UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Aug > Aug 24

Re: Crop Circles Discussion

From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 02:18:35 -0300
Archived: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 08:12:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Crop Circles Discussion

>From: Paul Scott Anderson <paulscottanderson.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:49:32 -0700
>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?

No, I asked where the intricate patterns were in dense forests
similar to those found in easy to reach fields. The flattened
areas you speak of are nothing like the snazzy glyphs of today.
Those 300-500 foot diameter circles with the trees lying about
in a radial pattern suggest some type of air burst to me,
perhaps some sort of microburst from a rapidly disintegrating
TCU. Get these trees at the right time during a rapid freezing
and that can snap like twigs when this heavy, cold, descending
vertical wind hits them.

>>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

Yes I do. You missed my point above so I could ask the same.

>>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:

I'll read them. But consider this. I was as puzzled as anyone
else when I started hearing about the larger crop depressions or
circles back in the eighties. I thought there might have been
some connection to the UFO phenomenon but time after time I read
about hoaxes surounding the crop circle phenomenon. Was it Nancy
Talbot [did I not read this recently] that discovered instances
of famers in collusion with the boys with the boards for some
financial gain.


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

We all have a bit of the Shirmer in us but I've not been
Shirmerized, and I'm not putting words in your mouth. I've been
disappointed with the hoaxing that has gone on in crop art. What
I'm afraid of is that the phenomenon you embrace is considered
to be part of the phenomenon that I embrace, by a large segment
of the public and the media,  and that yours will ultimately
collapse and drag, mine down with it.


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