Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Tau Ceti Xeta

[Merged] Amazing Crop Circle: Hackpen Hill

346 posts in this topic

*dbl post

Edited by Slave2Fate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I care less about the "how" (so lets ignore for the moment microwaves and metal pellets and the like) and move onto the "why".

Why are they made?

We have two possible answers:

1) I don't know.

2) For the LOLs.

Now, I'm sure "I don't know" is a great place to start a scientific survey (actually, it's not. The place to start a scientific survey is "I think it's X" and testing to see if you're right but anyway, moving on...) however, for me, I abhor not knowing things and for the life of me I cannot see why the aliens are doing this. Beyond "they're doing it for a laugh" which is exactly the same reason humans do it.

Therefore I do not subscribe to the alien created cereal graffiti phenomena because I cannot comprehend why they're doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even I who am on the fence about the creators of circles wouldn't say aliens made them, we just don't know...but hoaxers have put up a convincing explanation and proof to some extent..until we see without any doubt proof its extra terrestrial in origins we have to accept they are all hoaxes

edit: I say hoax but really they only became hoaxes when people started assuming they were alien in origins,

Edited by ciriuslea
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To my knowledge we get sod all cereal graffiti here.

Australia is known to've had a small rash of some of the earliest crop circles, of the simple circle variety, well before the the more elaborate ones became a phenomenon in the UK. (60's or 70's) Now IIRC, the two old duffers who claim to've started said phenomenon by hoaxing got the idea after reading about the ones in Australia.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Australia is known to've had a small rash of some of the earliest crop circles, of the simple circle variety, well before the the more elaborate ones became a phenomenon in the UK. (60's or 70's) Now IIRC, the two old duffers who claim to've started said phenomenon by hoaxing got the idea after reading about the ones in Australia.

Hey Oniomancer, welcome back to the UFO circus! :tu:

I'm not sure but I seem to recall something along those lines as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To dismiss nearly 40 years of research by typing one sentence into a pc isn't going to impress me one little bit. I cannot speak for others but I won't accept flat out dismissal of dozens of dedicated researchers who have spent months and years on site, categorising, studying and analysing by those who have never seen one themselves or set foot in one.

It's exactly like someone who hoaxes UFO images claiming that they and friends are responsible for all sightings.

It's just pure crap.

For any opinion on this subject to be taken remotely seriously it would have to explain the following enigmas:

1) Spherical balls and soil anomolies.

2) Microwave damage.

3) Balls of light witnessed before and after crop circle formations.

4) EM radiation effects

5) Creation of circles in very short time frames without trace of human intrusion.

Then we go back to the experts and those who have spent a long time researching the subject.

When you have looked into the above phenomena and reviewed Rob's work maybe an informed discussion would be possible on this thread.

All we have at the moment is uninformed casual dismissal. That is arrogant and unscientific.

I will not respond to that; please do not be offended. I will just refer people back to this post.

In reverse order:

5. As near as I can ascertain, the short time frame claim is based on the best time manageable by one of the aforementioned old duffers, who, being an old duffer, could hardly be expected to move very quickly on foot under the described conditions at the time. Nor did he or his companion appear to have access to night vision equipment, which would've allowed considerable ease of navigation without drawing attention.

4. I'm not personally aware of any independent verification of these magnetic readings which would tend to question there validity though I could be mistaken on that point. I did however notice you charitable refrained from mentioning the similar measurements obtained by dousing.

3. Second hand accounts and therefore unverifiable

2. We have a plausible natural explanation for the blown and stretched nodes being the result of solar heating and regrowth of damaged stalks post-flattening. The estimated interval between creation and discovery might be worth examining for any correlation.

Which just leaves

1. Here again we have limited verification. There is as yet no reason to suppose the samples aren't legitimate. The question becomes then how hard would this be to fake? On the surface, not hard at all. In theory one needs only to go to a region where such material is common and run a magnet over the ground to collect it, then broadcast it over the site in a significant manner. The incrusted and imbedded material is more difficult to account for, though when you're looking for anomalies, they tend to turn up, regardless of their origin. A couldn't help but notice though how a slight soil encrustation suddenly became a covering of melted material, which I shouldn't have to tell you is not particularly good for plant tissue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only one: When are you going to look into this phenomena in a thorough way?

I thought this thread was about Hackpen Hill? Has any of the phenomena associated with "real" crop circles been documented at Hackpen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone did raise an interesting point about the metal spheres - the farm owners taking potshots at birds (or the circle makers).

So if we accept that as an (note Zoser, I used AN not "the", I'm spitballing a theory) explanation for the metal spheres, and we say the circle makers have invested in night vision gear, the fact the circles are in fairly uninhabited/unvisited areas (so "it wasn't there the last time I was here" could have been weeks before) and fairly flat areas (so hard to see the circles without some serious elevation) then the only unexplained thing going is "electromagnetic energy" which hasn't been identified by anyone other then cerealolgists, fringe ones at that.

A working theory with enough variables to be tested emerges.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this thread was about Hackpen Hill? Has any of the phenomena associated with "real" crop circles been documented at Hackpen?

I think it's all related; the OP was questioning how was it created? OM's post above addresses the issue.

He's wrong of course though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In reverse order:

5. As near as I can ascertain, the short time frame claim is based on the best time manageable by one of the aforementioned old duffers, who, being an old duffer, could hardly be expected to move very quickly on foot under the described conditions at the time. Nor did he or his companion appear to have access to night vision equipment, which would've allowed considerable ease of navigation without drawing attention.

4. I'm not personally aware of any independent verification of these magnetic readings which would tend to question there validity though I could be mistaken on that point. I did however notice you charitable refrained from mentioning the similar measurements obtained by dousing.

3. Second hand accounts and therefore unverifiable

2. We have a plausible natural explanation for the blown and stretched nodes being the result of solar heating and regrowth of damaged stalks post-flattening. The estimated interval between creation and discovery might be worth examining for any correlation.

Which just leaves

1. Here again we have limited verification. There is as yet no reason to suppose the samples aren't legitimate. The question becomes then how hard would this be to fake? On the surface, not hard at all. In theory one needs only to go to a region where such material is common and run a magnet over the ground to collect it, then broadcast it over the site in a significant manner. The incrusted and imbedded material is more difficult to account for, though when you're looking for anomalies, they tend to turn up, regardless of their origin. A couldn't help but notice though how a slight soil encrustation suddenly became a covering of melted material, which I shouldn't have to tell you is not particularly good for plant tissue.

OK but none of the above stands as anything like a proof that the CC's are all the hand of man. It's just your gut feeling.

Until the footage of the balls of light for example (and I mean all of them) can be explained then this phenomena will continue remain a complete mystery.

It was a mystery from the outset until two old codgers turned up claiming complete responsibility. In hindsight it's blatantly obvious that this was nothing but a put job to silence the public; the evidence was never there to support their claims. In the main however the plot worked. The public did lose interest.

Then CC's became more complex. Then more circle makers appeared claiming the same thing.

Then the phenomena was examined in more detail; balls of light, microwaved nodes, spherical balls, EM effects, and circles where no human intrusion had occurred.

Some crop circle specialists now claim that 80% are man made and 20% are genuine. That's OK and that same ratio probably tallies closely with UFO hoaxes against genuine sightings.

The mystery continues..............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mystery continues..............

Only in your head

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please refrain from trolling.

You have been directed already to the research and the investigators involved.

http://en.wikipedia....roll_(Internet)

Here is the link to the research on spheres. Follow the research from there.

http://www.unexplain...55#entry4875321

Please also update yourself on the CC phenomena in posts 307 and 308.

Youre just plain ridiculous, but you know that right? You'll argue for anything so long as someone responds to you wont you? I totally debunked Levenwood already, or should I say, Dr Levenwood, ha. And now you offer up another non descript web page for ....yeh for what? To prove to me that someone 'more official' has studied the alleged phenomena?

Plain stupid. Youre clutching at straws once again. NO aliens are making patterns in the fields, and why would they. Its people, and boards, and bits of string. ONly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the main however the plot worked. The public did lose interest.

I can tell you why I'm losing interest in the ETH side of UFOlogy. It's purely because the 'I, with my limited understanding, can't figure it out so it must be aliens' argument is quite possibly the most asinine and idiotic thing I've ever heard. Hearing it repeated ad nauseum for every case that comes by is getting really really old.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Youre just plain ridiculous, but you know that right? You'll argue for anything so long as someone responds to you wont you? I totally debunked Levenwood already, or should I say, Dr Levenwood, ha. And now you offer up another non descript web page for ....yeh for what? To prove to me that someone 'more official' has studied the alleged phenomena?

Plain stupid. Youre clutching at straws once again. NO aliens are making patterns in the fields, and why would they. Its people, and boards, and bits of string. ONly

Just because you found what you perceive to be an irregularity in Levengood's credentials in no way counts as a debunk for the work itself.

I would remind you that you were supplied with two more investigators associated with the sphere phenomena.

Regarding the webpage, I did suggest that you follow the leads from there. The images are in the public domain along with the research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can tell you why I'm losing interest in the ETH side of UFOlogy. It's purely because the 'I, with my limited understanding, can't figure it out so it must be aliens' argument is quite possibly the most asinine and idiotic thing I've ever heard. Hearing it repeated ad nauseum for every case that comes by is getting really really old.

