6 ms·

Anybody who has looked into this subject for more that 20 seconds knows that two drunken old men named "Doug" and "Dave" could not account for the hundreds upon

Anybody who has looked into this subject for more that 20 seconds knows that two drunken old men named "Doug" and "Dave" could not account for the hundreds upon hundreds of radically complex and often astronomically precise formations that have appeared (and continue to appear) over the years. Doug and Dave appeared precisely at the serious "WTF is going on moment" in the UK just when hysteria was about to strike, and presto, the question was put to rest. This NYT story is ridiculous. This is _not_ to say that people don't create these by hand -- including some extremely complex formations -- but certainly not Doug and Dave, and overnight (and often times in just a few hours), and in great volume, with a depth of symbol and reference written in, day after day after day. There is real mystery here, and I would recommend that anyone who would like to look into it deeper (if only to debunk!) read 'Secrets In The Fields: The Science And Mysticism Of Crop Circles' (https://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Fields-Mysticism-Circles-anniversary/dp/0578389940/ref=asc_df_0578389940 https://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Fields-Mysticism-Circles-anni...)

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
quickthrowman 4y ago
I fully agree, applying Occam’s Razor implies that it was aliens, not two guys named Doug and Dave who inspired other humans to make similar crop circles.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  The OP is not saying it was aliens, they're saying that it was more people than just Doug and Dave and that other people put a lot more effort into it. It is a view supported by the article: >In its heyday there were probably five groups creating crop circles, Mr. Irving said,
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - sibeliuss 4y ago
    One of the key points here is that in many regards, these crop circles required no effort at all. One hour there was a blank field, and the next hour there was an enormous, sophisticated, astronomically and symbolically correct imprint. The book I posted above goes into great detail on how to distinguish between the two kinds.
    - lupire 4y ago
      What two kinds? What is "astronomically and symbolically correct"?
      - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
        The symbols in a crop circle acting like an astronomical calendar with points aligned to certain astronomical events (eclipses, full/new moons, position of sun at an equinox or a solstice, positions of planets at certain times, etc).
        whatshisface 4y ago
        The planets wander around so much that just about any direction is towards a planet at a certain time.
        TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
        And what about my other examples?
      - sibeliuss 4y ago
        Two kinds: rough execution clearly by hand, containing imperfections and created over a period of time; other kind, mysterious origins or extraordinary skill, flawless execution, nearly-instant creation. To your second question: many of the symbols and data embedded in the more mysterious crop imprints is well thought out and contains a remarkable amount of meaning, and oftentimes includes representations of seemingly-important celestial configurations through time. They're not just like: a circle here, a pattern there. There's clear information being communicated through the art.
- teilo 4y ago
  All Occam's Razor actually says in this instance is that the vast majority of them were not done by Doug and Dave. That's it.
NaN1352 4y ago
Yeah, good ol’ Doug and Dave, tirelessly creating all those circles all those years. What’s funny to me is how we completely miss the point: how is this a prank? How are these circles "fake"? The circles themselves are real, and amazing art and fascinating as an experiment , whatever it is. Yet somehow soon as someone supposedly "debunks" circles as being man made, somehow the circles stop being interesting? If anything i think circles highlight that big flaw in human thinking. The6 highlight just how desperate we are for normality.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  It shows how over-inflated coverage can transform a triumph into a disappointment.
- mlyle 4y ago
  They still look pretty interesting. But, just like a magic performance loses some of the... um... magic when you know how it's done and the mystery is removed, so it is with crop circles. (Of course, you can have transcendent magical acts that are still awesome even when you know how they're done, as Penn and Teller love to illustrate with their cups and balls trick. But the bar is a little higher.)
comboy 4y ago
Wow, that's a fresh book. I'm not deep enough into this to order paperback to hear the full story, but since you disagree with the article can you provide your explanation and how you see it? If you think it was made by aliens, then how do you think it happens (e.g. the force needs to be not too high), why would nothing be recorded, why only on planted fields and not elsewhere? Just to be clear, I don't think any of them were made by aliens, but my questions are sincere, I hope you have some coherent structure built upon different axioms and would love to explore it.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  The aliens made it the same way the pranksters did, by walking around with a piece of wood underfoot. If you recall the basic principles of extraterrestrial contact with pre-warp civilizations, it is against the prime directive to reveal yourself or imply that your advanced technology is possible. In this legal context, the prank crop circles were a loophole - that allowed aliens to land and write messages that we will all have a good laugh about once you are admitted to the local group federation.
- sibeliuss 4y ago
  I honestly don't know what it is and am completely agnostic to whether it was created by man or supernatural being or alien or whatever. But there's a lot of evidence that many of them were created near-instantly, and they always leave a unique radiation signature. I'm not aware of a technology that can do that, but perhaps it's out there.
  - hunter-gatherer 4y ago
    > But there's a lot of evidence that many of them were created near-instantly, and they always leave a unique radiation signature Since there is a lot, can you point us lazy people to a few legitimate references for these claims? I can't find any.
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    I do not really believe in the radiation signature, but because photosynthesis preferentially fixes the unstable isotope of carbon, the smell of freshly cut grass would technically have a newer carbon date than plain air.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
swatcoder 4y ago
That book is probably fascinating and maybe even accurate, but it’s worth noting that it was self-published by a writer trying to make a living off of “ancient mysteries and alternative history” [1] That doesn’t rule out its veracity, but does suggest it could be more motivated by making sales through sensationalism than contributing to the record of knowledge through scholarship. https://invisibletemple.com/about.html https://invisibletemple.com/about.html
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  I take no position on crop circles, but, to be fair, discounting someone because they make their living studying something is not a reasonable thing to do. For example "Remember, this climate scientist gets lots of funding because people think there is a climate problem coming."
  - ehsankia 4y ago
    There's a difference between thousands of climate scientists collecting, analyzing and sharing data, vs one author writing a "fact" that is hard to verify. The post above claims some of these appeared overnight or even within hours. That's a cool claim that adds a lot of credibility to this being supernatural, but how can we verify such a fact? Do we have to take the word of this one person as a fact? A book written by an author is not science. The comparison to climate scientist is ridiculous.
    - ALittleLight 4y ago
      I don't think I did compare crop circles to climate science. I pointed out that the pattern of reasoning "Because X has an interest in Y we cannot trust X" applies equally well if X and Y are "fringe weirdo" and "crop circles" or if X and Y are "scientist" and "climate change". The fact that X studies Y, and has financial interests in it, does not mean that it is reasonable to discount X.
      - ehsankia 4y ago
cvccvroomvroom 4y ago
Unless believes in "Ancient Aliens" and Ouija boards, copycats and/or productivity, obviously, to increase tourism.
akomtu 4y ago
Crop circles was a great experiment that showed how immature people still are. Instead of united curiosity, as one might expect, something as benign as pictures on crop fields produced contempt, suspicion, envy and greed. Now imagine we were to find a tiny piece of actual alien tech: that would start a war between believers and non-believers, and the actual research would never happen because it would be a heresy.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  I don't get it. There was united curiosity; that curiosity was sated (for many) by seeing evidence that these were man-made. Not sure where envy and greed enter the picture. You shouldn't discount research as not "actual research" just because it shows you something you don't like.
timeon 4y ago
> for more that 20 seconds On the other hand, it is common with various mysteries, that there are people, who are heavily invested studying them. It is hard for them to admit that there could be just simple explanation.
nkrisc 4y ago
Of every explanation I’ve ever heard, “humans did it” is still the simplest and requires the fewest extraordinary circumstances. Every crop circle I’ve read about is still well within the realm of human ability. Crop circles would be one of the least complex things created by people. Imagine devoting your life to studying them and then slowly realizing it was probably just a prank. I’d blame aliens too. Better to double down than admit it was all for nought.
- tmm84 4y ago
  I also believe the "humans did it" explanation. Does it easily cover every single crop circle easily? Maybe not. But I have kept an open mind and for ever single reason someone gives for it being non-human in origin there is someone who explains it away as human/environmental in origin. For me, I don't feel that crop circles are that impressive and for all the fake crop circles that are done it makes it harder to take them seriously.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

