Judging from the response you're getting, it looks like you need to get a blog, Wabun.

--Jaylemurph

greetings Wabun.. grow large and explore


exactly.. who's to say all life is entirely physical in nature (aliens vs. spirits) if that got out of the bag things would take on a whole new meaning, boybands would split and reform into pentacostal movements..

gov.org:
back to sleep everyone, there's nothing out there.. or *maybe* there is, but don't worry, it's PHYSICAL in nature like us (so we should be able to kill it if we have to) and so (ho-hum) at the end of the day there is NOTHING MYSTERIOUS TO CONTEMPLATE. we know everything. scratch that.. you know everything we needed to tell you to know.

don't ever think for a second that all life is connected, nobody is interested in you or us.. we're all alone out here (or maybe not) in this dog eat dog world so just be a man about it and accept that there is no purpose, no reason, no meaning to it all.. now then, with such a bleak outlook, who'd like to at least make the best of a bad situation and spice up their [external self] life with an Ab-Blaster 2000? anyone need ******? seen janet jacksons nipple lately? ooh did you hear, there's an ABBA movie coming out! (and so forth)

firebird (Garuda?) <> serpent
if it's all bunk.. then why has history and traditions only been saying the SAME THING ACROSS THE FACE OF THE EARTH..?

it's also FUNNY that shapes, wooden boards and geometry have been mentioned, suggesting all crop circles are man-made.. but MATHS (including its shapes and geometry) is/are the underlying structure to the universe, it transcends everything.. but.. THERE IS NOTHING MYSTERIOUS (remaining) TO PONDER.. we've got atom bombs, brittany spears and bratz dolls.. we don't NEED anything else in our lives.. now it's only 6 months left for Xmas shopping people and next seasons fashions are out so get spending spending spending for another empty holiday!

...

...

at the end of the day, ALL CROP CIRCLES ARE NOT FAKED..
so what are they?
what's so hard to fathom that they're a type of communication..? it simply is what it is (occums razor)

..a marking scratched onto a wall may have no meaning to you.. but the maker intended one.. and there will be at least one 'reader' who recieves the message.. this is why the message was made in the first place... or to put it another way, just because you do not enjoy porn doesn't exclude everyone else.. it is no accident or meaningless thing that something manifests itself in this world.

the crop circles exist.. we can all see them (holds up a color photocopy) so what's the problem then?
(the problem here is) everything CONNOTATED to crop-circles.. (reptoids, aliens, big gay al, etc)

it's like a steaming rhino turd in the jungle.. we can all see it, smell it and for some of us, yes, even taste, touch and ruminate on it.. it simply is what is is.. now, when some baboon starts up a wild story that some space reptile dropped the turd.. this is what gets the whole jungle in an uproar..

..meanwhile, a smirking rhino wipes its butt with an unsuspecting rabbit

making new ground in the crop-circle (Cornography) enigma is a good thing.. clear out some of those cobwebs..

murph

you came in here just to say that? ..sometimes i wonder about you, murph

greetings unit.. Thanks for providing a supportive voice of reason to this thread!

For today’s post, I have 8 more alignments to share.

I have updated the file posted at Google Earth Community to include all 24 alignments; the link to the file remains the same.

Some updated instructions for viewing the current version of my alignment map:

The .kmz file linked below contains the lines depicting the 24 alignments between crop circles and Indian mounds in the United States. Link to the file:
http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/download.php?Number=1194720

This file depicts the lines only; to add my crop circle and Indian mound placemarks to the mix, go to my two Google Maps of crop circles & Indian mounds and then click on "View In Google Earth." (The maximum number of placemarks on one Google Map that can be transferred properly to Google Earth is 200, so I created a second map for the newer additions to my placemark collection.)

Link to the first set of placemarks here:
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&m...11fcafeda931baf

Link to the second set here:
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&c...amp;t=h&z=6

Next, go to the website of archaeologist J.Q. Jacobs and download all of his Google Earth overlays from the "Eastern Woodlands" and "American West" categories, found at this link:
http://www.jqjacobs.net/archaeo/sites/index.html

When those four separate steps are completed, you'll have all four layers necessary to fully appreciate the amazing and frequent alignments between Indian mounds and crop circles on my map.

