sacred geometry and crop circles

[JGirl]

i hope this thread doesn't fester into the same nonsensical crap as the 'other' one...

[laver]

Of course crop circles involve geometry. That is how people make them - all of them. There are no crop circles that are not man made.

Are there are any so-called "genuine researcher into this phenomena"? No, not a one.

Is geometry sacred? Only if you say it is. That is all it takes. Just likes numbers are numbers, but some people pretend that some are special. There are numerologists that pretend that pointless arithmetic operations are for some reason important. Just as their is the astrologer, which has nothing to do with astronomy, there is the numerologist, which has nothing to do with the theory of numbers.

What has been learned about the world is that the efforts to force fit some preconceived notion onto the world does not work. Numerology and sacred geometry are examples of preconceived notions that fail in the real world. An example of this was the effort to use Platonic solids as a model for the solar system. Did not work no matter how much they tried to fudge it.

There is nothing sacred about geometry until someone points to something and marks it as sacred. That is no different than pointing to something and labeling a geometry happy. It's a label someone attaches to the shape with no importance to reality.

When geometry leads us to the truth, and has been designed to do so, then I think it would be fair to call it 'sacred geometry' if we do not know how it was

created or by what 'intelligence'.

Crop circles are a phenomena that may well include examples that are created by an unknown 'intelligence'.

No one can at present prove that this is not so with some designs, and clear indications that this could be the case.

The designs are generally geometric in form so, if some that appear are not man made, this would be an example of 'sacred geometry'.

The use of the word 'sacred' meaning - looked at with reverence, awe and respect - is appropriate as the

'intelligence' that may create this geometry could turn out to be a 'deity'.

[laver]

i hope this thread doesn't fester into the same nonsensical crap as the 'other' one...

Hardly 'fester'

Nothing 'rotten' or 'decayed' in the 'other' thread, but maybe in it's opponents

Just attacked by a group of diehard debunkers....65,000 views and 1200 on the last day

hardly looks like something that is festering....

[Bendy Demon]

I honestly fail to see what is so "sacred" about the visual study of shapes (geometry) regardless of where they appear. or in what form.

A square or hexagon is just that until someone attaches some sort of baseless, esoteric meaning to it.

Sure, many of the mandalas I have seen are visually appealing but even after reading about what they represent in some religions guess I just don't see anything more into it other than a combination of shapes.

I fail to see it with any measure of "reverence" or "awe"; I just cannot "respect" a fancy colored dodecahedron any more than a circle or cube.

[stereologist]

When geometry leads us to the truth, and has been designed to do so, then I think it would be fair to call it 'sacred geometry' if we do not know how it was

created or by what 'intelligence'.

Crop circles are a phenomena that may well include examples that are created by an unknown 'intelligence'.

No one can at present prove that this is not so with some designs, and clear indications that this could be the case.

The designs are generally geometric in form so, if some that appear are not man made, this would be an example of 'sacred geometry'.

The use of the word 'sacred' meaning - looked at with reverence, awe and respect - is appropriate as the

'intelligence' that may create this geometry could turn out to be a 'deity'.

Your definition of sacred geometry is rather poor. It is contrary to the standard use of the word sacred. It also requires that the geometry be created by something that is unknowable since any time the source of the geometry is determined it becomes no longer sacred. It could lead to the situation that the same geometry might be sacred and not sacred at the same time.

Sacred is something that humans bestow on something.

There are no crop circles that are created by an unknown intelligence unless of course you are referring to those people that make them that are way smarter than the people that can't figure out how they were made. All crop circles are man made. That is well known except for the foolish few that can't figure out how to use simple tools to make complex shapes.

I think that the deification of the artists making crop circles would make them burst out with laughter.

[stereologist]

Hardly 'fester'

Nothing 'rotten' or 'decayed' in the 'other' thread, but maybe in it's opponents

Just attacked by a group of diehard debunkers....65,000 views and 1200 on the last day

hardly looks like something that is festering....