quickthrowman 4y ago

I fully agree, applying Occam’s Razor implies that it was aliens, not two guys named Doug and Dave who inspired other humans to make similar crop circles.

whatshisface 4y ago
The OP is not saying it was aliens, they're saying that it was more people than just Doug and Dave and that other people put a lot more effort into it. It is a view supported by the article: >In its heyday there were probably five groups creating crop circles, Mr. Irving said,
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- sibeliuss 4y ago
  One of the key points here is that in many regards, these crop circles required no effort at all. One hour there was a blank field, and the next hour there was an enormous, sophisticated, astronomically and symbolically correct imprint. The book I posted above goes into great detail on how to distinguish between the two kinds.
  - lupire 4y ago
    What two kinds? What is "astronomically and symbolically correct"?
    - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
      The symbols in a crop circle acting like an astronomical calendar with points aligned to certain astronomical events (eclipses, full/new moons, position of sun at an equinox or a solstice, positions of planets at certain times, etc).
      - whatshisface 4y ago
        The planets wander around so much that just about any direction is towards a planet at a certain time.
        TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
        And what about my other examples?
    - sibeliuss 4y ago
      Two kinds: rough execution clearly by hand, containing imperfections and created over a period of time; other kind, mysterious origins or extraordinary skill, flawless execution, nearly-instant creation. To your second question: many of the symbols and data embedded in the more mysterious crop imprints is well thought out and contains a remarkable amount of meaning, and oftentimes includes representations of seemingly-important celestial configurations through time. They're not just like: a circle here, a pattern there. There's clear information being communicated through the art.
teilo 4y ago
All Occam's Razor actually says in this instance is that the vast majority of them were not done by Doug and Dave. That's it.

