Is there any factual connection between the first 3 categories, other than some people believe they all belong in the latter one?
I’ve read plenty of accounts of these events all occuring in specific locales, but they tend to come from new-age type sources; are then any neutral researchers who have verified these sort of claims?
Imagining a link between the first three items is a clear example of the fourth.
What kind of factual evidence would you expect? A video showing alien beings in a flying saucer landing in a corn field and then taking off again, leaving a circle?
So, there is NO evidence that Ley Lines or paths of magnetic influence exist and that ufo sightings and crop circles follow their paths in any way?
No there is none.
I see better what you mean now, you are interested in geographical correspondence between claimed sightings or locations of the various phenomena. I’m certainly not in a position to assert that there is no evidence of something (neither is anyone, it’s unprovable). However I highly doubt that there is, on the grounds the first two are too ridiculous to take seriously (although serious arguments can be made about them if it comes to it) and I’ve never heard of ley lines but a quick scan of the Wikipedia article suggests that it is just more silliness.
I would think that crop circles might follow UFO sightings. That would be because pranksters want a susceptible audience.
That’s right, BA. I was just wondering if there might have been any geographic statistical details on ufo’s that corresponded with other ‘unexplained’ events, or created some kind of pattern. Regardless of any physical sort of proof of these sort of things, surely there is something to be learned from man’s tendency to believe them. And just dismissing these beliefs as ridiculous seems unfair when religion gets such a free pass.
I think certainly there is - pattern recognition is a natural human talent, and in nature false positives (seeing a pattern where none exists) are usually safer than false negatives (missing a real pattern), so our pattern detectors are tuned to be super sensitive.
If it makes you feel better, I have no trouble dismissing most religious claims just as easily. And like I said, it’s not that no arguments exist against these things being real, it just doesn’t seem worthwhile to drag them out when they’ve all been said before.
So, you don’t think there are any more Copernician moments awaiting us as a race?
I don’t see how that follows from anything I’ve said.
Well, considering that ley lines were first discussed in a book The Old Straight Track as a curiosity of roads connecting community centers using natural features as landmarks to get from one place to another, and nothing woo woo mystical about it, the whole mystic thang has always baffled me.
Of course if you are on foot the scenic long way is stupid, you go from point to point the shortest and least difficult way you can, and in a time when there arent GPS and maps, the directions to get somewhere are probably more like " follow this river that way until you get to a largish cliff, then turn left, and head towards that big hill that looks like Tamss wifes arse…’ so since people plop businesses down at convenient crossroads, and near religious settlements, you get a direct link growing up between that big cliff on the river and that hill that looks like arse. If you plunk another shrine in the middle somewhere, of course it lines up, it is on the fewking road …
It follows because you are suggesting that everything is done and dusted regarding these subjects, and there is nothing new to learn. Sort of like the argument used against Copernicus to deny that Earth revolved around the Sun. Or was that Galileo? I might have mixed my astronomers up.
In Copernicus’ case, there were phenomenon that could be explained. In the case of crop circles and ley lines (I guess, I’ve never heard of them) there’s nothing to explain. Crop circles are made by hoaxers, pure and simple. There simply is nothing else to examine.
UFOs are, by definition, unidentified. But we’ve identified huge numbers of them and have never come up with something that defies our ability to understand. Sure, there’s always the possibility that we’re being visited by aliens, but we’ve got no evidence of that. Bring back evidence and we’ll talk.
Being open to new possibilities doesn’t mean you have to give everything the same weight.
I’ve no argument with that.
Have you ever seen that 16th century woodcut of a crop circle?
Was this the first hoaxer then?
Or is that an obvious forgery designed to back up the cerealogists claims?
p.s. aruvquan, your contribution hasn’t gone unappreciated.
Cerealogists? Seriously?
Wow, for a relatively educated and open-minded bunch, many here willing to dismiss things out of hand. tsk, tsk. That is not sound science.
I’ve done a lot of reading and research on UFOs, crop circles, and the like. These are not subjects which can just be dismissed out of hand, given the evidence, imo. Not that they necessarily represent “paranormal” activities, but they represent something beyond the usual and fully understood. Anyone who has taken the time to seriously examine them would realize this.
Have there been hoaxers? Absolutely. Can every UFO sighting or crop circle be explained away as the work of hoaxers? Absolutely not. There are far too many very well documented incidents which cannot be explained as the work of man or known natural phenomenon.