The festering was the lack of evidence in the thread and the complete denial of the overwhelming evidence against the clumsy and awkward claims. The only people looking into the thread were there to laugh at the ineptness of the claims.`

[toast]

Nothing 'rotten' or 'decayed' in the 'other' thread, but maybe in it's opponents

Just attacked by a group of diehard debunkers....65,000 views and 1200 on the last day

hardly looks like something that is festering....

Your statistic is incomplete as some figures are not included:

# of posts placed by you

# of posts supporting your claims

# of posts correcting your claims

# of posts containing questions addressed to you

# of reminder posts addressed to you asking to answer open questions given to you

# of posts addressed to you about unanswered questions

# of answers by you just nearly copy/paste answers containing nothing new/constructive

# of posts by you just to reactivate the thread (example: you placed post#246, containing nothing new, after the thread was inactive for 7 weeks)

These values must be included into the calculation to be able to judge if a volume of 1200 posts is an indicator for quality of a thread and its contents.

Just to name the total describes nothing than a number.

Edited February 20, 2014 by toast

[badeskov]

Hardly 'fester'

Nothing 'rotten' or 'decayed' in the 'other' thread, but maybe in it's opponents

Just attacked by a group of diehard debunkers....65,000 views and 1200 on the last day

hardly looks like something that is festering....

Probably caused by the same morbid fascination as watching a train wreck happening, which your thread certainly was. Distilled down, you had nothing and was called on it, it's that simple. Period.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited February 20, 2014 by badeskov

[badeskov]

Your statistic is incomplete as some figures are not included:

# of posts placed by you

# of posts supporting your claims

# of posts correcting your claims

# of posts containing questions addressed to you

# of reminder posts addressed to you asking to answer open questions given to you

# of posts addressed to you about unanswered questions

# of answers by you just nearly copy/paste answers containing nothing new/constructive

# of posts by you just to reactivate the thread (example: you placed post#246, containing nothing new, after the thread was inactive for 7 weeks)

These values must be included into the calculation to be able to judge if a volume of 1200 posts is an indicator for quality of a thread and its contents.

Just to name the total describes nothing than a number.

Great summation, toast!!

Cheers,

Badeskov

[laver]

The festering was the lack of evidence in the thread and the complete denial of the overwhelming evidence against the clumsy and awkward claims. The only people looking into the thread were there to laugh at the ineptness of the claims.`

Nonsense, in your dreams, sunshine, and there may be a few more UM users who took the trouble to look at the Geometry as it related to

Temple Farm, the Great Pyramid and the 7 church sites from the Book of Revelation than the very few diehard debunkers who sabotaged the thread.

Hence the rapidly rising numbers of users before the thread was locked.

Geometry, as it has been shown to relate to the geographical location of ancient sacred sites and

to the design of crop circles is an interesting link which with the centre of crop circle activity being in Wiltshire, with its many ancient sites

and focal point of the ancient landscape geometry, establishes further links through what is Sacred Geometry.

But then - as you have repeatedly stated, you KNOW all crop circles are man made.....

Since it is quite apparent to any reasonable individual that this statement is obviously and evidently false, other UM users should use

their judgement about the validity of other statements you make on this and other topics.

[JGirl]

threads don't get closed because of debunkers

in the case of the other crop circle thread, it was closed because it was stupid.

[toast]

Hence the rapidly rising numbers of users before the thread was locked.

Once again, Laver, you are giving the impression that you have lost any contact to reality. As I mentioned in post #32 already,

your math is useless. And, if the number of post in yr thread rised as you claimed, don´t you see that this response was just

a massive protest and not a form of acceptance in any fashion? Your thread was closed, but now you are continuing just

a couple of blocks away. What`s the reason for that you cannot accept that your hypothesis did not found a supporting

majority, not even one single supporter? Masochism? An order from "above"? Whats´s your general claim here?