If you would allow me to offer a counsel:

There is nothing wrong with your interest or commitment to the subject. There never was.

Your only mistake that you continue to make is that you don't seem to be able to piece things together to deduce what the whole picture is telling you.

Instead you approach things with a belligerent 'show me the alien bodies' attitude that you (and others) have been programmed with by the modern scientific culture.

The UFO phenomena never will be able to be unlocked like that for two main reasons:

1) They do not operate in our everyday dimension; they are just too fast and elusive.

2) When on the rare occasion things have gone wrong for ET's and crashes have occurred, the scene is totally and rapidly sanitised.

Try a different approach. Try being a collector of pieces of the jigsaw. Try using other faculties. You have them. Then when you have a dozen pieces, take a step back and see what the picture looks like.

Stop trying to get that hard evidence in your hand. It will never happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yawn.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker, on 14 August 2013 - 07:48 PM, said:

I thought this thread was about Hackpen Hill? Has any of the phenomena associated with "real" crop circles been documented at Hackpen?

I think it's all related; the OP was questioning how was it created? OM's post above addresses the issue.

He's wrong of course though.

Yes, but has any of the signs of a "real" crop circle been found at Hackpen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you would allow me to offer a counsel:

There is nothing wrong with your interest or commitment to the subject. There never was.

Your only mistake that you continue to make is that you don't seem to be able to piece things together to deduce what the whole picture is telling you.

Instead you approach things with a belligerent 'show me the alien bodies' attitude that you (and others) have been programmed with by the modern scientific culture.

The UFO phenomena never will be able to be unlocked like that for two main reasons:

1) They do not operate in our everyday dimension; they are just too fast and elusive.

2) When on the rare occasion things have gone wrong for ET's and crashes have occurred, the scene is totally and rapidly sanitised.

Try a different approach. Try being a collector of pieces of the jigsaw. Try using other faculties. You have them. Then when you have a dozen pieces, take a step back and see what the picture looks like.

Stop trying to get that hard evidence in your hand. It will never happen.

I will agree with point 1)

...but point 2)...crashes are speculation...and who "sanitises" the site? Are you one of these folks that believes the government and military operate at some higher level? They are people and they live among us...they tell their family friends and loved ones what they do at work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you one of these folks that believes the government and military operate at some higher level? They are people and they live among us...they tell their family friends and loved ones what they do at work.

Well I think the early days of crash retrieval it could well have been the ordinary military. As time went on and the USAF and the CIA became a lot more interested I think there is a large probability that covert departments were set up to deal with it. So the idea of people that are untraceable becomes a very real and feasible idea.

Think of the MIB as an example. I am not sure if some of these are ET and some are human. Now please read what is below on everyone one of my posts.

Edited by zoser
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK but none of the above stands as anything like a proof that the CC's are all the hand of man. It's just your gut feeling.

Until the footage of the balls of light for example (and I mean all of them) can be explained then this phenomena will continue remain a complete mystery.

Ah. The videos. Forgot about those. Well, The one showing a circle being "created" has all the earmarks of some sort of animation even if it wasn't admitted to be a hoax, which it was. I haven't really dug through the others as yet but the first one that came up in a search really stood out.

Hmmm...small mysterious flickering white object moving erratically against the wind right at the limits of the camera's focus...

It's. A. Bird.

It's too far away for the camera to pick out clearly so it comes off as a spherical blob. The size and pattern of motion fits though, right down to where it hovers a moment and descends into a break between rows. The flashing matches the frequency of wingbeats for a large, slower bird like a seagull. Every time it flaps, you see the shaded part under the wings.

It was a mystery from the outset until two old codgers turned up claiming complete responsibility. In hindsight it's blatantly obvious that this was nothing but a put job to silence the public; the evidence was never there to support their claims. In the main however the plot worked. The public did lose interest.

Then CC's became more complex. Then more circle makers appeared claiming the same thing.

Then the phenomena was examined in more detail; balls of light, microwaved nodes, spherical balls, EM effects, and circles where no human intrusion had occurred.

Which again are either unverified or have alternate explanations, like the nodes. If the progession does indeed follow that timeline, then one can as easily observe that as public interest waned, new details were added to help make them special again.

Some crop circle specialists now claim that 80% are man made and 20% are genuine. That's OK and that same ratio probably tallies closely with UFO hoaxes against genuine sightings.

The mystery continues..............

If a high proportion, or any for that matter, of those 80% fall into the "unreasonably complex" category though, that casts a pall over the claim they're too complex to be created by humans, by the specialists' own admission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.