--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > 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.
Gee, I don't think that's a very good example. What sort of tweaks do you think would make the crop circles appear to be more "amazing" than they really are? <snip> > 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. I don't grant Creme any particular authority. > 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: Note that I said "fairly objective," not "completely objective." The guy isn't insisting on any particular explanation. > "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. That *some* of them are not manmade. Thomas makes no bones about the fact that many of them are hoaxes. <snip> > 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. Would you acknowledge the possibility that for one who has very thoroughly studied crop circles, what may seem "biased" views to you may in fact be quite objective? Would you also acknowledge that your own view is distinctly biased, especially given that you *haven't* studied the phenomenon? Thing is, funding for crop circles research is not exactly a priority for most agencies and organizations. These guys need to get it from somewhere. The only folks who are going to do the initial studies are those who think there's something worth studying. It's very much like the TM research in that respect. > 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 This is an excellent find, thanks. > 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. I'd go with Thomas, actually. I get the distinct sense that to the extent that he believes not all circles are manmade, it's because the evidence he's gathered points to that conclusion. 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%. Actually that's what one prominent crop circle researcher, Colin Andrews, announced with great fanfare in 2000 and the media eagerly picked up. There's a pretty thorough debunking of Andrews's claim here: http://www.swirlednews.com/article.asp?artID=59 *However*, Silva's statement isn't accurate either, and I would be skeptical of his more sweeping pronouncements. His site does have a lot of hard information, though, as well as a very good section on skepticism. <snip> > 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. I don't know what I could do to help you "get to the bottom of these guys," actually. What sort of thing did you have in mind? Here's a neat conspiracy-theory page about one of BLT's main funders, though: http://www.mt.net/~watcher/uforocke.html One of the researchers Silva mentions, W.C. Levengood, is probably a good bet: http://www.tonyrogers.com/news/levengood_crop_circles.htm Linda Moulton Howe is an investigative journalist specializing in science and "mystery science" topics: http://www.earthfiles.com/ (And check out the photos of her on the About page!) > 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 Did you notice that they don't identify the crop circle that the researcher claims is impossible for human beings to duplicate? The one they show chalk drawings of is a very simple one. Also, where's their proof that the circle in the photograph was one they made? Did it occur to you to question their claims? After all, they have an investment in the notion that they're oh-so-clever students. I really don't think this proves a thing, and I suspect these students may be a bunch of counter-hoaxers. > Here are clever students who make circles claimed to be > impossible for humans: > > http://circlemakers.org/ Heh. You're aware they sell merchandise and books too, right? And that they get commissions to make circles as advertisements, as well as a whole lot of publicity? In short, they've made careers for themselves posing as circle makers. Why should you not be as skeptical of them as you are of Andy Thomas's outfit, or the photographers who sell prints? Also might be of interest to compare this-- http://www.circlemakers.org/freddy.html --and this: http://home.clara.net/lovely/circlemakers.html Then there's also this page on their site: http://www.circlemakers.org/weird_shit.html And this one: http://www.circlemakers.org/alien.html > 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. I don't know that you should even carry that particular "theory" around in your head as a provisional goal if you're seriously looking into this stuff, because it's liable to automatically bias you against the phenomenon by setting up two alternatives: Either the circles are manmade, or they're made by aliens. Better to look for what can be *ruled out* as possible explanations, and then take account of what's left. Final point: There are many layers to the hoax- versus-genuine aspect of the crop circle phenomenon, in the sense that there's some evidence of a highly motivated and determined counterhoaxing movement, i.e., spurious claims to have made certain circles, dubious claims about the number of hoaxers, and so forth. This makes it quite difficult to come to any solid conclusions, which may be the reason for the counterhoaxing efforts. So use the same degree of skepticism when evaluating the purported claims of hoaxing as you do when evaluating claims about "genuine" crop circles.