Or are you just an underaged kid, keeping his breath until it gets the cookie?

Strange hypothesis and claims are not a problem here on UM. You placed your claim and it was discussed. But if

you continue with the same claims again and again and again, it`s massive trolling, simply just that.

There are a lot of boards outside where you will find a grateful audience for your CC/Wilshire/GP/Revelation opera,

try for it and get happy.

Edited February 21, 2014 by toast

[stereologist]

Nonsense, in your dreams, sunshine, and there may be a few more UM users who took the trouble to look at the Geometry as it related to

Temple Farm, the Great Pyramid and the 7 church sites from the Book of Revelation than the very few diehard debunkers who sabotaged the thread.

Hence the rapidly rising numbers of users before the thread was locked.

Geometry, as it has been shown to relate to the geographical location of ancient sacred sites and

to the design of crop circles is an interesting link which with the centre of crop circle activity being in Wiltshire, with its many ancient sites

and focal point of the ancient landscape geometry, establishes further links through what is Sacred Geometry.

But then - as you have repeatedly stated, you KNOW all crop circles are man made.....

Since it is quite apparent to any reasonable individual that this statement is obviously and evidently false, other UM users should use

their judgement about the validity of other statements you make on this and other topics.

Nonsense petunia. The only thing glaring clear is that there is nothing sacred about crop circle designs. They are installation art made by people.

Not one shred of evidence has been posted showing any connection between crop circles and ancient sites.

Not one shred of evidence has been posted showing any connection to ancient sites.

If you want to post any evidence that any crop circles are something other than man made you are free to post it. But you haven't petunia. You have been asked many times to post a crop circle not made by man, but you have not have you petunia.

UM readers can all see that your insistence about crop circles being anything other than man made art is a vacuous claim. You can change our zero evidence stance by posting evidence. Will you? I doubt it. You have failed to post anything at all in months, and months, and months.

[laver]

I honestly fail to see what is so "sacred" about the visual study of shapes (geometry) regardless of where they appear. or in what form.

A square or hexagon is just that until someone attaches some sort of baseless, esoteric meaning to it.

Sure, many of the mandalas I have seen are visually appealing but even after reading about what they represent in some religions guess I just don't see anything more into it other than a combination of shapes.

I fail to see it with any measure of "reverence" or "awe"; I just cannot "respect" a fancy colored dodecahedron any more than a circle or cube.

I don't think your comment 'baseless, esoteric meaning' can be correct - take the cross.

Although not apparently the original sign for Christianity, that being the vesica or vesica piscis - a fish shape, its clear geometric shape has messages

which many people would regard as 'sacred' and wear this geometric symbol because of the meaning it conveys to them and maybe others.

So clearly it commands some reverence, respect and awe.

The vesica, almond or fish shape was clearly also a geometric design that commanded reverence, respect and awe long before the cross shape.

This shape is formed by the overlapping of two circles with the fish shape in the middle and was an important sign from very ancient times.

It is a geometric form often seen in the design of crop circles and, if some are not man made, this might be important.

We do not as yet know for sure which crop designs are man made and which may not be but the possible inclusion of the vesica with its

twin circle message could be linked to the landscape geometry of Wiltshire where it is fundamental to a geometric layout leading,

with the Great Pyramid, to the 7 church sites of the Book of Revelation, the last book of the bible.

Of course the pyramid shape seems to have been considered sacred by many cultures and clearly by some represented a geometric form which

linked the terrestrial to the non - terrestrial. So it is not surprising that we find it is such an important part of the sacred geometry that takes us to the

Book of Revelation - which is about a time when a proof of the non-terrestrial will be revealed, as would seem to be happening at the present time

in the evident landscape geometry and maybe the sacred geometry in crop designs which have appeared in recent years in a ancient sacred

area of southern Britain.

