mjimih wrote:
Ok if they are all man made (99.9% probability)<---up from 78.2% a few days ago
then all teams are so far avoiding detection by those who are not known to them who would try to go out and find them to post their video on youtube.
Beyond wrote:
Well, now it's onto getting man to quit playing with his food and start doing something about food shortages. Just because you can turn food into something you can burn for fuel in your car and other things, doesn't mean that you should. In case of famine, you can't eat fuel and those other things.
those aren't included for me, nature is nature.neufer wrote: 1) It is probably NOT "man made =99.9% probability" since some are naturally made.
certainly not 100%, but I'm sure their are some who crave attention, bragging rights, or money. Or curiously want to see for themselves the phenomena. Of course I would imagine it would be exceedingly hard to find a team in action, unless a person in the know told someone when/where they would be. They could be spotted from a road or farm. which hasn't happened yet has it? I mean there are these docu's on the net that show people camped out on hillsides waiting with night vision goggles.neufer wrote: 2) Nobody really cares enough to bother finding the "culprits" (and certainly not 100% of the "culprits")
mjimih wrote:certainly not 100%, but I'm sure their are some who crave attention, bragging rights, or money. Or curiously want to see for themselves the phenomena. Of course I would imagine it would be exceedingly hard to find a team in action, unless a person in the know told someone when/where they would be. They could be spotted from a road or farm. which hasn't happened yet has it? I mean there are these docu's on the net that show people camped out on hillsides waiting with night vision goggles.neufer wrote:
Nobody really cares enough to bother finding the "culprits"
(and certainly not 100% of the "culprits")
Most "crop circle researchers" have found all kinds of things that have been debunked by serious researchers. Several were debunked in the Nat Geo doc. You were probably watching some pseudo-scientific documentary. There are plenty to be found on youtube. Most are easy to spot, especially when posted by "UFObob" or some such.Beyond wrote:One thing that i remember from the earlier documentary, is the study done on the actual structure of the plants that were bent. Not only did they find that microscopic iron beads were infused into the plant, but also that the internal structure of the plant was changed to accommodate the bending of it, so the plant stem didn't break. In all of the plants they examined, the internal structure was shortened proportionally in the direction of the bending. If they tried to straighten up the plant, then they broke. The internal cell structure had been shortened more and more from the outside radius of the bend, to the inside radius of the bend, as if the plants had originally grown that way.
Most crop circles are made within the growing season of the crops when the crops are not stiff and brittle, and at night when the ground is more moist. The example made for the video was made during the full heat of the day on fully mature plants that had begun drying out. That was explained in the video, and the circle makers did complain about it.On this video, the flattened plants are so uneven looking. It's the first thing i noticed. On the earlier documentary, the plants layed down much more smoothly.
I didn't know that Chris liked wheat thins.neufer wrote:Click to play embedded YouTube video.mjimih wrote:certainly not 100%, but I'm sure their are some who crave attention, bragging rights, or money. Or curiously want to see for themselves the phenomena. Of course I would imagine it would be exceedingly hard to find a team in action, unless a person in the know told someone when/where they would be. They could be spotted from a road or farm. which hasn't happened yet has it? I mean there are these docu's on the net that show people camped out on hillsides waiting with night vision goggles.neufer wrote:
Nobody really cares enough to bother finding the "culprits"
(and certainly not 100% of the "culprits")
The one they showed being made at night wasn't made in the heat of the day. And the documentary i saw on TV years ago, before i had a computer, seemed to be a normal one, like National Geographic or PBS does. They weren't trying to prove or disprove, just present what their investigation found. Of course, being an earlier one, someone could have slipped in some deceptive stuff, before it became much more fashionable than today. But overall it really doesn't matter. Things are what they are and the world is full of such stuff. I'd much rather eat the crops than go around in circles talking about them.bystander wrote:Most "crop circle researchers" have found all kinds of things that have been debunked by serious researchers. Several were debunked in the Nat Geo doc. You were probably watching some pseudo-scientific documentary. There are plenty to be found on youtube. Most are easy to spot, especially when posted by "UFObob" or some such.Beyond wrote:One thing that i remember from the earlier documentary, is the study done on the actual structure of the plants that were bent. Not only did they find that microscopic iron beads were infused into the plant, but also that the internal structure of the plant was changed to accommodate the bending of it, so the plant stem didn't break. In all of the plants they examined, the internal structure was shortened proportionally in the direction of the bending. If they tried to straighten up the plant, then they broke. The internal cell structure had been shortened more and more from the outside radius of the bend, to the inside radius of the bend, as if the plants had originally grown that way.
