2004 Crop Circle Season Live Thread

Crop Circle News ^ | Sunday, May 16, 2004

[Momaw Nadon]

First Significant UK formation of 2004 spotted

On May 3, near Deacon Hill in Bedfordshire, UK, the first significant formation of the year has been spotted in a flowering field of oil seed rape.

The formation is similar in design to the 2003 Locust Grove, Ohio formation that appeared close to the Serpent Mound earthwork.

Although it has been raining rather steadily, since being spotted, the formation has been inspected, and there have been some details that have emerged which may indicate the formation may be not have been a human mechanically-made one.

[Long Cut]

"Some (not you) seem to want to shut down any critical inquiry from the get go."

I think that what annoys some (and I'm guilty of it sometimes myself) is that some people use faulty logic. They want so much to BELIEVE in paranormal things, like some "alien" origin for the circles, or some strange Government conspiracy, that they blow right by Occam's Razor.

The actual simplest explanation is, and always has been, that they are made by humans with ingenuity and cleverness. For some, however, that is simply TOO simple, and not nearly as romantic.

[Rennes Templar]

Long Cut? Isn't that the name of a secretive crop circle society?

[G.Mason]

I'm afraid compliments won't get you anywhere. ;)

[TigersEye]

Thank you for the links. I hope you weren't also burdened with the struggle not to simply isult me for asking who and how they're made. ;^)

[Momaw Nadon]

Is this for a television show? Is it on Discover or TLC?

This live event will be taking place throughout the spring, summer, and fall of 2004.

The first significant formation of the year was reported on May 3, 2004.

[Long Cut]

Yeah, they only work tobacco fields. ; )

[TigersEye]

You seem willing to accept them.

Thank you. Thank you very much, I am. I merely challenged the concept that "this is what it is and that's it, I say so, drop the subject." That is so typical of the uncritical acceptance of whatever the powers-that-be say things are that has become more and more of the standard instead of the exception here on FR that I tend to challenge it wherever I encounter it.

It's not a religion of peace and you can't negotiate with homicidal/suicidal maniacs.

[TigersEye]

I'm afraid compliments won't get you anywhere. ;)

If you think you're going to offend me by not being offended by me ... it's not going to work! ;^)

[Quix]

Thanks.

[varina davis]

Here is a source (if it's still in business) for all you crop circle buffs. She provided info for a story I wrote some years ago:

Ilyes, National Coordinator for the Center for Crop Circles Studies/U.S. Network, Port Angeles, Wash.

[TigersEye]

They want so much to BELIEVE in paranormal things, like some "alien" origin for the circles, or some strange Government conspiracy, that they blow right by Occam's Razor.

Not me. I don't want to believe anything I want to know. FWIW several years ago I saw a program that showed clear video of unbroken stalks of wheat, normal resolution and magnified in a large CS. I grew up in eastern CO and I know what wheat stalks are like and you can't do that by bending it over, however gently, at any stage of growth. They also showed the elongation of cells in the bent area of every stalk. They didn't seem like flaky scientists at all. There were no footprints in or out of the field at all.

I don't believe in space aliens or energetic electronic atmospheric power bursts that create geometric designs but I have yet to see convincing explanations of how some low-tech jokers did that over night. You have some answers. That's very cool!

[mikegi]

What's so hilarious about this whole "crop circle" stuff is how it brings out the brainless nuts. I saw a local access TV show years ago where a woman talked about crop circles (she was one of those airhead West coast types in Oregon). She went on and on talking about how she thought the aliens were saying they meant us no harm, etc. I don't know how such people manage to walk and breathe at the same time.

[varina davis]

Here is the website for Ilyes:

http://cropcircleconnector.com/ilyes/ilyes.html

[Long Cut]

Oh, as for footsteps in or out of the field, look again at the pictures...most all the circles are done over rows cut in the field, which can be seen a horizontal lines running across the entire crop. The makers use those for access, just as the farmers do.

I believe that the non-breaking of the stalks has to do with the type of crop and the soil involved. I'd have to look that up. If the soil is loose and moist, with the right kind of plants, it might be likely that many would not break.

[Quix]

Fascinating.

In the last several months, I forget where, I've ran across an assertion that the circles--even very complex designs could easily be produced by a certain satellite weapon with virtually any design the satellite operator had on his computer.

Anyone else have any infor on this?

Thanks.

[Ichneumon]

It would be extremely difficult to plot out a complicated design amidst crops and then execute the flattening of the crops accurately without setting up transits, running guide lines, pulling lines with expanding or diminishing arcs as in a French Curve (as some CS designs have) and leaving a huge mess of plants disturbed and ground trodden outside the designe itself.

Oh, please. First, often many plants *are* disturbed "outside the design itself". You just don't hear about it often because the media can sell more papers by playing up the "Twilight Zone" aspect (and because crop circle fans aren't prone to admit details that could undercut the "it's aliens, I tell you!" position).

But as for what can be done with simple tools, anyone with a basic Geometry background knows that you can construct almost any pattern with great precision using nothing more than a straightedge (e.g. rope stretched between two points) and a compass (e.g. measured length of rope held fixed at one point while the other end is swung in a circle). Just plan out the design on paper in advance, then prepare a list of the appropriate measurements and "constructors" before you head out to the field.

