This year represents a unique opportunity for cereologists.
Every season the question is always raised about how many of the formations
that appear in fields around the world, especially in England
See here for
background: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2017/07/wiltshire-police-on-crop-circles.html.
21 comments:
Hi Ben. Youve lost me. Why is it less likely to be made by human hands?
".... No doubt the number of crop circles will be far lower this year; however, the ones that do appear are far less likely to be made by human hands."
There has only been one circle as you say this year. Given the rural locations and circle production methods, surely one or two people could do it and social distancing not a major issue?
I don't see why/how this circle proves extraterrestrial intervention or makes it more likely? Am i missing something?
Cheers. Ade
You're missing nothing, Ade. It's very simple.
"C" represents the total number of crop circles in a single calendar year.
"H" represents the number of crop circles that are man-made.
"U" represents the number of crop circles that are not man-made.
In an average year C is, for example 50. Of those, according to the BLT and Cayton's studies: H= 45 and U=5.
This means that in 2020 we are in a situation where H will be greatly reduced. That means that if C is 5 then how much will be U? It is, based on that pattern, to be proportional, because that will mean half a crop circle, which is nonsense. But because the sample size is much lower it will make the cereologists' job far easier because if it displays the signs of being U we have a more blinded noise-free signal. It will give us a greater insight into whatever it is that creates U.
Thanks Ben though im still none the wiser. How are you sure that "U" means non man made and presumably ET activity? Is this new circle a "U" and how is "U" measured?
Thanks
By using the methods specialized by Cayton, Leavengood and others. Having fewer crop circles in total means that the sample size is smaller and this makes researching them a lot easier. It also adds to credibility of research into "U" in the public mind.
I understand about sampling methods etc, though for the UK there has only been one circle as youve said this year. I still can't see how you reject the man made hypothesis for this circle in particular? Surely we need to be satisfied that it isn't man made before considering other factors. Thanks. Ade
Hi Ade. I have not rejected the MMH for this particular circle. In the article I never state that I have. We need to explore all the avenues for its origins, which could include the plankers... BTW, I've just heard rumours of a SECOND CC. I'll try and find out more.
Interesting re this new circle. Sorry to sound dense Ben but you say in the article something about current or remaining circles being far less likely to be made by human hands. This is what i don't get. When is a circle considered to be made by extra terrestrials as opposed to humans? How is this decided? Thanks
The details are complicated, but there are particular features of "U" that you don't see on "H" circles. I recoemend the Richplanet TV video about it and the Leavengood study. Also the late great Michael Glockman.
Hi Ben, I think the formation is meant to be the virus
Hi Anon. It does look a bit like one. Alternatively it could be the egg I dropped out of my broken fridge door this morning.
Hi again Ben. Just a thought I would imagine as logic suggests, that the 'H' circles are far more elaborate than the 'U' in which case this circle surely a 'H'?
Not sure if that gauge applies. It depends how elaborate you mean. Elaborate is a very qualitative term.
Qualitative and quantitative as number of features and levels of symmetry and geometry etc can easily be discerned.
I think it is fanciful to think that there is a likelihood of this circle being the work of ETs just because of mainly urban social distancing measures. Ade
As an individual CC treated as a singular event? No. However the reason it's more likely to be a U is the sample size and the restrictions on human movement. As for the number of features and levels of symmetry and geometry, how many numbers? What kind of geometry? U's tend to be simpler in overall design and have a more organic feel to them; but that's not a yes vs no logic chop.
That's exactly what I meant a, 'U' circle one expects would certainly be a simple design if related to a UFO landing in a corn field for example. You keep mentioning sample sizes but surely we are concerned with this one single circle and your case study of it.
Look how extremely complex the design is. Another commentator mentioned the C19 virus design and probably that is the idea.
I see these circles as unusual works of art and of purely human terrestrial design. Maybe there's a kind of Banksy figure of the CC world responsible for this C19 decorative and ironic piece of art. Your suggestion that social distancing means that this may be extra terrestrial just doesn't stand up to scrutiny Im afraid Ben. Ade
Sorry, why do you keep your eggs in the fridge?
Ade, yes it does. I'm not in any way suggesting that this CC is definitely a U. I'm saying that it might be and finding out whether it is or not will be far easier because of the current situation; for the reasons I've explained. I'm well aware that the majority of CC's can be dismissed easily (if that's not disrespectful for such wonderful creations) as a form of landscape art; but this does not account for the entire phenomenon. The lockdown presents a research opportunity too good to miss. There is no case study of this one single circle, but that might happen. If it does then the researchers jobs will be made a whole lot easier by current factors. you say the design is "extremely complex", but how many extreme complexity points do you give it? 5? 10? 20? Compared to how many for what else?... This is rather like the coincidence fallacy I talk about in my skeptic videos.
Anon, mostly because there is no room anywhere else in my kitchen.
IMO, the lockdown simply reduces the number of circles of anthropogenic origin. Thus, the ratio U/H goes up significantly and researchers can invest time in investigating all known circles that appear, confident that they will have less wild goose chases. In this way, it is more likely that they will discover a U this year.
Laurence, that's exactly it. I look forward to Andy Thomas' crop circle report in Nexus this year.
Hi, Adrian. Your comment seems to have vanished, but I got an email copy. You asked: "Interesting re this new circle. Sorry to sound dense Ben but you say in the article something about current or remaining circles being far less likely to be made by human hands. This is what i don't get. When is a circle considered to be made by extra terrestrials as opposed to humans? How is this decided? Thanks"
The answer is there are distinct physiological and design differences between manmade and natural CC's. David Cayton and Arthur Levengood's studies are particularly interesting.
Post a Comment