UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Aug > Aug 22

Re: Crop Circles Discussion

From: Paul Scott Anderson <paulscottanderson.nul>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:49:32 -0700
Archived: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:51:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Crop Circles Discussion

>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>To:  ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:01:39 -0300
>Subject: Re: Crop Circles Discussion

>You are dragging this into ufology, not I. And you are on a List
>called UFO UpDates in case you haven't noticed. If you want to
>flaunt crop circles then expect to take some flack about it. Now
>you refer back to what were once considered to be trace evidence
>of landings in marshes and in the forests and suddenly they are
>crop circles san the crops and the beginnings of some phenomenon
>you propose. A lot of work was done investigating these which
>were evident trace cases of some heavy object having landed or
>set down there not some design created to communicate.

I'm not 'flaunting' anything. I've seen numerous other subjects
get posted about here, but don't see you complaining about
those... And I didn't start the thread. I'm just rebutting the
erroneous statements being made; I and others have been
investigating and studying this subject for many years now, far
more than you. Per my other post: you are confusing two
different things. These 'trace cases' are different from classic
crop circles. What I've said, is that there are other older crop
circle cases of _flattened and swirled_ circles and/or rings,
with _no_ weight or burn evidence. You are the one assuming that
what I refer to as crop circles are all just landing trace
cases. Wrong!

>There are no 200-300 foot wide circles in the forests or marshes
>either with the intricate patterns seen since the 80s. You have
>confused those with the older trace cases which still occur or
>done so to give some credence to the growth of crop circles.

>I'm well aware of the huge circles in the Northwest Territories
>but it seems to me they were explained away as some tree growth
>pattern after some natural event.

The 'forest circles' have all been simple circles, as far as I
know. Some of those may indeed be classic trace cases, but some
do not seem to be. When trees are described as all flattened
radially from the centre to the outside edges in circles from
about 300-500 feet diameter, that does not sound like a landing
case to me. Those were the NT circles in 2004. I talked to the
witness who found them while flying as well as a couple other
witnesses to these and previous circles in that region.

I also talked to a couple of the forestry experts in the area
and they did not think these were likely to be ordinary
blowdown. I've never heard since anything about them being some
tree growth pattern. Do you have a specific reference for that
claim, or are you just making assumptions again?

>And I'll stick to whatever I damn well want which is an attempt
>at some critical thinking, not blind acceptance of some theory
>that these are created in fields from the air by UFOs.

>You on the other hand seem to blindly accept these intricate
>patterns as some phenomenon created by some extra terrestrial
>intelligence despite the fact that many have been admittedly
>hoaxed and that humans are just as capable of producing them
>with boards, ropes and measuring tapes.

I've _never_ said I think these are necessarily made by UFOs, in
all the years I've been doing this. If you actually knew
anything about me or my work, you would know that! You keep
making these same, baseless comments. And I've said that I
accept that many are made by people. Do you even read what I

>To me they are noise in the signal not to mention another source
>of ridicule from science and the media. Off list I have been
>accused of being a Shirmer re crop circles at my peril
>reputation wise.

There are a growing number of scientists who have become
involved in the last several years who would disagree with you.
Try actually reading some of their reports, such as the clay-
mineral XRD study done on a Canadian formation in Alberta a few
years ago:


The Shirmer analogy is appropriate, because you keep making the
same erroneous statements, putting words in other peoples' mouths
(me, in this case), etc.

Paul Scott Anderson

Canadian Crop Circle Research Network

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