UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Aug > Aug 13

Re: Crop Circles To Be Debated

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj.nul>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:41:51 -0700
Archived: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:53:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Crop Circles To Be Debated

>From: Paul Scott Anderson <paulscottanderson.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 21:12:38 -0700
>Subject: Re: Crop Circles To Be Debated

>>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 16:25:59 -0700
>>Subject: Re: Crop Circles To Be Debated

>>A key argument for the inability of any hoaxing team to have
>>produced any of the really complex, awe-inspiring CC formations
>>of the past 15 years is the failure of any one of them ever to
>>come forward and claim credit for it, and offer to show the
>>media some afternoon just how they did it, and come through on
>>such an offer by showing how they did it without making any
>>mistakes. They know they would not be able to do this, so they
>>do not offer to do it. Negative skeptics have to claim that the
>>hoaxers of the really grand designs are so very modest that they
>>never wish to reveal who they are. I don't buy any such claim as
>>being realistic or psychologically reasonable.

>Some of the hoaxing teams in the UK are actually well known to
>some of the researchers there. They _have_ done some
>demonstrations in recent years, witnessed by some of the

Yes, that's well known.

>While usually done in daylight (or at night with
>floodlights in one case) they have at least shown what their
>capabilities actually are, which are rather impressive. This
>doesn't prove they make all the formations, but many researchers
>now agree that they are probably responsible for a good number
>of them, in more recent years.

My point remains that they have not duplicated even one of the
dozens of very impressive formations that have occurred in
recent years. This would be a necessity for them to do in order
to prove that they are capable of doing the good ones.

>Nancy Talbott has also reported
>that it is well known now that some farmers have agreed to have
>formations made in their fields, for monetary reasons.
>Circlemaking has become a business there.

Yes indeed.

>>A related argument is that no fields are found or reported in
>>which a hoaxing team repeatedly practiced making one of the
>>grand CC formations before the final one of the same appearance

>I agree though that these 'practice formations' seem to be rare
>or almost nonexistant. But, some formations do have obvious
>mistakes in them and some are just really bad...

Just like some UFO sightings don't seem very credible. We don't
usually pay much attention to them, though the news media will,
if involvement of hoaxers is confirmed.

>But then there are some, like these recent ones for example,
>whose perfection is amazing:


>This one, as a known man-made example, was commissioned this
>summer by National Geographic:


>>Of course, the lack of any reports of the hoaxers being at work
>>at night, when grand CC patterns are laid down, adds to the
>>above arguments.

>On occasion, hoaxers have indeed been caught making formations
>at night. Saying that they haven't is misinformation which
>continues to be perpetuated.

Sorry, I should have said something like "the general lack of
reports of hoaxers at work at night." I could use some web
references to any that you know about, if you have them.

>Apart from all this though, there is still good evidence for a
>genuine phenomenon, of both simple and more complex formations,
>in various countries. Human hoaxing has just overshadowed this
>and much of the serious research being done, unfortunately.

Same as within ufology.

Jim Deardorff

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast