Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Occum's Razor = some Crop Circles are 'real'


  • Please log in to reply
348 replies to this topic

#106    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 28,243 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 15 January 2013 - 03:18 AM

View Postlaver, on 15 January 2013 - 02:50 AM, said:

The fossil record is not at all complete and new proposals are constantly being proposed for our origins.

New species are added to a known tree. The record is not re-written regularly. There is not a hole for Aliens, or indeed, even a totally new type of species to exist. We all have common ancestors.

There are not new proposals for our origins, additional concepts such as Panspermia have been postulated, but do not support any Aliens Hypothesis, nor the AA nonsense. They offer an alternative ideal for that initial spark. Genetic manipulation offers a recognisable leap, as we have noted with our own efforts to alter things like Plants - notably corn.  Such does not exist in he fossil record, and with what we have, there is no room nor need for such a hypothetical leap that is imagined "might have happened". What is wrong with what we know? Why make stuff up and hope it might be true?

View Postlaver, on 15 January 2013 - 02:50 AM, said:

I would have thought you would have been aware that WMD were used at the end of the WW2 and have now spread and are hugely more powerful.

When was that? The Early 40's. What does that have to do with the long history of UFO's? UFO reports predate this. And there is no specific interest in military sites. They get visited as often as a farmer is, probably less if I look closely at the statistics. So we saw UFO's long before, and after the Atomic tests and usage, but they are related? How so?

View Postlaver, on 15 January 2013 - 02:50 AM, said:

It has been said that human population increase is an even bigger threat than global warming.

Agreed, Australia is seriously considering throwing ou the model of a "Big Australia" and staying near our curent population count to maintain a certain level of lifestyle. What on earth does our economics have to do with Aliens?

View Postlaver, on 15 January 2013 - 02:50 AM, said:

There are many grave issues that face us at this time and will have to be faced by our children and grandchildren

Indeed, and we are trying to fix things before they all break. As I said, Solar, Wind, Hydro, Geo, Helium, all of them are on the books, and have been for decades. Again, what has that to do with Aliens?

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#107    laver

laver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,204 posts
  • Joined:02 Jan 2013

Posted 15 January 2013 - 03:20 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 15 January 2013 - 03:06 AM, said:

About 2/3rds if my sources are right? How does that not indicate a fabricated source? Again, why that point? If it is a message nobody has picked up on it for three hundred years. It seems a bit stupid to keep trying the same method that does not work.



Overnight I was lead to believe, and who saw it "appear" or do you mean when people "noticed" it? Did anyone so much as claim to see the process of the creation of the thing unfold? What about satellite  Any proof this instantly appeared? It's quite a claim to make without any backup, and a big ask to believe at face value.



Yes it would, and with 250 examples a year, it seems inconceivable that such has not been forthcoming in the history of the claim. However, men have managed to create such designs in one night, as is suggested is impossible. That is Occams Razor being applied. Can you do this? Why yes I can, just watch me.
I do not understand why people find the ideal so perplexing, after a quick read, I feel I could make my own Crop Circle in one night. It's all method.

Stonehenge 1996 called the Julia Set lovely photo and details on the Lucy Pringle site but other records on the internet


#108    Slave2Fate

Slave2Fate

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 6,189 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • If you don't believe the sun will rise
    Stand alone and greet the coming night
    In the last remaining light -Audioslave

Posted 15 January 2013 - 04:02 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 15 January 2013 - 03:18 AM, said:

Why make stuff up and hope it might be true?


Oooh! Oooh! I can answer that one!

Buuuuut I won't. There have been too many whiny martyrs around here lately as it is.

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#109    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 28,243 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 15 January 2013 - 06:06 AM

View Postlaver, on 15 January 2013 - 03:20 AM, said:

Stonehenge 1996 called the Julia Set lovely photo and details on the Lucy Pringle site but other records on the internet



There are quite a few modeled on the Julia set, thank you for the date, that narrows down your example. A larger Julia Set was found some weeks later, but not discussed as much as this one, I assume because of the Doctors statement. That seems to be what everyone is hanging their hat on. Circle makers however not only have replicated it, but claim they know who made that one, and state that the pilot and doctor are most definitely wrong about it's sudden appearance. And considering they were flying uneven terrain later in the day, that seems really quite possible.



