No, you say that YOU have. I personally haven't seen anyone create a crop circle..
They weren't of such impressive quality, but they WERE crop circles.
If you want to take it literally, sure, I could go outside and mow my lawn and form a circle. I suppose that would be a crop circle in your eyes. BUT, it is not the phenonema that we are discussing.
We can extrapolate easily from what we've seen that the techniques were sound, merely the execution was flawed.
No, the techniques were flawed, and no matter how well they executed the technique, the result would be less than perfect.
From Crop Circle Hoaxing:
(c) It was claimed that the only equipment they used was a ball of string, a measuring tape and a wooden plank. Compare this to the mind-boggling array of equipment dragged into the fields by contestants in a hoaxing contest held some years ago. Also, I would defy them to explain how they inscribed the fairly complex pattern from a piece of paper onto the field with only a piece of string. [Circle researcher] Michael Glickman once asked an architectural firm what it would take to reproduce the Windmill Hill formation (also called the "Triple Julia" of 1996 -- about 1000 feet in diameter and made of 200 circles). After studying it for a few days, their estimate was many days work and thousands of dollars in costs.
(d) Very little detail of the ground lay was shown. An aerial photo paints a pretty picture but tells little about possible origins. Anyone who ever accepted a counterfeit $20 bill can tell you they would not have been duped had they inspected it closer. So too with crop formations. Careful inspection is required in order to determine authenticity. Damage to crop, soil compaction, complex weaving, footprints, various anomalies in the way the crop is laying, fluidity of the lay, spilled seeds, etc. are all signs one must look for. To suggest that three men running around for six hours stomping crop with planks is enough to create the strange effects we often see, yet not cause damage, is a bit much to believe. We have seen other man-made formations with substantial damage. Is it a coincidence virtually no ground details were shown? Is it also a coincidence the field was harvested and the formation destroyed before anyone could inspect it?
Meaning if you give better people (also people working without TV crews being annoying) the same tools you can expect better results.
And I suppose they should have no problem in the pitch black darkness if they can't get it right with overhead lights?
Homey ain't buying into the weaving and the 90 degrees. There hasn't been nearly enough proof of either of those claims,
Those are the facts whether you like them or not...
nor has there been any significant proof that these "achievements" are beyond the realm of current human technology or the board and rope method.
Since not one formation has been formed with that method that even comes close to the design and precision of REAL ones, I'd say that's proof enough.
Find something beyond the realm of current possibility.
Discovery of an Ancient 3D "Relief Map" of the Ural Region. Discovered in China!
Don't just keep repeating yourself over and over, what wasn't convincing at post 8 still isn't convincing at post 588 (or whatever the hell number we're on).
You obviously need repetition, as you still don't get it.
Find something new, or find evidence that the stuff you've presented really is significant.
I suggest you do the same.