Here’s today’s batch:

#17: 5 Indian mounds & 1 crop formation:
Newark Ellipse Work, Newark, OH >
Newark Square (Center), Newark, OH >
Newark Circle Central Mound, Newark, OH >
Seip Ring (Center), Bainbridge, OH >
Serpent Mound ("Tail"), Locust Grove, OH >
8/03 Locust Grove, OH crop formation

#18: 3 Indian mounds & 1 crop formation:
Newark Octagon, Newark, OH >
6/08 Hebron, OH RDF >
Seip Ring (West Edge), Bainbridge, OH >
Serpent Mound (burial mound), Locust Grove, OH

#19: 3 Indian mounds & 1 crop formation:
Cross Mound, Tarlton, OH >
6/06 Huntingburg, IN crop formation >
GE Mound, Mt. Vernon, IL >
Spiro Mound, Fort Coffee, OK

#20: 3 Indian mounds & 2 crop formations:
mound at Bethel Church, Haynes, OH >
Cross Mound, Tarlton, OH >
6/06 Grove City, OH RDF >
Dunns Pond Mound, Russells Point, OH >
8/04 Lawton, MI crop formation

#21: 5 Indian mounds:
Adena State Memorial mound (former location), Chillicothe, OH >
Frankfort Square (center), Frankfort, OH >
Henneberger Mound, Frankfort, OH >
Frankfort West Circle (center), Frankfort, OH >
The Great Mound, Anderson, IN

#22: 3 Indian mounds:
Osco Mound, Auburn, NY >
Henneberger Mound, Frankfort, OH >
Edgington Mound, Neville, OH

#23: 5 Indian mounds:
Portsmouth C Mound, Portsmouth, OH >
Portsmouth D Mound, Portsmouth, OH >
Portsmouth Square, Portsmouth, OH >
Dayton Power & Light Co. Mound, Wrightsville, OH >
Aberdeen Mound, Aberdeen, OH

#24: 2 Indian mounds & 1 crop formation:
Norton Indian Mounds, Grand Rapids, MI >
8/04 Lawton, MI crop formation >
Angel Mounds, Newburgh, IN

Its a fantastic work you explored. Actually there is a such kind of world exist. Once i feel something happening to me which I cannot able to explain so its a great mystery.

===========================
peter
Wide Circles

Thank you!

There have been some amazing developments in my Google Earth map of crop circle/Indian mound alignments since my last post.

Before describing these developments, I’ll describe the six separate layers now needed to view the updated version of my map on Google Earth.

There are now 4 separate placemark maps to download, as the maximum number of placemarks on a Google Maps that will properly transfer to a Google Earth layer is 200 placemarks, and I now have well over 600 placemarks in my collection. To add each set, visit the link to each Google Map, and hit “View In Google Earth” on each one to load them into Google Earth.

Link to Set #1:
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&i...a931baf&z=4

Link to Set #2:
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&i...6cb6dab&z=6

Link to Set #3:
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&i...7922fd8&z=7

Link to Set #4:
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&i...0ba1a00&z=8

Next, download all 18 of the “Eastern Woodlands” overlay sets from J.Q. Jacobs’ website. Visit the following link to directly view the “Eastern Woodlands” download page:
http://jqjacobs.net/archaeo/sites/index.html#woodlands

Finally, my updated “Alignments” overlay, which can be downloaded using the following link:
http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/download.php?Number=1194720

And now, the new developments:

A few weeks ago, I read a few articles on ley lines that inspired me to take my research into the next logical area of focus: to document the most complete collection of mound sites as possible in one state, and to then see if the resulting map supports my theory

When I started my thread about the alignments on Google Earth Community a few months ago, an apparent ley line skeptic and Google Earth Community regular going by the username “Hill” responded to my initial post with the following:

“The term Ley Line is new to me. So I looked it up. Here's a Wikipedia article. Also see Allignments of Random Points.”

Link to Wikipedia article on Ley Lines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ley_line

Link to Wikipedia article on “Alignments of Random Points:”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignments_of_random_points

The article on “Alignments of Random Points” covers some details of the skeptics’ primary argument against the existence of ley lines, which is that you could find the same number of alignments between ancient sacred sites on any given map as you could find if you replaced the ancient sites with an equal number of random points on the same map. This has been the main argument against the idea that the alignments between sacred sites are more than coincidence ever since the 1920s, when Alfred Watkins first noticed a number of alignments between ancient sites in England in a small area, and coined the term “Ley lines” after noticing that a disproportionate number of the families who lived on these lines had last names ending with the letters L-E-Y.

