejudices. I have plenty. One of them is that I believe that motivated college and grad students are capable of amazing acts of complex idiocy and artists will go to amazing lengths to create works of beauty. Like some of the photographers have expressed, these creations are amazing on their own as art. The scientific questions are a whole other issue. But the "conclusion" that we know that aliens are making these things is something that will take a lot more evidence for me than finding unusual plant behavior in a field. Right now I would like to confirm that we do in fact have evidence of unusual plant behavior in any fields fer real reaaaaaaaallll! Thanks to Judy and Nab for continuing an interesting discussion. --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> 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 >