These designs are most often of a circular form, a sign of completion or the end of a cycle, and the spiral so often used in very ancient art,

a cycle with time added maybe, may give us some clues to the knowledge of these early people - or some of them - or their visitors ?

Geometry is the means of conveying these messages so should be called 'sacred', and this may well have been known about in very ancient times.

[stereologist]

I don't think your comment 'baseless, esoteric meaning' can be correct - take the cross.

Although not apparently the original sign for Christianity, that being the vesica or vesica piscis - a fish shape, its clear geometric shape has messages

which many people would regard as 'sacred' and wear this geometric symbol because of the meaning it conveys to them and maybe others.

So clearly it commands some reverence, respect and awe.

The vesica, almond or fish shape was clearly also a geometric design that commanded reverence, respect and awe long before the cross shape.

This shape is formed by the overlapping of two circles with the fish shape in the middle and was an important sign from very ancient times.

It is a geometric form often seen in the design of crop circles and, if some are not man made, this might be important.

We do not as yet know for sure which crop designs are man made and which may not be but the possible inclusion of the vesica with its

twin circle message could be linked to the landscape geometry of Wiltshire where it is fundamental to a geometric layout leading,

with the Great Pyramid, to the 7 church sites of the Book of Revelation, the last book of the bible.

Of course the pyramid shape seems to have been considered sacred by many cultures and clearly by some represented a geometric form which

linked the terrestrial to the non - terrestrial. So it is not surprising that we find it is such an important part of the sacred geometry that takes us to the

Book of Revelation - which is about a time when a proof of the non-terrestrial will be revealed, as would seem to be happening at the present time

in the evident landscape geometry and maybe the sacred geometry in crop designs which have appeared in recent years in a ancient sacred

area of southern Britain.

These designs are most often of a circular form, a sign of completion or the end of a cycle, and the spiral so often used in very ancient art,

a cycle with time added maybe, may give us some clues to the knowledge of these early people - or some of them - or their visitors ?

Geometry is the means of conveying these messages so should be called 'sacred', and this may well have been known about in very ancient times.

As you pointed out here the idea that a shape is in any way sacred is something specified by people. The shape itself does not have this property. It only has it when people confer that property onto the shape.

Although your definition of vesica is incorrect, we can use your definition of a faux-vesica. The shape is only seen as sacred by those that confer the notion of sacred onto that shape. Just because that shape appears in other places does not mean it is sacred. The faux-vesica appears in logos such as the CBS logo, yet there it is not sacred. It may appear appear in crop circles, but there it is not sacred. Maybe you think that a faux-vesica in a crop circle is sacred and for you it is. That does not mean it is sacred to other people that have not conferred sacred onto the shapes within a crop circle. As for me, the faux-vesica is not sacred. Frankly, I asked around and no one I asked thought that the faux-vesica is sacred. Seems to be a thing of the past at least around here.

What we do know is that ALL crop circles are man made. Were there any reason to suspect that something was not man made it could be discussed and posted. To date 100% of the evidence tells us that crop circles are man made installation art.

It is true that there are old geometric patterns drawn by ancient peoples. Are these sacred or doodles? Do they have meaning or are they simply marks telling us that people cam by here so long ago? We simply don't know. The fact that they are widely scattered suggests that they are not sacred symbols. Sacred symbols are thought to be reserved for sacred places. Their widespread occurrence suggests they are not sacred.

[markprice]

I'm here to talk about sacred geometry and it's connection to crop circles.

That ends with: "don't fear aliens; they are here to help" which is a false generalization or oversimplification. Don't worry, all spirits are here to help: same thing.

Are there are any so-called "genuine researcher into this phenomena"? No, not a one.

Whoever made that video did genuine research.

Is geometry sacred? Only if you say it is. That is all it takes. Just likes numbers are numbers, but some people pretend that some are special. There are numerologists that pretend that pointless arithmetic operations are for some reason important. Just as their is the astrologer, which has nothing to do with astronomy, there is the numerologist, which has nothing to do with the theory of numbers.