Most crop circles are made within the growing season of the crops when the crops are not stiff and brittle, and at night when the ground is more moist. The example made for the video was made during the full heat of the day on fully mature plants that had begun drying out. That was explained in the video, and the circle makers did complain about it.On this video, the flattened plants are so uneven looking. It's the first thing i noticed. On the earlier documentary, the plants layed down much more smoothly.
Well, they charged a fairly stiff "entry fee" of circa $30, and then I sat on a chair for hours and listened as a woman showed us one stunning crop circle after another and explained how these circles were created due to (oops, I'm not allowed to discuss that). Be that as it may, I was definitely impressed by the crop circles, but not by the woman's explanations as to how they were created. She did say that the crude ones were man-made and the fantastic ones were made by _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _(fill in your own explanation).
I didn't know that Chris was that bigBeyond wrote:
I didn't know that Chris liked wheat thins.
I guess you missed the picture of him astride his horse that he posted back when. Kinda reminded me of Marshall Dillon of Gun smoke. Of course when he lets his true Yeti nature show, it just adds a little to his stature. He's a Big dude, even with out letting his Abominable Snowman-ness hang out.neufer wrote:I didn't know that Chris was that bigBeyond wrote:
I didn't know that Chris liked wheat thins.
Beyond wrote:I guess you missed the picture of him astride his horse that he posted back when. Kinda reminded me of Marshall Dillon of Gun smoke. Of course when he lets his true Yeti nature show, it just adds a little to his stature. He's a Big dude, even with out letting his Abominable Snowman-ness hang out.neufer wrote:I didn't know that Chris was that bigBeyond wrote:
I didn't know that Chris liked wheat thins.
Only if you read/listen/seriously consider as true what is available from pseudoscience sources. You might do better learning how to recognize bunk from real information.mjimih wrote:But if I dig deeper I'll probably just get even more puzzled.
first, thanks. I can always use good advice.owlice wrote:Only if you read/listen/seriously consider as true what is available from pseudoscience sources. You might do better learning how to recognize bunk from real information.mjimih wrote:But if I dig deeper I'll probably just get even more puzzled.
it takes longer to sift thru the info. I do work at not being gullible, but one needs to at least look around at different points of view to see thru the fog sometimes (aka; many web sites). I took chemistry, anthropology in college, and astronomy in HS. We even had a fairly large telescope sticking out of the roof of our classroom.
http://guardianlv.com/2013/10/the-yeti-is-real-according-to-scientist/ wrote: The Yeti Is Real According to Scientist
Added by Kimberly Ruble on October 17, 2013.
<<The Yeti, which is what Bigfoot is known as in Asia, has come back into the public’s view and a very well respected British geneticist is at the middle of it all. Bryan Sykes, who is a professor and a scientist of human genetics at Oxford, has conducted DNA research on hair samples purported to be from Yetis. What he claims to have found is a chromosomal match for a prehistoric polar bear. So Bigfoot is alive, or at least his Asian cousin appears to be.
Each hair sample came from different areas high up in the Himalayan Mountains, but matched up hereditarily with a polar bear jawbone which was over 40,000 years of age that had been found in Norway. He believes that his studies show the ancient polar bears cross bred with brown bears and they ended up creating the hybrid creature which came to be known as the Yeti. When the hair samples and jawbone DNA matched up, it caused major excitement. That was an exciting and completely unexpected result that gave us all a surprise, explained Sykes.
The professor equaled mummified remains of a creature that had been given to him by an explorer over 40 years ago with hairs found from a live creature that was discovered about a decade ago. An explorer was climbing Mount Everest back in the 1950s and he helped start Sykes interest in the Yeti myth after he showed him pictures he had taken of strange footprints he found in the snow. With all this, it seems that Bigfoot is really alive, researchers are claiming. Sykes does not actually think there are prehistoric polar bears running around out in the wild, but he does think it is possible a kind of modern bear came from these lineages. The bear clarification sounds more reasonable than the gigantic hairy hominoid folklore of the Yeti. The research is also involved in a bigger project to provide chromosomal tests on alleged Bigfoot samples which have been collected all over the world. The results of his investigation of over 35 samples will be revealed at a later date.
For many years travelers have insisted that the Yeti exists, and have even given the beast the nickname the “Abominable Snowman”. Sykes knows this and added that Bigfootologists and other devotees seem to believe that they have been rejected by science. He says that science does not reject or accept anything at all. Science examines the evidence and that is what he is doing. If what Professor Sykes has researched ends up to be true, it would mean that a fourth formerly unknown type of bear hybrid is alive and well and is living up in the Himalayas. It will join up with the other known varieties of bear that are known to live in the region: the brown bear, the Asiatic black bear, and the sloth bear.>>