At the end of the article, there is a link to a well-researched and well-balanced article titled “Ley Lines and Coincidence” by Jason Papadopoulos, which details the efforts of various ley hunters, from Watkins through the present, to show that the alignments between ancient sites defy the odds of “random points” aligning. Link to the article here:
http://www.boo.net/~jasonp/leyline.html

One computer model called the “Hough Transform,” discussed in detail in the article, came up with the following statistics for the average number of alignments that one could expect between random points in a given area, under criteria discussed specifically in the article:

50 random points: 35 3-point alignments, 0.5 4-point alignments

100 random points: 246 3-point alignments, 8.5 4-point alignments, 0.5 5-point alignments

200 random points: 1,915 3-point alignments, 130 4-point alignments, 7 5-point alignments, 0.3 6-point alignments

300 random points: 5,663 3-point alignments, 628 4-point alignments, 55 5-point alignments, 4.5 6-point alignments, 0.5 7-point alignments

400 random points: 12,949 3-point alignments, 1,899 4-point alignments, 225 5-point alignments, 20 6-point alignments, 2.3 7-point alignments, 0.3 8-point alignments

After reading the article, I realized that the only way to do a proper test of my crop circle/Indian mound/ley line theory would be to find the most complete possible collection of mound sites in an area that also had several crop circles, and to then see if I could beat the odds described above with such a “test area.”

I chose the Lower Peninsula of Michigan as my test area for many reasons: 1) I live in Grand Rapids, MI. 2) ”The Archaeological Atlas of Michigan” by W.B. Hinsdale, which contains the most complete collection of maps showing Indian mound sites available for the state of Michigan, was available for photocopying at the Grand Rapids public library, which did not have a similar book for any other state among its collection. 3) The Lower Peninsula is surrounded by large bodies of water on three sides, making it a naturally isolated area perfect for such a test. 4) Jeff Wilson’s map of crop circles in the USA contains the precise locations of eight crop formations in the Lower Peninsula which had all been tested and verified as genuine crop formations; I thought that eight was enough to work with, for this test area.

One by one, I added earthwork sites from Hinsdale’s maps onto my Michigan map until I had covered the lower 3/5 of the Lower Peninsula. This area is the “test area” discussed in the rest of this post.

As of this writing, I have added all of the earthworks from the southern border of the state up through the borderline marking the northern borders of the counties of Mason, Lake, Osceola, Clare, Gladwin, and Arenac. This creates a roughly square area which contains the locations of all 8 genuine Michigan crop formations from Wilson’s map, and contains 445 Indian mound sites which were mostly taken from Hinsdale’s map. (I have also included the ?/07 New Haven Twp. crop formation on my map for now, even though it was destroyed by visitors before it could be tested for authenticity. My feeling is that if its location fits significantly into one or more major alignments, it may offer some clues as to the likelihood of it’s the formation’s authenticity.)

So far, in this area I have found 3 eight-point alignments, 5 seven-point alignments, and over 20 six-point alignments.

This means I am already roughly matching the Hough model in the number of 6-point alignments I’ve found in this area, and slightly exceeding the model in the number of seven-point and eight-point alignments found, though there may very well be more alignments in the “test” area that I have not yet noticed. Also, I suspect that the standards for an “alignment” in the Hough model are looser than the standards I have set for my map.

However, there is one particular six-point alignment, of the 20+ that I’ve found in Michigan, which beats out any odds discussed above, due to an additional “X-Factor” in the alignment that I think is far too great to be instantly dismissed as a “coincidence.”

This “X-Factor” is the fact that this particular 6-point alignment of Michigan Indian mounds matches up perfectly with the southernmost line of the pentagonal ley line pattern found within the “Great Lakes Biome,” a large ley line system that was mapped out by geomancer Peter Champoux several years ago. The map of this biome can be found in Champoux’s book “The Gaia Matrix,” and also on his website, at the following link:
http://www.geometryofplace.com/images/site...tLakesBiome.pdf

I had drawn this pentagram into my Google Earth map several weeks ago, and then deactivated (“or “hid”) its layer before I began adding in the Michigan earthworks from Hinsdale’s atlas. Then, on July 29, I turned the “pentagram” layer back on, and – to my delight – I found several mounds matching up with two different lines of the pentagram crossing through the NW quadrant of my “test area.” This drew my attention to the southernmost line of the pentagon crossing through Michigan, after which I immediately found the amazing precise alignment of 6 mounds, all within Michigan’s boundaries, along this line.


Peter Champoux’s “Great Lakes Biome” map

To view the image from my Google Earth map of the alignment of 6 mounds matching this pentagram, visit the following link:
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w122/Sc...mentreduced.jpg
(For some reason, this messageboard would not let me post that image, so you have to visit the link to see it.)

To me, this represents another major confirmation of Champoux’s work, much like Alignment #1, which is a 7- or 8-point (depending on whether or not you count the Portsmouth Earthworks) alignment of crop formations and Indian earthwork sites starting at the Oakvale, WV crop formation and ending at Miamisburg Mound in Miamisburg, OH. As discussed in my first post, Alignment #1 matches up with the SE-NW line of the pair of ley lines comprising Champoux’s “Great Cross of North America.”

basically, I think that Champoux & I found the same ley line, but from two completely different approaches/angles. I think that this could be viewed as a double-sided confirmation of both approaches to finding ley lines, and also viewed as a general confirmation that ley lines are real.

