Crop Circles just one sign of Revelation

[toast]

*Snip post loop*

Edited February 13, 2014 by toast

[Thorvir]

The serial debunkers are getting really desperate now, folks

That's actually quite a desperate post on your part, as crop circles are definitively man-made (as in they have never been proven to be anything but), you've been stymied at every turn in this thread (and any dissenting views are treated with intolerance, or you just ignore them, yet you push your own--with no proof--as absolute), and it doesn't take much effort to debunk in the first place.

Since a determined person can go out, sometimes on his/her own, and recreate a crop circle with ease, why does it have to be the most outlandishly wild reason to explain what crop circles are?

And yes, for some reason, I read through this thread. Ugh.

[Kludge808]

That's actually quite a desperate post on your part, ... [a lot of good stuff snipped for brevity]

First off, welcome to the thread and to UM in general. It can be loads of fun here as well as quite educational. You'll run into folks who truly believe all sorts of rather unique ideas and make a wide variety of outlandish claims. It should be noted that you're among friends (and the occasional fiend) here.

And yes, for some reason, I read through this thread. Ugh.

UM needs to create an award for folks who put themselves through that sort of grief. Kind of a digital purple heart.

[toast]

And yes, for some reason, I read through this thread. Ugh.

You need to go for psychological care immediately!

[Kludge808]

You need to go for psychological care immediately!

I've been in the care of psychnannies for 16+ years. I'm not sure even that will be of any help.

[toast]

I've been in the care of psychnannies for 16+ years. I'm not sure even that will be of any help.

[WhispersInTheAttic]

I read some videos about crop circles and usually they're created over night; never during the day time which I remember people who were skeptics believed other people was helping creating the crop circles. Others however believe that's in an act from aliens. My thoughts are ify on this: cause their never created during the day night, they're only created at night. It's hard to believe in certain things these days cause people study this and analyze on what could have created this. Not saying aliens don't exist cause I do believe they exist but I don't believe they created these crop circles. I'd like to hear other peoples opinions on it though and won't shoot down anyone's thoughts on it.

[S2F]

And yes, for some reason, I read through this thread. Ugh.

Some threads are worth reading through from the beginning like the Moon Hoax thread or any of the Best Evidence threads as they are quite informative. This thread isn't one of them I'm afraid...

[stereologist]

Still zero evidence that the modern circles drawn by Furlong are related to anything old.

[ChrLzs]

The serial debunkers are getting really desperate now, folks

Which is what all the most dedicated tinfoilhatters say when their claims are thoroughly and utterly debunked. All that is left for the promoter of the BUNK is to insult those who provide the information exposing it.

BTW, who exactly are these 'folks' on your side you seem to be aiming your stuff at? - I see no evidence of even a single supporter over the last multitude of pages of this repetitive drivel.

'Me Furlong' or 'Furlong my god' - make up your minds - what a joke... HO HO HO !

?? You're not very funny. Just as you are not very logical. Just as you do not listen.

As I have said before - why not ask him

No, we asked YOU and it is notable that you initially completely ignored the question and then finally, here - you dodged it. You could have just said NO, but it seems you didn't want to. Is that because you didn't want to get caught in a lie? It's way too late to deny it - you had your chance and didn't take it, and the readers will make their own determination on the basis of all the other falsehoods and dodging you have shown to date - at least we can see what you *are* a master at..

So the idea I went to Egypt on one of his trips is just laughable.. {childish overuse of ellipsis removed} but just ask him..{again}

Now, THAT is a fascinating thing to say.. Here you are, posting anonymously on a forum, and you now claim that Furlong will be able to positively identify you (or would want to?) against a list of those who went on his trips? How would he know who you are? Unless you were him or very well known to him, of course... Anyway, it's just another example of how your mind works. It's not a good look.

Given that it is YOU who is presenting his hogwash as fact, why don't you show/grow some cojones and YOU contact him and ask him to face up to his critics here. Why doesn't Furlong defend himself (here or anywhere) against the universal dismissal of his claims? Too busy selling to the gullible?

BTW, I may have a bit more to say later about who you are, in relation to Furlong.. Let's just say you should be careful of what you post here *and elsewhere*.