This is backwards thinking. Origins are sacred even after that fact is lost.

There is nothing sacred about geometry until someone points to something and marks it as sacred. That is no different than pointing to something and labeling a geometry happy. It's a label someone attaches to the shape with no importance to reality.

That's like saying there is no value in an object until someone has discovered it. Absolute nonsense.

Sacred is something that humans bestow on something.

That would be the definition of not really sacred.

What we do know is that ALL crop circles are man made.

That's just dogma accepted in whatever circle you are in.

Anyway, the video was interesting.

[stereologist]

That ends with: "don't fear aliens; they are here to help" which is a false generalization or oversimplification. Don't worry, all spirits are here to help: same thing.

Whoever made that video did genuine research.

This is backwards thinking. Origins are sacred even after that fact is lost.

That's like saying there is no value in an object until someone has discovered it. Absolute nonsense.

That would be the definition of not really sacred.

That's just dogma accepted in whatever circle you are in.

Anyway, the video was interesting.

Sorry, not a genuine researcher. Not even genuine research. The video is nothing but a bunch of unsubstantiated claims.

Sacred is a property people ascribe to things, ideas, objects etc. Geometry is sacred only is someone says it is and then it is only sacred to those that say it is. Until it is labeled sacred the object is not sacred. Humans assign sacred. Nothing else assigns sacred.

All crop circles are man made.

[markprice]

Sorry, not a genuine researcher. Not even genuine research. The video is nothing but a bunch of unsubstantiated claims.

Sacred is a property people ascribe to things, ideas, objects etc. Geometry is sacred only is someone says it is and then it is only sacred to those that say it is. Until it is labeled sacred the object is not sacred. Humans assign sacred. Nothing else assigns sacred.

All crop circles are man made.

Thanks for restating that dogma, but it's still wrong. Intrinsic value is sacred whether someone knows what it is or not. Sacred: worthy of respect. Example: a mountain is sacred based on its intrinsic value... not just extracted gold etc.

[stereologist]

Thanks for restating that dogma, but it's still wrong. Intrinsic value is sacred whether someone knows what it is or not. Sacred: worthy of respect. Example: a mountain is sacred based on its intrinsic value... not just extracted gold etc.

Completely wrong again. A mountain is only sacred when people bestow that designation on the mountain. The bit about gold has nothing whatsoever to do with anything.

There is nothing intrinsic about sacred. It is not sacred until people say it is sacred. If it were possible to determine sacred then there would be a test for sacred. There isn't. Sacred is whatever people say is sacred.

You say sacred is something worthy of respect. Again, that reaffirms my statement that sacred is something bestowed by humans. People decide what should be respected.

[markprice]

Completely wrong again. A mountain is only sacred when people bestow that designation on the mountain. The bit about gold has nothing whatsoever to do with anything.

Wrong. A mountain is sacred to anyone who can recognize that fact. Gold is an example of the unseen intrinsic value you are pushing because extracted and sold.

There is nothing intrinsic about sacred.

And that is why you continue to be wrong and will never understand. Applying a "sacred label", as you insist, does not make anything sacred. Intrinsic value is the definition of sacred. That's all there is to it.

Edited March 5, 2014 by markprice

[stereologist]

Wrong. A mountain is sacred to anyone who can recognize that fact. Gold is an example of the unseen intrinsic value you are pushing because extracted and sold.

And that is why you continue to be wrong and will never understand. Applying a "sacred label", as you insist, does not make anything sacred. Intrinsic value is the definition of sacred. That's all there is to it.

Again you agree with me. You say that a a mountain is sacred to anyone who can recognize that fact. That is what I am stating. A person makes that decision. A person makes the decision what is and what is not sacred. It is a property bestowed by a person. The mountain is sacred only if a person decides it is sacred. If a person does not decide to consider a mountain sacred then the mountain is not sacred to that person.