It is inevitable that some of the alignments I find in this process will just be “random” coincidences rather than actual ley lines. However, I think that if I keep going forth with this project in this manner, which could be described as “throwing everything on the wall and then seeing what sticks,” figuring out which ones are actual ley lines will become easier as the map develops and expands beyond Michigan.

While I think that some of the precise five-point alignments I have found in smaller areas of Michigan are worth noting, today I am sharing only alignments with 6 or more points. I think 24 alignments, with 6 or more points in each, is enough to illustrate my point and provide the proof that I’m matching, and possibly exceeding, the Hough model odds of “random alignments.”

The first alignment on the list, Alignment #25, is the 6-point alignment of Indian mounds which, against all odds, happens to match up perfectly with with the southernmost line of the pentagon in Champoux’s Great Lakes Biome ley line map. Here’s the list:

#25: 6 mound sites:
mounds (unknown number), Hamtramck, MI >
1 mound, Ann Arbor, MI >
1 ring earthwork, Homer, MI >
mounds (unknown number), Girard, MI >
1 ring earthwork, Colon, MI >
1 mound, Dayton, MI

For reference, I have included the pentagram from Champoux’s Great Lakes Biome in the updated version of my “Alignments” file, as well as Champoux’s “City Ley,” which is the NE-SW line of his “Great Cross.” Both are marked as purple lines.

#26: 8 mound sites:
1 mound, Tyrone Township, MI >
3 mounds, Argentine, MI >
1 ring earthwork, Newburg, MI >
2 mounds, Six Lakes, MI >
2 mounds, Pine Grove Beach, MI >
3 mounds, Pine Grove Beach, MI >
1 mound, Custer, MI >
1 mound, Hamlin Lake, MI

#27: 6 or 7 mound sites & 1 crop formation:
7/06 Hartland, MI RDF >
1 mound, Ovid, MI >
2 mounds, Maple Rapids, MI >
40 mounds, Maple Rapids, MI >
ring earthwork, Walkerville, MI >
3 mounds, Colfax Township., MI >
1 mound, Summit Township, MI

There were 6 mounds in Entrican, MI whose precise locations have been lost to time; one or more of these mounds may have also been on this line.

#28: 7 mound sites & 1 crop formation:
mounds (unknown number), Ivanhoe, MI >
1 mound, Tuscola, MI >
1 mound, Tuscola, MI >
6/06 New Lothrop, MI RDF >
1 ring earthwork, Bedford, MI >
1 mound, Galesburg, MI >
1 square earthwork, Schoolcraft, MI >
2 mounds, Chamberlains, MI

#29: 8 or 9 mound sites:
4 mounds, Saginaw, MI >
1 mound, St. Charles, MI >
1 mound, Casteton, MI >
1 mound, Cooper, MI >
2 mounds, Pokagon, MI >
1 ring earthwork, Sumnerville, MI >
9 mounds, Sumnerville, MI >
1 mound, Dayton, MI

The mound near Oshtemo, MI may have also been on this line; its precise location is unknown.

#30: 5 mound sites & 1 crop formation:
1 ring earthwork, Mt. Clemens, MI >
mounds (unknown number), Howell, MI >
6/06 Holt, MI RDF >
1 mound, Casteton, MI >
1 mound, Irving, MI >
2 ring earthworks, Hamilton, MI

Note the proximity of the 7/06 Hartland, MI RDF to this line.

#31: 7 mound sites:
mounds (unknown number), Bailey, MI >
1 mound, Fremont, MI >
1 mound, Fremont, MI >
1 mound, Huber, MI >
1 ring earthwork, Walkerville, MI >
1 mound, Logan Township, MI >
1 mound, Logan Township, MI

#32: 7 mound sites:
3 mounds, Argentine, MI >
1 mound, Argentine, MI >
1 mound, Morseville, MI >
1 mound, Bridgeport, MI >
1 mound, Bay City, MI >
1 mound, Bay City, MI >
3 mounds, Wenona Beach, MI

#33: 7 or 8 mound sites (6 or 7 within the Michigan border):
Fort Hill, Sinking Spring, OH >
mounds (unknown number), Lakeview, MI >
mounds (unknown number), Bailey, MI >
1 mound, Dayton Center, MI >
1 mound, Dayton Center, MI >
2 mounds, Hesperia, MI >
7 mounds, Hesperia, MI >

The exact location and number of the mounds in Burlington, MI are unknown, but one or more of them may have also been located on this line.

#34: 5 mound sites & 1 crop formation:
mounds (unknown number), Shabbona, MI >
1 mound, Caro, MI >
4 mounds, Saginaw, MI >
10/02 Hemlock, MI crop formation >
mounds (unknown number), Crystal, MI >
3 mounds, Crockery, MI

#35: 7 mound sites:
mounds (unknown number), Port Austin, MI >
1 mound, Brant Township, MI >
1 mound, Eureka, MI >
mounds (unknown number), Eureka, MI >
mounds (unknown number), Portland, MI >
3 ring earthworks, Cooper, MI >
2 mounds, Fairland, MI

#36: 6 mound sites:
mounds (unknown number), Lake Orion Heights, MI >
mounds (unknown number), Aurelius, MI >
mounds (unknown number), Olivet, MI >
mounds (unknown number), Bellevue, MI >
1 mound, Cooper, MI >
1 mound, Northwood, MI

#37: 6 or 7 mound sites:
3 mounds, Edenville, MI >
2 mounds, Vernon City, MI >
3 mounds, Brinton, MI >
5 mounds, Volney, MI >
3 mounds, Volney, MI >
1 mound, Elbridge, MI

The exact location of the mound in Mills Township is not known, but it might also fall on this line.

#38: 7 mound sites:
1 mound, Bitely, MI >
1 mound, Dayton Center, MI >
1 mound, Saugatuck, MI >
1 mound, Sulphur Springs, MI >
1 mound, Paw Paw, MI >
2 mounds, Eau Claire, MI >
1 mound, Buchanan, MI

#39: 5 mound sites & 1 crop formation:
6/06 New Lothrop, MI RDF >
2 mounds, Brohman, MI >
1 mound, Volney, MI >
mounds (unknown number), Volney, MI >
6 mounds, Colfax Township, MI >
1 mound, Fern, MI

#40: 6 mound sites:
1 ring earthwork, Gilead, MI >
2 ring earthworks, Bronson, MI >
1 ring earthwork, Athens, MI >
1 mound, Galesburg, MI >
4 mounds, Richland, MI >
1 mound, Grant Townhip, MI

#41: 6 mound sites:
1 mound, Flushing, MI >
1 mound, Brent Creek, MI >
1 mound, Montrose, MI >
1 mound, Morseville, MI >
1 mound, Bridgeport, MI >
1 mound, Bay City, MI

#42: 6 mound sites:
1 mound, Bridgeton, MI >
2 ring earthworks, East Saugatuck, MI >
1 mound, South Haven, MI >
2 mounds, Eau Claire, MI >
1 mound, Buchanan, MI >
2 mounds, Buchanan, MI

#43: 6 mound sites:
1 mound, Detroit, MI >
1 mound, Union Plains, MI >
1 mound, Middlebury, MI >
mounds (unknown number), Eureka, MI >
mounds (unknown number), Crystal, MI >
7 mounds, Lakeview, MI

#44: 6 mound sites:
21 mounds, Port Huron, MI >
1 mound, Atkins, MI >
2 mounds, Columbiaville, MI >
1 mound, Morseville, MI >
1 mound, St. Charles, MI >
2 mounds, Six Lakes, MI

#45: 6 to 8 mound sites:
21 mounds, Port Huron, MI >
effigy mounds (unknown number), Owosso, MI >
1 mound, Middlebury, MI >
1 mound, Middlebury, MI >
Norton Indian Mounds, Wyoming, MI >
1 ring earthwork, Walker, MI

Note the proximity of this line to the location of 8 mounds in Flint, MI, and 3 mounds in Five Points, MI. If some mounds in those groupings were located far enough beyond the point where W.B. Hinsdale placed the center of his dot on the map, then some of them might also lie on this line.

#46: 6 or 7 mound sites:
1 mound, Findley, MI >
8 mounds, Fairfax, MI >
1 mound, Galesburg, MI >
Norton Indian Mounds, Wyoming, MI >
1 mound, Dayton Center, MI >
1 mound, Dayton Center, MI

Hinsdale's marker for "2 mounds" in Mendon is close enough to this line where one of those 2 mounds may also be part of this alignment.

#47: 5 mound sites & 1 crop formation site:
7/03 and 9/06 Howell, MI crop formations >
mounds (unknown number), Newaygo, MI >
14 mounds, Newaygo, MI >
1 mound, Dayton Center, MI >
1 mound, Dayton Center, MI >
1 mound, Elbridge, MI

#48: 5 mound sites & 1 crop formation site:
7/03 and 9/06 Howell, MI crop formations >
1 ring earthwork, North Leslie, MI >
1 mound, Clarence, MI >
2 mounds, Chamberlains, MI >
1 mound, Marcellus, MI >
1 mound, Volinia, MI

Hinsdale's marker for an unknown number of mounds in North Leslie, MI is close enough to this line where some of those mounds may have been part of this alignment, in addition to the ring earthwork in North Leslie that is definitely part of the alignment.

