I'm not refuting your statement and I am not making a case for anything ET but I'd like to know how the folks that feel they are man-made explain some of the things that are found near the center of some of these formations.
Such as the differences seen at the molecular level in the seeds of affected crops near the center as opposed to those further towards the outside of some formations.
Also, how is it that in some formations, the stalks are broken at the base...leaving little to the imagination as to how they are bent...but on other formations, not a single stalk shows any sign of damage at the base...they are simply bent and look as if they grew that way.
Just curious how some folks account for these anomalies in an overnight, man-made formation.
There are a variety of tricks crop-circle makers use that are really simple, but produce results that can seem freaky. For example, bent but unbroken stalks can be made by attatching a board to your foot, and pushing the stalks sideways, then down.
Here is a bit on some MIT guys who make them. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/2002/oct09/crops.html
I've read a number of the "reports" of such "phenomena". I have yet to see one that rises above "true believers seeing what they want to see in the test results".
Furthermore, a lot of the crop circle nuts (excuse me, "researchers") have little or no expertise in the testing methods they're attempting to use, or are working way out of their field (no pun intended), etc. Mostly they're a bunch of overenthusiastic amateurs frantically looking for something "special" about the flattened crops -- and if you look for something long and hard enough, you can find it, whether there's actually anything there or not.
Also, how is it that in some formations, the stalks are broken at the base...leaving little to the imagination as to how they are bent...but on other formations, not a single stalk shows any sign of damage at the base...
Please provide a source for the amazing claim that "not a single stalk" shows "any" sign of damage. These kinds of claims are common among "paranormalists", but almost inevitably fade away when someone tries to substantiate them.
they are simply bent and look as if they grew that way.
"Simply bent" is easy -- when young and fresh many crop plants will bend instead of breaking. Duh.
"Look as if they grew that way" sounds like another one of the overblown claims or those that "grow in the telling" (e.g. "bent but not broken" morphs into "just like they had grown that way" after a few retellings).
Just curious how some folks account for these anomalies in an overnight, man-made formation.
In short, sloppy methods and sloppy reporting by the overenthusiastic.
I have yet to find any amazing claim about crop circles that didn't fade into the mundane the closer you looked into it.