Quote

I pointed out that the Stonehenge Julia Set had evidently appeared in broad daylight, in a span of perhaps 45 minutes.

RD: "That isn't true," Rod insisted. "It was made the previous night, by three people, in about two and three-quarters hours, starting around 2:45 am (on Sunday morning, July 7). It was there all that day. When that doctor flew over, he just didn't see it the first time. That happens a lot. His report was wrong. He just didn't see it."

ML: "You mean, it sat there next to that highway all day, and no one saw it? Are you kidding?"

RD: "If you went there, you'd see how the field slopes down and away from the road. The formation was in a kind of bowl, below the level of the road. Going by in a car, you couldn't see it. You would have to get out and walk toward it and look down into that bowl-shaped area to see it."

ML: "But there is a lot of air traffic in that area. Planes must have flown over it many times that day."

RD: "Sure, but lots of them just didn't see it, and the rest didn't think to report it, until that doctor reported it in the evening. I know this can happen, because I've made quite a few big formations and then waited for a day, even several days, before they're discovered."

ML: "OK, so you say that the Stonehenge Julia Set was created in less than three hours, in pitch darkness, by three people, and you know who they are...

RD: "Yes"

ML: "Can you tell me how this was done? This wasn't a free-hand glyph. They must have had a diagram or something..."

RD: "Yes, they had a diagram."

ML: "It has a very precise geometry, following a Fibonacci series..."

RD: "Well, for the first three-quarters of its arc, it does follow a Fibonacci series,* but the last quarter doesn't. It just becomes a circular arc."

That stopped me for a moment, because it was such a precise bit of information, so confidently delivered. Sensing my interest, he asked for a piece of paper from my note pad and drew a rough sketch.

RD: "Even if I didn't know who did this, I would have guessed it was made by people because of how they did it," he explained. "You start with the large central circle, which is placed right next to a tram line. People asked why it had the large central circle, which is a little out of place in a Julia Set. Simple. To avoid damaging surrounding crop, you have to have a large central area already layed down, from which you can measure out diameters to other parts of the formation. After making the first circle, they measured out a work line for the rest of the formation. This is how the spiral was made, drawing portions of the arc from different center points inside that first circle, using a tape measure." He continued making his sketch as he spoke. "You keep moving the center point around that first circle, and lengthen the tape for each new part of the arc. You make the work line by just stepping down the grain with your feet, just a thin line. All the centers of all the main circles in the formation are along that line."

I began to realize that he was describing a perfectly feasible way to create such a complex formation. Looking at a good photo of the Stonehenge Julia Set after our discussion, I could clearly see what appeared to be the work line along the spine of the formation. Why would a paranormal force -- or an alien -- need such a line? Still, even for seasoned circle makers, the Julia Sets would be a major challenge (if they're really man-made). But Rod assured me that he and the others had had plenty of practice.

RD: "I can definitely account for most of the major pictograms [in England] from 1991 on," he said. "I myself made several dozen of them, although only a handful this year."


LINK



However, lets say the circle-makers are way of the mark this time, and he is making this up, and has not clue at all. Lets say the witnesses were right on the money, and for fun, lets say a video existed that corroborated what they saw, and it happened just how they describe it.

That still sounds like natural phenomena, and nothing at all like Aliens, or an Alien influence. And considering the long history, Aliens or communications seem less likely all the time.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#110    laver

laver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,204 posts
  • Joined:02 Jan 2013

Posted 15 January 2013 - 09:27 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 15 January 2013 - 06:06 AM, said:

There are quite a few modeled on the Julia set, thank you for the date, that narrows down your example. A larger Julia Set was found some weeks later, but not discussed as much as this one, I assume because of the Doctors statement. That seems to be what everyone is hanging their hat on. Circle makers however not only have replicated it, but claim they know who made that one, and state that the pilot and doctor are most definitely wrong about it's sudden appearance. And considering they were flying uneven terrain later in the day, that seems really quite possible.






LINK



However, lets say the circle-makers are way of the mark this time, and he is making this up, and has not clue at all. Lets say the witnesses were right on the money, and for fun, lets say a video existed that corroborated what they saw, and it happened just how they describe it.

That still sounds like natural phenomena, and nothing at all like Aliens, or an Alien influence. And considering the long history, Aliens or communications seem less likely all the time.