For today’s post, I’d like to clarify a few things, lest there be any misunderstanding where I’m coming from.

Firstly: This thread represents my personal view, nothing more – I do NOT speak for the ICCRA.

Since I posted this thread, I have received some well-justified criticism from several ICCRA members, who were surprised to see this announcement all over the internet. After talking with me recently, these members got me to finally realize that the words I chose for the original headline of this thread ( “The ICCRA has cracked the crop circle code!” ) were poorly chosen, because many people who see the headline without reading the thread might make an assumption that the ICCRA, as a group, has made some kind of official statement about figuring out everything about the crop circle mystery.

Originally I was not concerned about the risk of this misperception, as anyone who actually reads my thread would know, based on the words I’ve written, that this thread clearly represents my personal speculation on the subject matter, NOT an official statement endorsed by the ICCRA. But, in this reasoning, I did not properly weigh in the fact that one side-effect of the plague of ignorance gripping much of the world’s population is that many people DO “judge books by their cover,” and also that this is how rumours get started.

I’d like to explain what the original headline was meant to convey, which is the same thing as what the new headline is meant to convey:

At the 5th annual ICCRA conference this May (the third meeting that I’ve attended and have given a presentation on my research into the Howell, MI crop circles) I was delighted to observe what I perceived as an organic convergence of viewpoints among many of the attendees, converging closer to the likely truth about crop circles at an exponential rate. By the end of the meeting, I thought (and still do) that a much clearer picture of the crop circle mystery was emerging among the group as a result of the information exchange at the meetings- to the point where it was tangibly becoming less of a mystery, to my perception. I had felt this at the first two meetings I attended, but to a lesser degree; this time, by the time I left, I had a very strong feeling (and still do) that enough good information and ideas had been shared with enough serious crop circle researchers at the meeting where, as these ideas and new bits of information trickled out to the public, the crop circle mystery was inevitably going to be solved in time to prevent the New World Order from achieving their goal of a fascist global government with a microchipped population.

The centerpieces of the tangibly increased “group understanding” at this meeting, to my perception, were Jeff Wilson’s three presentations. His cohesive, “just the facts” approach to covering the subject of crop circles not only was a key factor in bringing everyone in the group up to speed, but is also a potential future factor in breaking the barrier of ignorance about crop circles in the mainstream media, should his work get wider attention, in my opinion.

The other presenters also gave many valuable contributions to the “group understanding,” as did the numerous conversations between crop circle researchers, many meeting each other for the first time. Also, I was proud to notice that many of the speculations that I brought to the group (in my presentations and personal conversations) were being considered more seriously as options by the increasingly open-minded “regulars,” when compared to the first meeting I attended.

After I left the meeting, I experienced flood of new ideas related to crop circles, which tied in with my experiences at the Indian mounds that I visited as I made my way back to Grand Rapids- ideas which were only made possible by the flood of new information and ideas I exchanged with the other researchers at the ICCRA meeting.

By the time I arrived back home, I felt that I was carrying the heavy burden of several important new insights into the crop circle mystery that needed to be communicated to the public immediately, in order to “protect the message.” I felt that even if just a fraction of my new insights were relevant, then I needed to “spill the beans” sooner than later in order to get the ideas circulating, and to see what kind of feedback it generated.

The biggest thing was the increased strength of my opinion that the group had collectively uncovered, without necessarily everyone involved realizing it, the roots of the first “message” found in crop circles that might centrally connect all crop circles geographically, and which, if fully uncovered, could result in being able to predict which specific fields might be more likely to receive crop circles in the future. In other words, the “crop circle code,” or at least the first central geographic “crop circle code” of which I’m aware, uncovered.

The simplest way to explain this central message, or “code:” “Connect the dots.” More specifically: “alignments of crop circles & ancient earthworks = ley lines.” This is explained fully in my previous posts.

If the geographic “code” uniting all crop circles has been uncovered, could this be shortened as saying “THE crop circle code has been cracked?” Yes or no, depending on one’s interpretation of the meaning of “code cracking,” and assuming that there are no more “unifying messages” that might be found, or might have already been found, connecting all crop circles in some other category beyond geographical context. I can’t assume that, thus the change to the headline.

The other reason for the subtle change to the headline was that the original headline could be easily misconstrued as an official statement from the ICCRA, which it most definitely is not.