It is actually all quite simple if you stop and think about it..

..Which is what the comprehensive refutations have all involved - the thinking that *you* should have put into it, but that clearly you are incapable of (or unwilling to apply).

which unfortunately is something the serial debunkers are not doing.

Then how is it that *you* refuse to actually address the content of the refutations, instead simply repeating the proven errors and falsifications over and over again?

A Sceptic or Skeptic is by definition someone who doubts the authenticity of orthodox beliefs

No, that is also wrong. The full definition of skeptic is quite wide, including:

1. a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions (- if that is your preferred definition, 'Laver', are your/Furlong's opinions not accepted by anyone of note? Gee, that's a bit of a damning admission..)

2. one who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or claims ( - yeah that's me, when the claims are hogwash as bad as this)

3. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual, or someone presenting claims as factual ( - ditto)

Anyway, silly offtopic discussions of skeptical behavior is a VERY obvious attempt by you to distract from your refusal to acknowledge your glaring errors.

You may love to hear yourself talk incessantly but I'm over it. Get to the flaming point and stop waffling.

to put it mildly the idea that there is an ancient landscape design in Wiltshire which, with the geometry of the Great Pyramid, leads us to Temple Farm and

then the 'church' sites of the Book of Revelations is not an orthodox belief.

Got that right, anyway. The reason it isn't an 'orthodox belief is that it is made up numerology hogwash of the worst kind.

The geometric shape of the Great Pyramid, which has been well established

Correct.

was used by David Furlong in the twin overlapping circle design he found on the Marlborough Downs marked by very ancient sites, c.3000 BCE, and old church sites which, because of the policy of the early church, could also be very ancient 'holy' locations. This leads us to Temple Farm as a possible focal point.

INCORRECT. First, I note you only claim, rather weakly, that it is 'possible'. Why the reticence?

But far, far more importantly, you have not, in any reasonable fashion:

- properly identified the sites or their significance over other sites, nor shown how their exact central coordinates were/could be calculated.

- shown anything other than clearly REVERSE-calculated numerological coincidences that occur ONLY when the 'researcher' (term used with hysterical laughter) is free to move the central points around until he gets something he likes, and also when he is free to pick and choose any sites he wishes above others, and from over numerous unrelated eras

- taken into account geological movements or datums

- explained why such a thing, even if true, actually meant anything.

That second point, about being able to shift the 'alleged' central points, and then to be able to not only pick any size circle and align it to any chosen site out of literally hundreds, and just keep working at it until you find some 'interesting' numbers, is possibly the worst example of this sort of excrement I have EVER seen. For deity's sake, given the ridiculous cherry-picking that Furlong allowed himself, I could easily prove that EVERYTHING aligned in some way with EVERYTHING else.

Seriously, the sort of mindset required to get suckered into this absolute drivel is well beyond my comprehension of human gullibility. But go on, ask me what I REALLY think...

Anyway, here's a very simple challenge for you, Laver.

As you should well know, the concepts of Confirmation Bias, and the use of techniques in analysis like the Null Hypothesis, Controls and Falsifiability (and others, but they are the key ones here) are absolutely critical in ANY analysis, let alone one as subjective as this.

So Laver, would you be so kind as to quote the relevant sections of Furlongs claims, along with evidence of the actual ways he went about using those essential techniques. In particular I'd like to see where he acknowledges the likelihood of confirmation bias and then fully addresses it, along with all the control data and his 'falsifiability' approach.

NOTE - if you cannot do so, then you are effectively admitting that Furlong has deliberately manipulated his data and that his conclusions are completely and utterly without merit.

[laver]

Which is what all the most dedicated tinfoilhatters say when their claims are thoroughly and utterly debunked. All that is left for the promoter of the BUNK is to insult those who provide the information exposing it.

BTW, who exactly are these 'folks' on your side you seem to be aiming your stuff at? - I see no evidence of even a single supporter over the last multitude of pages of this repetitive drivel.

?? You're not very funny. Just as you are not very logical. Just as you do not listen.

No, we asked YOU and it is notable that you initially completely ignored the question and then finally, here - you dodged it. You could have just said NO, but it seems you didn't want to. Is that because you didn't want to get caught in a lie? It's way too late to deny it - you had your chance and didn't take it, and the readers will make their own determination on the basis of all the other falsehoods and dodging you have shown to date - at least we can see what you *are* a master at..