It really is take your pick time on that one, lots of witnesses against one who said he did not make but knew who did?

Not sure what you mean by 'natural phenomena' are you saying it was created by wind, some vortex or other?


#111    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 28,243 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 15 January 2013 - 10:09 PM

View Postlaver, on 15 January 2013 - 09:27 AM, said:

It really is take your pick time on that one, lots of witnesses against one who said he did not make but knew who did?

Mots of anonymous witnesses I find the same as no witnesses. The main one being the doctor, who gets the attention of the recollections. All in all, two witnesses came forth, one who siad it was not there and then it was, and one who said she saw it happen.

As described earlier, the terrain possibly can account for this. It seems worthwhile considering this. Not the first time that field has had a prank played in it either.


Posted Image

View Postlaver, on 15 January 2013 - 09:27 AM, said:

Not sure what you mean by 'natural phenomena' are you saying it was created by wind, some vortex or other?


What is the description? Wind and mist swirling.

Quote

Lucy writes, “She mentioned that when people see maybe two cars or more pulled in
and looking down into the field, other cars stop and gradually the traffic builds up
and more and more cars draw in to have a look.” What the group saw is described:
“There was an apparition, an isolated mist over it (the formation) and as the circle
was getting bigger the mist was rising above the circle. As the mist rose it got bigger
and the corn circle got bigger. There was a mist was about 2-3 feet off the ground
and it was sort of spinning around and on the ground a circular shape was
appearing which seemed to get bigger and bigger as simultaneously the mist gets

bigger and bigger and swirled faster. It was gradual and you are standing there and
you are thinking what is going on and everyone is discussing it and more and more
traffic is building up and everything and you just think that all the time you don't
really realise what is happening and then you think then that's it and the thing is
getting bigger and you are thinking of the beginning and end. But you don't realise
what you are looking at. I didn’t understand what was happening.”
LINK


I honestly do not see how the description is indicating anything but natural phenomena.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#112    laver

laver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,204 posts
  • Joined:02 Jan 2013

Posted 15 January 2013 - 11:32 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 15 January 2013 - 10:09 PM, said:

Mots of anonymous witnesses I find the same as no witnesses. The main one being the doctor, who gets the attention of the recollections. All in all, two witnesses came forth, one who siad it was not there and then it was, and one who said she saw it happen.

As described earlier, the terrain possibly can account for this. It seems worthwhile considering this. Not the first time that field has had a prank played in it either.


Posted Image




What is the description? Wind and mist swirling.

LINK


I honestly do not see how the description is indicating anything but natural phenomena.

Amazing design for 'natural phenomena' without a designer present in some form but like many aspects of crop designs people can look at the evidence and make up their own minds. Of course if there is a 'foreign' designer and creator of some of these designs and there are messages in them, to dismiss them might be a great mistake.


#113    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 28,243 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 16 January 2013 - 05:22 AM

View Postlaver, on 15 January 2013 - 11:32 PM, said:

Amazing design for 'natural phenomena' without a designer present in some form but like many aspects of crop designs people can look at the evidence and make up their own minds. Of course if there is a 'foreign' designer and creator of some of these designs and there are messages in them, to dismiss them might be a great mistake.

Design aside, if the witness is telling the truth (and there is only one who has come forward who claimed to the the formation actually happen) and, giving her the benefit of the doubt, despite common sense, what does her description say? Wind and mist. How does one get aliens out of wind and mist?
I am not even giving the complexity a thought just yet, if it is at all possible that what she has witnessed can happen, then I want to know why. And if you can tell me why that train of thought should include aliens, I would be appreciate your thoughts. But not excuses, structured thought as to how you would honestly present this as alien influence.

She does not say it was exhaust from a spaceship, not does she say a spaceship was to be seen, she says:

There was a mist was about 2-3 feet off the ground and it was sort of spinning around and on the ground a circular shape was appearing which seemed to get bigger and bigger as simultaneously the mist gets bigger and bigger and swirled faster.

​Again, this is giving a sole witness the benefit of the doubt. Where is ET? Amazing things happen in nature, have you heard of Min Min Lights? Naga Fireballs? Mammatus Clouds, Red Tides, Penitentes, Sailing Stones, Fire Whirls, Ice Circles or Gravity Whirls?