For example, crop circles have been very well studied and the differences between the examples known to have been created by a few people using boards and ropes to mash down crops and other examples of the phenomenon are many and obvious to those who investigate.
In most crop circles, the plants are not crushed or broken but appear to have been caused to lie down by some fluid force. Likewise the intricate way the compressed stalks intertwine is impossible to recreate manually.
Readings of magnetism and radiation have been taken and found to be unusual compared to the surrounding areas, indicating some residual effect from some actual, unexplained event. The molecular structure of the plant tissues has been found to be abnormal as well.
Further, there are cases in which reliable human witnesses preclude a hoax, unless it is one carried out by means far beyond those available to any known humans. (or carried out by otherwise sane and reasonable individuals in the form of a false report, although that is unlikely considering that few of the witnesses sought out publicity and were, in most cases, eager that the event not lead to attention and further damage to their crops and/or reputations)
In one case, the witness was inspecting the crops and crested a hill, then retraced his steps after witnessing a UFO and having his dog run back to the area. In the space of 5 minutes or so, a large, elaborate crop cirlce had been formed.
In another case, possibly the only known one in which the formation of a crop circle is actually witnessed (from Texas, I believe) the witness reported a high, circular wind and strange lights, similar to aurora borealis, over his field immediately before discovering the formation.
As for why UFOs, crop circles and ley lines are associated, it is simply that they have often been noted to occur in close proxcimity, both in time and space. One theory is that crop circles are an electro-magnetic or weather related event, a natural phenomenon which spontaneously occurs. (which I find highly plausible. The intricacy and seeming intelligence involved in the patterns doesn’t preclude this theory, imo, since nature often produced very intricate and seemingly intelligent patterns, such as snowflakes.)
And since ley lines are thought to be magnetic in nature and so often run near or through crop circle formations, there is a possibility they are an associated or causative factor.
Some speculate UFOs, whatever they represent, are either a causative factor or an effect of the crop circle/ley line phenomenon. That they may play some role in forming the circles OR be drawn to them during or soon after formation. (one researcher speculated that UFO sightings were an effect on the human mind of the abnormal magnetic fields)
Regardless, these are phenomenon which cannot be summarily poo-pooed given the data to date. As with Bigfoot, just because there is evidence of hoaxes in some cases does not prove or even suggest given the total evidence that ALL sightings were the result of hoaxers (yes, those darn native Americans started this hoax hundreds of years ago just to mess with us:rolleyes:)
But this has been the standard response for so long, to ridicule such things and so inhibit serious research and witness accounts. Fortunately there are some scientists willing to risk peer mockery to publicly investigate such events, and many others who do so quietly. One day we may actually understand what’s going on.
Sorry, but without some cites for your claims, I call BS. Show some data, then we’ll talk.
Hmm, where to start? There is an abundance of data available, and one could devote a lifetime to compiling and reviewing it all. Anyone with any serious interest in the subjects can easily locate this information, but for those content to dismiss out of hand, a lot easier to demand “proof” and call “BS” than bother.
What exactly are you “calling BS” ON? My explanation of why these phenomenon/subjects are linked? Or my argument that they represent some actual, measurable, and most likely natural phenomenon? Is your position really that every single UFO and crop circle report is a hoax or the result of known phenomenon? That is the most implausible theory of all, imo, and I would like to see some cites in support of it.
Here’s an interesting study (yes, people actually have seriously studied crop circles):
A comparison of one formation theory and the hoax theory:
http://www.controversial-science.com/current/cc-hypothesis-comparison.htm
And just one for fun, a hodgepodge of crop circle info I just came across:
http://www.jerrypippin.com/crop_circles.htm
Easy enough to do a search on UFOs and come up with an equal or greater quantity of information.
The standard debunking position aside, I don’t feel it is necessary to offer cites in support of my position that these phenomenon exist and represent something other than presently understood events. I am not arguing as for WHAT they represent, only that they DO, although I have my own opinions.
Does anyone want to address the claims in this video from 4.45 onwards?
I don’t know about his claims (and I have very little patience for malarkey), but “Eltjo Haselhoff, physicist” got me googling, and Eltjo appears to be this guy, a guitarist; note the strikingly same likeness to the video – its obviously the same guy. Not that he can’t also be a physicist (ala Brian May), but it does make me wonder how far his tongue was in his cheek during the interview, and if his scientific credentials were checked out before filming or just credulously accepted as genuine.