There is no intrinsic value making something sacred. If that were true then it would be possible to test if something is sacred. There isn't such a test. People bestow this property of sacred. There is no sacred outside of what humans decide is sacred.

[stereologist]

1. 
   Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.
   
2. 
   Worthy of religious veneration.
   the sacred teachings of the Buddha.
   
3. 
   Made or declared holy.
   sacred bread and wine.
   

Here are 3 definitions for sacred. All of these definitions require people to make the designation of sacred. Definitions 1, 2, and 3 require a human to make the designation of sacred.

Wars have broken out over different groups deciding what is sacred or not. One group sees an area to exploit and another sees sacred. One group declares a place sacred and another group wants to build on top of that just to take over the other groups sacred places.

It all boils down to people assigning the property of sacred on something. There can be agreement or disagreement. It's a human determination, not something intrinsic in the thing being labeled sacred. There is no objective test for sacred.

[markprice]

Again you agree with me. You say that a a mountain is sacred to anyone who can recognize that fact. That is what I am stating. A person makes that decision. A person makes the decision what is and what is not sacred. It is a property bestowed by a person. The mountain is sacred only if a person decides it is sacred. If a person does not decide to consider a mountain sacred then the mountain is not sacred to that person.

The mountain was sacred long before people.

There is no intrinsic value making something sacred. If that were true then it would be possible to test if something is sacred. There isn't such a test. People bestow this property of sacred. There is no sacred outside of what humans decide is sacred.

The underlined sentence does not make sense. You don't make something sacred if you notice its intrinsic value...I think your confusion is based on the difference between creating something a person considers to be sacred and appreciating something that is already sacred whether you notice it or not. The same concepts apply to numbers/geometry/creation. What you are thinking about is art created by people that may or may not be sacred depending on who is looking at it.

[markprice]

1. 
   Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.
   
2. 
   Worthy of religious veneration.
   the sacred teachings of the Buddha.
   
3. 
   Made or declared holy.
   sacred bread and wine.
   

Here are 3 definitions for sacred. All of these definitions require people to make the designation of sacred. Definitions 1, 2, and 3 require a human to make the designation of sacred.

Wars have broken out over different groups deciding what is sacred or not. One group sees an area to exploit and another sees sacred. One group declares a place sacred and another group wants to build on top of that just to take over the other groups sacred places.

It all boils down to people assigning the property of sacred on something. There can be agreement or disagreement. It's a human determination, not something intrinsic in the thing being labeled sacred. There is no objective test for sacred.

sa·cred(sā′krĭd)

adj.

1.

Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.

2.

Worthy of religious veneration:

the sacred teachings of the Buddha.

3.

Made or declared holy:

sacred bread and wine.

4.

Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person:

sacred to the memory of her sister; a private office sacred to the President.

5.

Worthy of respect; venerable.

6.

Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices.

I'm not going to defend religious abuse; just stating that sacred is intrinsic value. If religions understood that then there would be no problems caused by them. You could say intrinsic value is subjective or you can teach people to objectively value what is already sacred.

[stereologist]

The mountain was sacred long before people.

The underlined sentence does not make sense. You don't make something sacred if you notice its intrinsic value...I think your confusion is based on the difference between creating something a person considers to be sacred and appreciating something that is already sacred whether you notice it or not. The same concepts apply to numbers/geometry/creation. What you are thinking about is art created by people that may or may not be sacred depending on who is looking at it.

Completely wrong. Nothing is sacred until a person decides it is sacred.

There is no intrinsic value making something sacred. You don't understand that. Not surprised. You think that things are sacred outside of humanity. That is completely wrong . It is humans that decide something is sacred. I am definitely not thinking only of human made objects. Consider the mountain example. That shows you are wrong (as always). There is no intrinsic value to the mountain that makes it sacred. It is humans that decide it is sacred. It is humans that label something as sacred.