Nature rocks. Nature is amazing.

Gravity Whirls

Posted Image


Fire Tornado

Posted Image

Supercells


Posted Image

Mammatus Clouds

Posted Image


Penitents

Posted Image


As such, maybe a mist as the culprit is possible, I will listen to any decent proposal, but I would like to see some solid proof, not a sole and credulous claim.

Seriously, the world is pretty fascinating without imaginative manipulation.

Edited by psyche101, 16 January 2013 - 05:35 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#114    laver

laver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,204 posts
  • Joined:02 Jan 2013

Posted 16 January 2013 - 07:06 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 16 January 2013 - 05:22 AM, said:

Design aside, if the witness is telling the truth (and there is only one who has come forward who claimed to the the formation actually happen) and, giving her the benefit of the doubt, despite common sense, what does her description say? Wind and mist. How does one get aliens out of wind and mist?
I am not even giving the complexity a thought just yet, if it is at all possible that what she has witnessed can happen, then I want to know why. And if you can tell me why that train of thought should include aliens, I would be appreciate your thoughts. But not excuses, structured thought as to how you would honestly present this as alien influence.

She does not say it was exhaust from a spaceship, not does she say a spaceship was to be seen, she says:

There was a mist was about 2-3 feet off the ground and it was sort of spinning around and on the ground a circular shape was appearing which seemed to get bigger and bigger as simultaneously the mist gets bigger and bigger and swirled faster.

​Again, this is giving a sole witness the benefit of the doubt. Where is ET? Amazing things happen in nature, have you heard of Min Min Lights? Naga Fireballs? Mammatus Clouds, Red Tides, Penitentes, Sailing Stones, Fire Whirls, Ice Circles or Gravity Whirls?

Nature rocks. Nature is amazing.

Gravity Whirls

Posted Image


Fire Tornado

Posted Image

Supercells


Posted Image

Mammatus Clouds

Posted Image


Penitents

Posted Image


As such, maybe a mist as the culprit is possible, I will listen to any decent proposal, but I would like to see some solid proof, not a sole and credulous claim.

Seriously, the world is pretty fascinating without imaginative manipulation.

A complex design like this one needs a designer, I think most people would agree. As human involvement can be reasonably excluded on the basis of the facts of the case some non human creator is implied. If you think 'nature' as an instrument of a deity I would agee that this is a possibility, some 'foreign' intelligence must have been involved and we do not yet know what that was. This is not a one off as the appearance of these designs is a frequent occurance particularly in the county of Wiltshire in the UK, 69 examples of human and non human crop designs last summer.


#115    Sir Wearer of Hats

Sir Wearer of Hats

    Knight of Sarcasm

  • Member
  • 8,751 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queensland, Australia.

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:44 PM

View Postlaver, on 16 January 2013 - 07:06 AM, said:

A complex design like this one needs a designer, I think most people would agree.
I can confidently say "we all agree" on that.

Quote

As human involvement can be reasonably excluded on the basis of the facts of the case some non human creator is implied.
I think we can reasonably exclude aliens on the basis of the facts of the case that many humans have admitted to making them.


#116    Slave2Fate

Slave2Fate

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 6,189 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • If you don't believe the sun will rise
    Stand alone and greet the coming night
    In the last remaining light -Audioslave

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:46 AM

View PostWearer of Hats, on 16 January 2013 - 11:44 PM, said:

I can confidently say "we all agree" on that.


I think we can reasonably exclude aliens on the basis of the facts of the case that many humans have admitted to making them.

Therein lies the rub no?

It doesn't matter one whit if humans did or didn't create any given crop circle or if it could be proven one way or another. If someone claims aliens then that someone needs to prove aliens regardless of human capabilities. It just detracts and distracts from the main argument (the ETH) when one focuses on disproving human involvement. The pro-alien crop circle crowd needs to not worry so much about negative evidence and start to bring some supportive evidence* to the table.

*And by supportive evidence I mean something unquestionably alien, or at least pretty damn close.

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#117    laver

laver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,204 posts
  • Joined:02 Jan 2013

Posted 17 January 2013 - 04:23 AM

View PostWearer of Hats, on 16 January 2013 - 11:44 PM, said:

I can confidently say "we all agree" on that.