My intent in the headline was (and still is) to give credit to the group for whatever I’ve found, since I think that my own progress in crop circle research was only made possible by my interaction with the group over the last 4 years, and the wealth of accurate information and ideas about crop circles that I’ve accumulated as a result. I want to give credit where credit is due.

Furthermore, the idea of finding alignments between ancient earthworks to find ley lines, and to try to see if those alignments beat the odds of “random points,” goes back to the 1920s, when A. Watkins first found some interesting alignments in England and coined the term “ley lines.” As for crop circle alignments: it was Roger Sugden and Jeff Wilson who found the amazing alignments of crop circles in 2004 (listed as Alignment #1 on this thread) and 2005 (Alignment #2 here), plus several more crop circle alignments, which then inspired me to pursue the subject further in my own studies, resulting in this thread.

So, in my view, I am truly “standing on the shoulders of giants” in many ways here. If history proves me to be correct in the many speculations I’ve published on this thread, I would only deserve a very small portion of the “credit.”

I also want to clarify that I do not claim to have “proved” anything on this thread yet- there are still too many “X-Factors” involved to describe the thread as anything more than speculation, or to describe my Google Earth map of alignments as anything more than a work-in-progress. I say this for several reasons:

1) The majority of the earthwork locations I’ve placed onto my map of Michigan (which is my primary “test region” for now) were locations I marked by “eyeballing” the county-level maps found in W.B. Hinsdale’s “Archaeological Atlas Of Michigan.” While I believe I have accurately translated Hinsdale’s markers into Google Map placemarks, I already know that Hinsdale’s maps are not 100% accurate at the “pinpoint level.” For example: Hinsdale uses dots to represent mounds on his map; whenever a mound appears on his map next to a body of water large enough to be also drawn into the map, the edge of the “mound dot” never overlaps the edge of the water body. I think he did this to avoid visually cluttered graphics; I’m guessing that in some cases, the mound was actually located slightly closer to the body of water. Rather than guess which ones may have been closer, I just reproduced Hinsdale’s “dots” where he had them on the map. I decided that even though the accuracy of Hinsdale’s maps was questionable at “pinpoint level,” it was still close enough to use for a test, considering that the distance scale involved is the entire state of Michigan. I do intend to go back later and fine-tune the locations of as many of these Michigan mounds as possible to “pinpoint level” wherever the info is available, but for now, at the time of this writing, my Google Maps of Michigan mound placemarks are mostly the result of “eyeballing” Hinsdale’s maps.

2) I do not yet know for sure whether or not Google Earth is 100% accurate in factoring in the curve of the Earth when users create a “pathway” between two points. However, I do know that it’s close enough for geomancer Peter Champoux to have posted a video on his YouTube page where he tests out several trans-global ley lines on Google Earth, with some very interesting results. However, in the video, he does admit that he does not yet know for sure whether Google Earth is 100% accurate, which frames the video as more of an experimental demonstration. In the video, he demonstrates several mind-blowing (in my opinion) alignments that seem to indicate to me that Google Earth probably is accurate. After seeing his video, I decided, “If Google Earth is good enough for Peter Champoux to use as a test for ley lines, it’s good enough for me to use as a test.” The last thing he says in the video is directed at viewers: “Have fun with Google Earth.” For me, this was the green light to proceed with my own test, using the program to find potential alignments between crop circles and Indian mounds. Link to the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Heo0b8eP4r0


3) The “Hough model” for the likelihood of alignments between random points, which I used as a rough comparison to analyze what I’ve found with my Michigan test area so far, is just that- a rough comparison. If I were to set up a proper test, it would go something like this: I would find, or find someone to create, a computer program that can generate 455 random points over my Michigan test area and then find all the alignments between the points. I would run the program hundreds of times, and then calculate the average number of alignments found. I would then find a professional statistician to analyze these results, comparing them with the number of the alignments the computer finds in my map of the 455 Indian mound and crop circle placemarks in the Michigan test area.

It will be a while until this study is ready for such a test. I think it would be better to wait until every single known specific Indian earthwork location is charted onto a map that covers a larger test area, perhaps an entire area covering Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Southern Ontario, and Michigan. Or, at least the whole Lower Peninsula of Michigan, for a start. Since it’s going to take a lot of work to get to that point, for now I can only offer the Hough model as a good “rough test.”

In summary, the main point of my post today is a reminder that this thread is NOT an official statement from the ICCRA; instead, it represents my personal speculation and viewpoints in many areas involving the unprovable, and things that might be provable but still require much more data to take to that level.