Now, THAT is a fascinating thing to say.. Here you are, posting anonymously on a forum, and you now claim that Furlong will be able to positively identify you (or would want to?) against a list of those who went on his trips? How would he know who you are? Unless you were him or very well known to him, of course... Anyway, it's just another example of how your mind works. It's not a good look.

Given that it is YOU who is presenting his hogwash as fact, why don't you show/grow some cojones and YOU contact him and ask him to face up to his critics here. Why doesn't Furlong defend himself (here or anywhere) against the universal dismissal of his claims? Too busy selling to the gullible?

BTW, I may have a bit more to say later about who you are, in relation to Furlong.. Let's just say you should be careful of what you post here *and elsewhere*.

..Which is what the comprehensive refutations have all involved - the thinking that *you* should have put into it, but that clearly you are incapable of (or unwilling to apply).

Then how is it that *you* refuse to actually address the content of the refutations, instead simply repeating the proven errors and falsifications over and over again?

No, that is also wrong. The full definition of skeptic is quite wide, including:

1. a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions (- if that is your preferred definition, 'Laver', are your/Furlong's opinions not accepted by anyone of note? Gee, that's a bit of a damning admission..)

2. one who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or claims ( - yeah that's me, when the claims are hogwash as bad as this)

3. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual, or someone presenting claims as factual ( - ditto)

Anyway, silly offtopic discussions of skeptical behavior is a VERY obvious attempt by you to distract from your refusal to acknowledge your glaring errors.

You may love to hear yourself talk incessantly but I'm over it. Get to the flaming point and stop waffling.

Got that right, anyway. The reason it isn't an 'orthodox belief is that it is made up numerology hogwash of the worst kind.

Correct.

INCORRECT. First, I note you only claim, rather weakly, that it is 'possible'. Why the reticence?

But far, far more importantly, you have not, in any reasonable fashion:

- properly identified the sites or their significance over other sites, nor shown how their exact central coordinates were/could be calculated.

- shown anything other than clearly REVERSE-calculated numerological coincidences that occur ONLY when the 'researcher' (term used with hysterical laughter) is free to move the central points around until he gets something he likes, and also when he is free to pick and choose any sites he wishes above others, and from over numerous unrelated eras

- taken into account geological movements or datums

- explained why such a thing, even if true, actually meant anything.

That second point, about being able to shift the 'alleged' central points, and then to be able to not only pick any size circle and align it to any chosen site out of literally hundreds, and just keep working at it until you find some 'interesting' numbers, is possibly the worst example of this sort of excrement I have EVER seen. For deity's sake, given the ridiculous cherry-picking that Furlong allowed himself, I could easily prove that EVERYTHING aligned in some way with EVERYTHING else.

Seriously, the sort of mindset required to get suckered into this absolute drivel is well beyond my comprehension of human gullibility. But go on, ask me what I REALLY think...

Anyway, here's a very simple challenge for you, Laver.

As you should well know, the concepts of Confirmation Bias, and the use of techniques in analysis like the Null Hypothesis, Controls and Falsifiability (and others, but they are the key ones here) are absolutely critical in ANY analysis, let alone one as subjective as this.

So Laver, would you be so kind as to quote the relevant sections of Furlongs claims, along with evidence of the actual ways he went about using those essential techniques. In particular I'd like to see where he acknowledges the likelihood of confirmation bias and then fully addresses it, along with all the control data and his 'falsifiability' approach.

NOTE - if you cannot do so, then you are effectively admitting that Furlong has deliberately manipulated his data and that his conclusions are completely and utterly without merit.

A simple question - Have you read David Furlong's book 'The Keys to the Temple' published by Piatkus in 1997 and in paperback in 1998 ?

By the tone and content of your post it would appear not as Furlong's research was quite meticulous and fully detailed in his book.

His work takes us to Temple Farm....why Temple Farm is the next question ?