I think we can reasonably exclude aliens on the basis of the facts of the case that many humans have admitted to making them.



Regarding the matter of Occum's Razor there are too many unanswered questions if we just said 'all crop designs are designed and made by humans', too many facts about the matter that would not fit this proposal. So it is a matter of each person's individual mind set as to the probabilty either way. Arthur C Clarke said that the chances of Earth having been visited from outside during its long history far outweighed the chances that it had not. So if we have inexplicable signs that we may be getting messages from outside this orb of ours and human creation does not fit the facts of the matter to say that these come from elsewhere is the simplest and most straightforward answer and hence quite in keeping with the principle of Occum's Razor.


#118    laver

laver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,204 posts
  • Joined:02 Jan 2013

Posted 17 January 2013 - 04:26 AM

View PostSlave2Fate, on 17 January 2013 - 12:46 AM, said:

Therein lies the rub no?

It doesn't matter one whit if humans did or didn't create any given crop circle or if it could be proven one way or another. If someone claims aliens then that someone needs to prove aliens regardless of human capabilities. It just detracts and distracts from the main argument (the ETH) when one focuses on disproving human involvement. The pro-alien crop circle crowd needs to not worry so much about negative evidence and start to bring some supportive evidence* to the table.

*And by supportive evidence I mean something unquestionably alien, or at least pretty damn close.



Regarding the matter of Occum's Razor there are too many unanswered questions if we just said 'all crop designs are designed and made by humans', too many facts about the matter that would not fit this proposal. So it is a matter of each person's individual mind set as to the probabilty either way. Arthur C Clarke said that the chances of Earth having been visited from outside during its long history far outweighed the chances that it had not. So if we have inexplicable signs that we may be getting messages from outside this orb of ours and human creation does not fit the facts of the matter to say that these come from elsewhere is the simplest and most straightforward answer and hence quite in keeping with the principle of Occum's Razor.


#119    Sir Wearer of Hats

Sir Wearer of Hats

    Knight of Sarcasm

  • Member
  • 8,751 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queensland, Australia.

Posted 17 January 2013 - 04:29 AM

View Postlaver, on 17 January 2013 - 04:23 AM, said:

Regarding the matter of Occum's Razor there are too many unanswered questions if we just said 'all crop designs are designed and made by humans', too many facts about the matter that would not fit this proposal. So it is a matter of each person's individual mind set as to the probabilty either way. Arthur C Clarke said that the chances of Earth having been visited from outside during its long history far outweighed the chances that it had not. So if we have inexplicable signs that we may be getting messages from outside this orb of ours and human creation does not fit the facts of the matter to say that these come from elsewhere is the simplest and most straightforward answer and hence quite in keeping with the principle of Occum's Razor.
Occam's Razor is "whatever takes the least number of assumptions".
Man did it:
Assumption: all of them done by men.
One Assumption.

Aliens did it:
Assumption: aliens exist.
Assumption: aliens have come, and are coming, here.
Assumption: aliens are writing messages on our wheat.
Three assumptions.


I wonder which one is Occam's Razor here....


#120    DingoLingo

DingoLingo

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,044 posts
  • Joined:05 Jul 2011

Posted 17 January 2013 - 04:32 AM

View Postlaver, on 17 January 2013 - 04:23 AM, said:

too many facts about the matter that would not fit this proposal.

what facts?

View Postlaver, on 17 January 2013 - 04:23 AM, said:

So it is a matter of each person's individual mind set as to the probabilty either way. Arthur C Clarke said that the chances of Earth having been visited from outside during its long history far outweighed the chances that it had not.

While I have full respect for Arthur as a author.. you need to remember.. he writes science fiction.. and its all based around aliens visiting us.. so of course he would have that opinion..

View Postlaver, on 17 January 2013 - 04:23 AM, said:

So if we have inexplicable signs that we may be getting messages from outside this orb of ours

no we dont.. what we have is people making the circles and you guys just cannot believe it..

View Postlaver, on 17 January 2013 - 04:23 AM, said:


and human creation does not fit the facts of the matter to say that these come from elsewhere is the simplest and most straightforward answer and hence quite in keeping with the principle of Occum's Razor.

No.. Occum's Razor actually shows that it is man made not the other way around..





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users