Still, I think what I’ve communicated on this thread so far represents some very promising leads, some of which may represent the cutting edge of some areas of crop circle research, and which are promising enough leads to demand further pursuit. I stand behind what I’ve written in this thread; the purpose of today’s post is to correct any misunderstandings that may have been caused by my poorly worded original headline, or by the emotionally excited tone of my posts.

I’ll conclude this post with two quotes from Jeff Wilson, the ICCRA’s founder and director, describing the concept behind the group. These quotes, as quotes about the ICCRA from the group’s director, ARE “official ICCRA statements” which I think will explain clearly to readers why the group have been open-minded enough to allow me – an opinionated, David Icke-influenced “conspiracy theorist” specializing in the less provable, more speculative areas of crop circle research – to contribute my unique perspective to their yearly meetings.

Quote 1:

”The Independent Crop Circle Researchers' Association [ICCRA] began as a small cooperative group of individuals in the Midwestern United States who have long pursued serious research into the crop circle phenomenon with the principle of open collaboration. This 'team' of researchers has steadily grown in number, and has now included contributions from members of the crop circle research community from around the world. Although all the researchers in this association are considered independent (and thereby retaining individual ownership of their work), the investigative community has recognized that the study of the various complexities and aspects of the crop circle phenomenon are beyond the abilities and resources of any one researcher or local group to study in sufficient depth. Hence, the need for a cooperative association and network dedicated to the widest and freest possible collection and dissemination of crop circle research.

The ICCRA recognizes the need in the research community to collect and make available as much objectively verifiable knowledge and details about crop circles as possible, and so will continue to study and document crop formations using a scientific framework.”

Quote 2:

”Every researcher carries with them their own perspectives, specialties, & research capabilities that they bring to the study of crop circles. The ICCRA believes that no one, single researcher has "the answer", but instead, for progress to be made in this field of study (no pun intended), it takes cooperation and collaboration amongst many researchers with various talents and experiences to, over time, be able to gain a fuller understanding of this complex subject.

Just a suggestion but you need to either write a book, create a website/blog, or cut it down to the point. I'm sorry but I don't feel like wasting 4-5 hours reading all your stuff that pretty much says the same thing 100 other topics say. I read the first few paragraphs and lost all interest. I did read what others said and that was enough to make me know the points of your theory. Your theory is pretty much based on other theories, and don't take this offense but most of them theories IMO are laughable at best.

Wow. So far, none of my debunkers on this thread have shown any evidence of having actually read my crop circle essay (which is the online, to-the-point version of my book-in-progress, posted on my website) or viewed my Google Earth map of alignments, even though I keep reminding readers that the evidence that backs my ideas is contained in those two presentations, to which this thread is merely an introduction. (I still look forward to a discussion of this specific evidence with any of these debunkers - which would provide the first real sign that one of my debunkers on this thread has actually read my essay and has viewed my map of alignments - but so far no one has responded to my challenge to BE SPECIFIC.)

Despite the lack of detail, links or substance in any of my previous debunkers’ “opinions” on this thread, their uninformed “opinions” are apparently good enough for this latest character, who takes it to the next level: he actually admits (apparently to a fuller extent than he intended) that he has not even seen everything I’ve written on this thread, let alone my Google Earth map of alignments or my website:



Only one sentence is really needed to respond to this:

“Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.” – Albert Einstein

For readers who are less prone to the lazy, Orwellian groupthink openly advocated by “insanemind” here, once again here’s the link to my website, which contains my essay/book-in-progress and my messageboard/blog:
www.scatterdome.com/howell.htm

And once again, for the instructions/downloads needed to view the most current version of my Google Earth map of alignments, scroll up to my August 9 post on this thread, or use the following link to jump directly to the post:
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2435548

So you went to several mounds and talk to dead spirits, You know they made there presence known from symbolic synchronicities and well-timed animals appearance that happened constantly form the moment you left ICCRA. So you went to a burial ground to talk to spirits (so your a medium too) you knew they were there through what symbols( road signs maybe) and what was the connection between these symbols that meant something to you? OMG stop the presses you seen animals in the wild, and such appearance of these animals must mean spirits are showing them selves to you. Or they just happen to be doing what animals do and you were the one that had the good timing to string all there appearances into a meaning even though there wasn't one and animals were just being animals. Its not a matter of laziness its the fact i took that whole paragraph and summed it up in one sentence, granted its not a colorful as what your wrote but its still says the same thing. What did you do copy and paste your whole website? You visited 7 mounds out of what 100 maybe mounds and you made this connection. Well with that logic I could say i was being stalked because when I drove to the store people stared at me and few cars happen to go to the same store in the general way I took. If you can better explain this paragraph maybe I would take the time to read the rest. Also how is this a conspiracy wouldn't this better fit in the metaphysics or ghost or aliens section of the forum.