As detailed in many previous posts, investigations into the Temple Farm location proved that Great Circle bearings from there and the Great

Pyramid identify all 7 of the 7 'church' sites from the Book of Revelation with positive proof of an amazing ancient design of Landscape

Geometry in 3 key locations with triple repetitive numbers in their Latitudes and a Longitude...no coincidence

Next questions

*What 'intelligence' designed and created this ancient design, beyond the capabilities of any known culture of the ancient world ?

*As the Book of Revelations holds the clues to this design in sites and textual comments does it's discovery mean that this may be a time of Revelation ?

[ChrLzs]

So that's a NO to the request. Just more silly handwaving about how 'meticulous' he was, when it is already abundantly clear that being meticulous isn't the problem.

Ignoring proper methodologies and meticulously pursuing his biased views and meticulously CHERRY-PICKING data were the problems.

And then you have the utter bald-faced hide to suggest we buy his books. Go to heck. If you can't post the information here, then you are wasting our time AND abusing this forum.

What a worthless post that was. In fact, I'd call this behavior completely against the spirit of this forum. Shame on you and your spamming or your gullibilty. It's one or the other.

[Myles]

A simple question - Have you read David Furlong's book 'The Keys to the Temple' published by Piatkus in 1997 and in paperback in 1998 ?

By the tone and content of your post it would appear not as Furlong's research was quite meticulous and fully detailed in his book.

His work takes us to Temple Farm....why Temple Farm is the next question ?

As detailed in many previous posts, investigations into the Temple Farm location proved that Great Circle bearings from there and the Great

Pyramid identify all 7 of the 7 'church' sites from the Book of Revelation with positive proof of an amazing ancient design of Landscape

Geometry in 3 key locations with triple repetitive numbers in their Latitudes and a Longitude...no coincidence

Next questions

*What 'intelligence' designed and created this ancient design, beyond the capabilities of any known culture of the ancient world ?

*As the Book of Revelations holds the clues to this design in sites and textual comments does it's discovery mean that this may be a time of Revelation ?

In the usual laver fashion you dodged every question proposed to you. We know it is because you know you are wrong and answering the questions would out you. You are not hiding anything. Your tactics are classic stall tactics. The thing is, noone can stall forever. It's very clear to everyone that you cannot support your beliefs.

[stereologist]

A simple question - Have you read David Furlong's book 'The Keys to the Temple' published by Piatkus in 1997 and in paperback in 1998 ?

By the tone and content of your post it would appear not as Furlong's research was quite meticulous and fully detailed in his book.

His work takes us to Temple Farm....why Temple Farm is the next question ?

As detailed in many previous posts, investigations into the Temple Farm location proved that Great Circle bearings from there and the Great

Pyramid identify all 7 of the 7 'church' sites from the Book of Revelation with positive proof of an amazing ancient design of Landscape

Geometry in 3 key locations with triple repetitive numbers in their Latitudes and a Longitude...no coincidence

Next questions

*What 'intelligence' designed and created this ancient design, beyond the capabilities of any known culture of the ancient world ?

*As the Book of Revelations holds the clues to this design in sites and textual comments does it's discovery mean that this may be a time of Revelation ?

I am always amazed how easy it is to trick the gullible. It takes the most ridiculous connections, the most illogical steps, and the most pointless reasons.

Had Furlong used actual logic or found some actual connection I doubt that laver would have believed it.

It seems that after all of these pages laver finds the best support from the most inane reasons such as numerology.

Furlong's story is a joke - a very bad joke - that makes all but one shake their head in disbelief.

[Kludge808]

In the usual laver fashion you dodged every question proposed to you. We know it is because you know you are wrong and answering the questions would out you. You are not hiding anything. Your tactics are classic stall tactics. The thing is, noone can stall forever. It's very clear to everyone that you cannot support your beliefs.

The key word in this is "beliefs." Where there's issue - or one place at least - is that these beliefs are being presented as cold hard fact. Yet all the while laver uses weasel-words - maybe, it could, it's possible etc. This changes beliefs to mere conjecture yet it's still being presented as cold hard fact. Does anyone else see a problem with this because it's a huge red flag to me.

And, of course, laver will come back and regurgitate the same pitiful "facts" in hopes that someday one of those mystery "UM users" just might step in to support him. The minor detail that in the past month and a half 130 pages and nearly 2000 posts have passed and not one person - one a single one - has stepped forward on his side completely escapes him.