NaN1352 4y ago

Yeah, good ol’ Doug and Dave, tirelessly creating all those circles all those years. What’s funny to me is how we completely miss the point: how is this a prank? How are these circles "fake"? The circles themselves are real, and amazing art and fascinating as an experiment , whatever it is. Yet somehow soon as someone supposedly "debunks" circles as being man made, somehow the circles stop being interesting? If anything i think circles highlight that big flaw in human thinking. The6 highlight just how desperate we are for normality.

whatshisface 4y ago
It shows how over-inflated coverage can transform a triumph into a disappointment.
mlyle 4y ago
They still look pretty interesting. But, just like a magic performance loses some of the... um... magic when you know how it's done and the mystery is removed, so it is with crop circles. (Of course, you can have transcendent magical acts that are still awesome even when you know how they're done, as Penn and Teller love to illustrate with their cups and balls trick. But the bar is a little higher.)

comboy 4y ago

Wow, that's a fresh book. I'm not deep enough into this to order paperback to hear the full story, but since you disagree with the article can you provide your explanation and how you see it? If you think it was made by aliens, then how do you think it happens (e.g. the force needs to be not too high), why would nothing be recorded, why only on planted fields and not elsewhere? Just to be clear, I don't think any of them were made by aliens, but my questions are sincere, I hope you have some coherent structure built upon different axioms and would love to explore it.

whatshisface 4y ago
The aliens made it the same way the pranksters did, by walking around with a piece of wood underfoot. If you recall the basic principles of extraterrestrial contact with pre-warp civilizations, it is against the prime directive to reveal yourself or imply that your advanced technology is possible. In this legal context, the prank crop circles were a loophole - that allowed aliens to land and write messages that we will all have a good laugh about once you are admitted to the local group federation.
sibeliuss 4y ago
I honestly don't know what it is and am completely agnostic to whether it was created by man or supernatural being or alien or whatever. But there's a lot of evidence that many of them were created near-instantly, and they always leave a unique radiation signature. I'm not aware of a technology that can do that, but perhaps it's out there.
- hunter-gatherer 4y ago
  > But there's a lot of evidence that many of them were created near-instantly, and they always leave a unique radiation signature Since there is a lot, can you point us lazy people to a few legitimate references for these claims? I can't find any.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  I do not really believe in the radiation signature, but because photosynthesis preferentially fixes the unstable isotope of carbon, the smell of freshly cut grass would technically have a newer carbon date than plain air.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

swatcoder 4y ago

That book is probably fascinating and maybe even accurate, but it’s worth noting that it was self-published by a writer trying to make a living off of “ancient mysteries and alternative history” [1] That doesn’t rule out its veracity, but does suggest it could be more motivated by making sales through sensationalism than contributing to the record of knowledge through scholarship. https://invisibletemple.com/about.html https://invisibletemple.com/about.html

ALittleLight 4y ago
I take no position on crop circles, but, to be fair, discounting someone because they make their living studying something is not a reasonable thing to do. For example "Remember, this climate scientist gets lots of funding because people think there is a climate problem coming."
- ehsankia 4y ago
  There's a difference between thousands of climate scientists collecting, analyzing and sharing data, vs one author writing a "fact" that is hard to verify. The post above claims some of these appeared overnight or even within hours. That's a cool claim that adds a lot of credibility to this being supernatural, but how can we verify such a fact? Do we have to take the word of this one person as a fact? A book written by an author is not science. The comparison to climate scientist is ridiculous.
  - ALittleLight 4y ago
    I don't think I did compare crop circles to climate science. I pointed out that the pattern of reasoning "Because X has an interest in Y we cannot trust X" applies equally well if X and Y are "fringe weirdo" and "crop circles" or if X and Y are "scientist" and "climate change". The fact that X studies Y, and has financial interests in it, does not mean that it is reasonable to discount X.
    - ehsankia 4y ago

cvccvroomvroom 4y ago

Unless believes in "Ancient Aliens" and Ouija boards, copycats and/or productivity, obviously, to increase tourism.

akomtu 4y ago

Crop circles was a great experiment that showed how immature people still are. Instead of united curiosity, as one might expect, something as benign as pictures on crop fields produced contempt, suspicion, envy and greed. Now imagine we were to find a tiny piece of actual alien tech: that would start a war between believers and non-believers, and the actual research would never happen because it would be a heresy.

AlexandrB 4y ago
I don't get it. There was united curiosity; that curiosity was sated (for many) by seeing evidence that these were man-made. Not sure where envy and greed enter the picture. You shouldn't discount research as not "actual research" just because it shows you something you don't like.

timeon 4y ago

> for more that 20 seconds On the other hand, it is common with various mysteries, that there are people, who are heavily invested studying them. It is hard for them to admit that there could be just simple explanation.

nkrisc 4y ago

Of every explanation I’ve ever heard, “humans did it” is still the simplest and requires the fewest extraordinary circumstances. Every crop circle I’ve read about is still well within the realm of human ability. Crop circles would be one of the least complex things created by people. Imagine devoting your life to studying them and then slowly realizing it was probably just a prank. I’d blame aliens too. Better to double down than admit it was all for nought.

tmm84 4y ago
I also believe the "humans did it" explanation. Does it easily cover every single crop circle easily? Maybe not. But I have kept an open mind and for ever single reason someone gives for it being non-human in origin there is someone who explains it away as human/environmental in origin. For me, I don't feel that crop circles are that impressive and for all the fake crop circles that are done it makes it harder to take them seriously.