Another method that can be used to reproduce any arbitrary design, no matter how complicated, is to draw it first (or print it from the computer) onto graph paper. Each square becomes a measured plot of ground (all you need is a ruler), in which you bend the crops in an approximation of the part of the pattern that overlaps that square on the "chart". This is often used by beginning artists, and is known as the "grid method" -- it even works great for reproducing 3D subjects, as seen below:

And plow/plant lines make great landmarks for keeping the grid lines straight.

Neither of these methods requires any tools or techniques not available to the ancient Egyptians, or the folks who made the Nazca lines.

Variations include constructing pre-measured angles on the blueprint using measured distances from a baseline, a feature produced in steps 1-(N-1), or sticks set into place as foundation markers (then removed and their holes covered up when finished).

Furthermore, the "geometric precision" of crop circles is often overstated. For example, consider this one:

Wow, looks too perfect to be manmade, right? But look again...

First, keep in mind that squashing a circle into the crops is easy -- hold one end of a rope where you want the center to be, then just carry the other end around the fixed end while keeping rope taught -- just like using a compass in drafting.

So the only "difficult" part of this pattern is positioning the circles themselves. It looks precise at first glance, but the more you look the more the flaws stand out. For example, each "arm" is made of thirteen circles. Well, except for the one that radiates out from the "10 o'clock" position and ends at the top. It's got *twelve* circles. Oops. The one next to it, that starts at the "12 o'clock" position, has thirteen circles, but the last one is extremely "stunted" because the pranksters misjudged the earlier circles' positions/sizes and ran out of room. And there are a *lot* of irregularities in the positions of the smaller "satellite" circles". Also note that the "arms" themselves are laid out in nice semi-circular arcs. Again, flattening a circle or laying out a circular path is quite easy using any variety of methods -- even methods that have the restriction that you must stay "on" the arc itself at all times, and not take up position at the circle's center. So the "difficulty level" of this pattern isn't nearly as great as it appears at first glance.

Similarly, the following "complex" pattern turns out to be pretty simple to construct:

Looks fancy, until you realize that every arc in the design is simply made up of -- overlapping circles. And again, the more you look at the design, the more irregularities you'll see -- the overlapped circles aren't positioned exactly right, and thus the spaces between them are irregular in size and shape.

Finally, handheld GPS devices have been available for a long time now (since 1989), and the production of any arbitrarily complex crop design would be made trivial using preselected GPS coordinates.

And all this is accomplished without being noticed, spending hours with flashlights in a field.

Contrary to popular belief, after working hard all day, farmers don't make a habit of staying up all night looking out over their fields. Nor do night-owls traveling the roads in the middle of the night out in farm country generally bother to go investigate an unremarkable and faint distant light (if they can see them at all over the top of the crops).

I don't doubt that some pranksters have been discovered in the act, but it's unremarkable that most manage to pull it off without notice.

[TigersEye]

The makers use those for access, just as the farmers do.

Don't farmers leave footprints in mud and dirt? I always did when I was hunting pheasant.

I'd have to look that up. ... it might be likely that many would not break.

That's it. It still lacks a full explanation. Which makes it interesting. Occam's Razor is true, it's overwhelmingly likely that they are all made by men. But some have striking and difficult to explain characteristics. Bending the stalk of any plant to the ground without damaging its vascular structure (as was convincingly shown in that program) is ... difficult. I garden a lot and I collect wild medicinal plants so I have a wide pool of experience to draw on concering plant structure/durability/flexibility. And then there's the structural change on the cellular level (shown clearly in a magnified photo) that is not the result of bending and didn't rupture the cells.

Occam's Razor? The show was a hoax. But a good one.

[aculeus]

[TigersEye]

First, often many plants *are* disturbed "outside the design itself". You just don't hear about it often because the media can sell more papers ...

I don't need to hear about it when I can (and have) seen numerous high quality photos that show crisp lines and no disturbance outside the design. Having searched extensively for wild plants in the non-geometric patterns of wildland plant populations I know that the smallest disturbance sticks out like a sore thumb. In the set pattern of a cultivated field it sticks out more.

then prepare a list of the appropriate measurements and "constructors" before you head out to the field.

Right. The extensive guidelines I suggested. A fixed point of reference would have to be established that rose above the crop for visibility or access by line, not obstructed by the crop. A lot of crap to drag into a field set up and take out unobserved.

Each square becomes a measured plot of ground (all you need is a ruler), in which you bend the crops in an approximation of the part of the pattern that overlaps that square on the "chart". This is often used by beginning artists, and is known as the "grid method" -- it even works great for reproducing 3D subjects, as seen below:

I'm familiar with it. I first used it in the third grade. You then have to lay down the graphing squares on the field in order to copy from the original. It's pretty hard to transfer from one scale to the other if you don't have a good perspective from above. Each 'artist' would have to have that and would have to stay focused on which part he was replicating. I never said aliens were doing it I'm pointing out the difficulty of it.

Furthermore, the "geometric precision" of crop circles is often overstated. For example, consider this one: ...

From here on down you offer some well considered analysis of the flaws and possibilities of construction. Thank you. I'd like to test your theory of how easy it is to bend over plants, masses of plants, with a rope between two people and keep them bent over but I don't want to come home with rock salt in my butt.

[Ichneumon]

["Simply bent" is easy -- when young and fresh many crop plants will bend instead of breaking. Duh.]

Don't garden much do you?

As a matter of fact, I do, and I also grew up in farm country and spent a lot of time wandering through fields of various crops, including the wheat and corn favored by crop circle pranksters.