[toast]

The minor detail that in the past month and a half 130 pages and nearly 2000 posts have passed and not one person - one a single one - has stepped forward on his side completely escapes him.

That`s for me one of the questions why this thread, that is without any progress since a long time, is still active.

[Myles]

The key word in this is "beliefs." Where there's issue - or one place at least - is that these beliefs are being presented as cold hard fact. Yet all the while laver uses weasel-words - maybe, it could, it's possible etc. This changes beliefs to mere conjecture yet it's still being presented as cold hard fact. Does anyone else see a problem with this because it's a huge red flag to me.

Although my motorcycle comparison to crop circles was done a little jokingly, it was picked because it is as valid as anything lavar has put forward.

It cannot be proven that all motorcycles are man made (lavar says "it cannot be proven that all crop circles are man made). He could neither prove all motorcycles were man made nor could he show one crop circle that was not man made.

He/she has yet to provide any proof of anything.

It's the dodging of the questions that irks me most. I feel that is enough to close this thread. It's just spamming at this point because he refuses to debate.

[laver]

So that's a NO to the request. Just more silly handwaving about how 'meticulous' he was, when it is already abundantly clear that being meticulous isn't the problem.

Ignoring proper methodologies and meticulously pursuing his biased views and meticulously CHERRY-PICKING data were the problems.

And then you have the utter bald-faced hide to suggest we buy his books. Go to heck. If you can't post the information here, then you are wasting our time AND abusing this forum.

What a worthless post that was. In fact, I'd call this behavior completely against the spirit of this forum. Shame on you and your spamming or your gullibilty. It's one or the other.

Since you have not read the book, only available secondhand so of no benefit to Furlong, you are ignorant of the facts on which to make a valid judgement.

By the nature of your aggressive posts, against the proposals in Furlong's book leading to Temple Farm and against my proposals about why Temple

Farm can be shown to be such an important location which may lead to Revelation, these attempts to debunk the matter must be motivated on your part

by some personal world view or beliefs that these proposals conflict with.

Your beliefs are your business but on this thread we are dealing with facts, geometric facts that any UM user can check for themselves if they wish and

are interested. The geometry from Temple Farm and the Great Pyramid prove the existence of an ancient landscape design closely linked to the Holy Land

and biblical stories and it's discovery over recent is fundamental to this thread as a sign that this may be a time of Revelation....?

Full details in many previous posts....any genuine questions....please just ask....

[laver]

In the usual laver fashion you dodged every question proposed to you. We know it is because you know you are wrong and answering the questions would out you. You are not hiding anything. Your tactics are classic stall tactics. The thing is, noone can stall forever. It's very clear to everyone that you cannot support your beliefs.

Not at all, from the information given in previous posts any UM user can check the proposals on why the location identified by David Furlong, Temple Farm,

was and is obviously very important in leading us to clues from the Book of Revelation.

Please read post 1943 as some comments may also apply in your case.

[laver]

The key word in this is "beliefs." Where there's issue - or one place at least - is that these beliefs are being presented as cold hard fact. Yet all the while laver uses weasel-words - maybe, it could, it's possible etc. This changes beliefs to mere conjecture yet it's still being presented as cold hard fact. Does anyone else see a problem with this because it's a huge red flag to me.

And, of course, laver will come back and regurgitate the same pitiful "facts" in hopes that someday one of those mystery "UM users" just might step in to support him. The minor detail that in the past month and a half 130 pages and nearly 2000 posts have passed and not one person - one a single one - has stepped forward on his side completely escapes him.

Facts, Kludge, not beliefs, I leave them to believers. This thread is about geometric facts about Temple Farm as a geographical location which, with the

geographical location of the Great Pyramid, highlights all 7 of the 7 'churches' of Revelation, from the book of that name, and provides proofs in the

Latitudes and Longitudes of 3 key locations of the validity of the ancient design. Full details in previous posts.

This might not suit your beliefs about the ancient world, but we can't change the facts, so you might have to reconsider your beliefs ?

[Myles]

Not at all, from the information given in previous posts any UM user can check the proposals on why the location identified by David Furlong, Temple Farm,

was and is obviously very important in leading us to clues from the Book of Revelation.

