The parallelism with certain other delusional systems is sharp and clear. You're argument rests solely on invectives and ridicule. You have offered the opinion of a self admitted fraud as gospel. You appear to be either threatened by the idea that these circles exist and weren't created by "hoaxsters". Might your whole world fall apart if you don't spew venom over this?
You have proven nothing but your insecurity, and perhaps your state of mind as well..
de·lu·sion Pronunciation Key (d -l  zh n)
n.
-
- The act or process of deluding.
- The state of being deluded.
- A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
- Psychiatry. A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.
|
Since I have given you invalidating evidence to your belief that these are all simply man-made formations, and you still hold your false belief, I can safely assume that you have a bit of a problem.
Oh, now this makes it complete! Definitions trotted out as if they were proof of your thesis. Do you sometimes post under another name or are you "doing" somebody whose style you admire?
You make a point of missing my point. In explaining the origin of something like a lot of flattened corn, the default assumption for most people is never going to be "little green men" for whom there is nothing but anecdotal evidence. I'm telling you where the bar is set whether you want to hear it or not. In statements like those that follow, however, you clearly assume that it's LGMs until somebody shows it ain't.
You appear to be either threatened by the idea that these circles exist and weren't created by "hoaxsters". (Where's the evidence for anything else?)
He didn't say undergraduates COULD do it. He said that this so-called "Occam's razor" theorem SUGGESTS that undergraduates were MORE THAN LIKELY responsible. That is a far cry from undergraduates actually having done it.
I wondered if you were familiar with Occam's Razor. In fact, I guessed not. Yes, Occam's Razor suggests what should be the default assumption and what should have the burden of proof. It doesn't tell you what is true, although it should give you ideas.
One way to describe Occam's Razor is that you don't unnecessarily multiply conjectures. Confronted with two explanations which seem to work equally well so far, choose the simplest, the one with the fewest so-far unverified elements. Your theory needs alien spaceships which have only the sort of anecdotal evidence that exists for ghosts, yetis, Bigfoot, chupacabras, the Monkey Man of India, that sort of thing.
There are other forms of Occam's Razor. The common saying that "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck" is one. For most people, your crop circles quack like a prank.