“Authentic crop circles have been verified in several peer reviewed SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL ARTICLES as distinct from the normal crop ground and from hoaxed circles in several respects. One of them is the nodes of the plants have evidently been zapped with something very close or akin to microwave energy extremely briefly. The ground has been dried out extremely dry. Micro-fine iron dust coats much of the plants and ground. There are some other differences I’m not recalling. Also, seeds from within the crop circles sprout and grow differently than those outside of the crop circle. Those from within are persistently more resistent to drought.”
Actually, National Geographic did a program on crop circles, looking at all the evidence and information. All that stuff you talk about with seeds growing differently, etc, is nothing but urban myth, much like everything else you claim about UFOs. I guess you are just one of those people that has such an open mind it becomes a receptacle for every kind of bizarre idea around.
By the way Mr PHD, “ongoingly” is not a word.
When I first began to study globalism . . . in 1965 . . . were you born yet? . . .
I was still incredulous about all the fringe organizations talking about such things etc.
My boss had already noted that I needed to be less derisive and dismissive because it was the fringe groups that had earliest and most accurately predicted who Hitler was and what he would do.
Then, he suggested that I look up the Boards of Directors of the various globalist organizations . . . and see how many repeats there were on the variouis Boards of Directors.
Turned out to be a rather small club.
And . . . drum roll . . . probably 80% or more of the National Geographic’s Board of Directors were serious globalists.
This was in 1965-69 era.
The Nat Geo—as beautiful as it is—has ALWAYS promulgated the globalist world view.
Trust them at your peril.
BTW, the agricultural science articles have been largely posted by me hereon—extensive excerpts anyway. The photographic proof and other proofs are in the articles.
The other source lied.
You seem to have another flawed assumption . . . that PhD’s are en masse great spellers.
ROTFLOL.
or that we even CARE about spelling.
By the way Mr PHD, “ongoingly” is not a word.
= = =
Then HOW ON EARTH
did you manage to type it?
ROTFLOL.