Please read post 1943 as some comments may also apply in your case.

ALL YOUR INFO HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE. You just refuse to respond or defend it in any way except to say Furlong's book it right. His book is not right. His book is wrong. Probably why it is not sold anymore. Probably why you are the only one who took to following his jibberish.

[Myles]

Facts, Kludge, not beliefs, I leave them to believers. This thread is about geometric facts about Temple Farm as a geographical location which, with the

geographical location of the Great Pyramid, highlights all 7 of the 7 'churches' of Revelation, from the book of that name, and provides proofs in the

Latitudes and Longitudes of 3 key locations of the validity of the ancient design. Full details in previous posts.

This might not suit your beliefs about the ancient world, but we can't change the facts, so you might have to reconsider your beliefs ?

You have yet to present any facts. Just more "PRETEND" information.

[laver]

Although my motorcycle comparison to crop circles was done a little jokingly, it was picked because it is as valid as anything lavar has put forward.

It cannot be proven that all motorcycles are man made (lavar says "it cannot be proven that all crop circles are man made). He could neither prove all motorcycles were man made nor could he show one crop circle that was not man made.

He/she has yet to provide any proof of anything.

It's the dodging of the questions that irks me most. I feel that is enough to close this thread. It's just spamming at this point because he refuses to debate.

Oh, do behave Myles....

We covered this pages ago on this thread -

Motorcycles as a comparison to Crop Circles, are you just being rather a Silly - Billy.

I have never met or heard of anyone who thought some motorcycles could have a non terrestrial origin

But Crop Designs - plenty of people and obviously millions worldwide.

If some Crop Designs may not be man made, then valid questions are -

Why do we get them ?

Why have 90 odd per cent appeared in the Wiltshire area of southern Britain ?

The discover in recent years of ancient landscape geometry, found due to clues in the Book of Revelation,

which has its focal point also in Wiltshire, Temple Farm, makes it sensible just to ask if these two phenomena are linked and

could some Crop Circles be just one of the signs of a time of Revelation..?

Something some UM users might like to consider.... Crop Circles have appeared on Temple Farm property over the years....

[laver]

ALL YOUR INFO HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE. You just refuse to respond or defend it in any way except to say Furlong's book it right. His book is not right. His book is wrong. Probably why it is not sold anymore. Probably why you are the only one who took to following his jibberish.

OH NO IT HAS NOT - AND YOU KNOW IT! - which is a bit sad as we all should be seeking the truth.... the truths

on this thread, geometric truths, could be very profound...

[badeskov]

OH NO IT HAS NOT - AND YOU KNOW IT! - which is a bit sad as we all should be seeking the truth.... the truths

on this thread, geometric truths, could be very profound...

Oh, but it has indeed - you just don't want to realize it.

1. Fact: all evidence points to crop circles being man made, not a shred of evidence pointing elsewhere. You do not want to accept that yet have not been able to counter it either.
   
2. Fact: you math on the great pyramid is flawed and nonsensical. You do not want to accept that yet have not been able to counter it either.
   
3. Fact: your coordinates are not correct. You do not want to accept that yet have not been able to counter it either.
   
4. Fact: the so-called ancient sites the imaginative circles cross, you have not been able to prove they have any significance nor is in fact ancient
   
5. Fact: you ignore numerous other sites falling outside of the circles. You do not want to accept that yet have not been able to counter it either.
   
6. Fact: you ignore tectonic plate movement, rendering your site alignments invalid. You do not want to accept that yet have not been able to counter it either.
   
7. Fact: you were wrong about the Book of Revelations. You do not want to accept that yet have not been able to counter it either.
   
8. Fact: etc. etc. etc.
   

Those are the facts in all their naked beauty. And the sum of the above facts is that you are completely clueless of what you speak, clearly do not understand it nor have the inclination to actually understand it as it obviously is contrary to your beliefs. That pretty much is willful ignorance. You have dug yourself so deep into your hole that all daylight must have vanished. Naturally, the pile of manure you have shoveled on top of yourself in order to hide from objective reality doesn't exactly help either.

To put it short, you are simply plain out wrong. Period.

Cheers,

Badeskov