Talk:Crop circle/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Paranormal

Since when is the possibility of extraterrestrial life something paranormal? Who writes such nonsense? SETI, NASA etc. all search for extraterrestrial life. These do not have to be necessarily green etc. just extra terrestrial. This is embarrassing to read in Wikipedia.

But they're all manmade.

Yep. This is all bullshit. Intrincate forms in EVERY plant, radiation, extreme complexity, formed in minutes or seconds... WikiP is managed by obscure entities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.105.14 (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I few years back the whole narrative on the same thing was a whole lot different. I was just surprised by this apparent misunderstanding, and distorted information provided here. And so many people who learn about this phenomenon nowadays are effectively mislead by this single article on wikipedia. I don't understand the motives behind writing about that crop circles are hoaxes. Are they trying to debunk some pseudoscience? It's by science that we understand it's impossible to make so many crop circles that appear across the Europe every year, in such a frequent manner, without being noticed by the farmers... I learned about the crop circles as a kid many many years ago in the eastern world, and yet the concept was accurately depicted back then. This article here is outrages. Theanonymity.de (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

In the UK, just after WW2, graffiti known as 'chads' appeared frequently and repeatedly on walls all over the country. Nobody suggested that they were drawn by aliens or were some sort of paranormal phenomenon. Of course, back in those days, people were not as STUPID as they are now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.39.18 (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

And not to mention that some historic crop circles are extremely big. It's impossible for any organization to make up something like that overnight. Also why would they? There is no reward to accomplishing that with considerable amount of resources put in place. People, not only the pranks, have tried to make their own crop circles in practice in the name of science. And the result turned out to be very messy in quality. They also learned that it takes a very long time for a group of people, without using any machinery, to create the modest crop circles in size. Only a few years ago, what I added was basically the commonsense around the people I knew.

Of course there is no scientific evidence to the creation of these crop circles by aliens and such. Even the concept of aliens itself is still not verifiable. But saying that most, if not all, of the crop circles are made by pranks is just outrages. Theanonymity.de (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Not only the sources provided and the points made in the articles are stupid. The sentencing logic at the most level is problematic. By looking at the introductory paragraph, there are two contradictory sentences found. On one hand, it's said "all crop circles are to be found of human causation.", and on the other hand (at the end of the second paragraph, it's also said "(crop circles) are found by an investigator to be impossible for humans to make". What the f is that all about??? What is the motivation behind writing such and such nonsense. Theanonymity.de (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

That's simple. The "investigator" (Pat Delgado) was wrong. He probably thought that if he could not do it, nobody else could, which is a mistake several pseudosciences are based on. The conclusion from "an investigator said X is true" to "X is true" is also a common mistake fans of pseudosciences make. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

It's impossible for any organization to make up something like that overnight. How can you know that? The same way Pat Delgado knew that Bower's and Chorley's demonstration circle was impossible for humans to make? --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Pat Delgado was hauled in hook line a sinker when Doug and Dave made the demonstration circle. He said "No human could have done this" and it was was one of the finest examples of an authentic crop circle he had ever seen before Graham Brough from the Today newspaper showed him the video of D&D making it. However, that didn't mean the cereologists were out of business. There is more than one angle to find a niche in and that came in the form of BLT and their "scientific" papers which revived cereology relatively quickly. 81.110.125.223 (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

the whole narrative on the same thing was a whole lot different The narrative depends on the subculture you get it from. Wikipedia is part of the reality-based subculture, and you got your previous narrative from the fantasy-based one. It has nothing to do with the years that have gone by, the fantasy guys still tell the same story.

If you have no source-based suggestion for improving the article, you are in the wrong place. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I still don't get it. How would you get this topic messed up with the term "pseudoscience"? It's simply a phenomenon that people can't well explain yet. We are just guessing perhaps it's of extra-terrestrial origin or something else. And nobody has ever forced their way in by insisting it's created, for example, by aliens, without any scientific evidence. Perhaps it's inappropriate to mask this phenomenon as "hoaxes" before even looking into it carefully. For example, you can call anti-vax activists pseudo-scientific, because they are telling lies in a hostile manner despite obvious truth being laid out. Theanonymity.de (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

It's a phenomenon that some people can't well explain yet. Skeptics have no problem with it. Cereologists have proven that the reason they can't explain is is that the people who make the circles are smarter than them. When you see We are just guessing, by "we" you mean that part of the population the people who make the circles are smarter than.

What gives you the idea that this judgement was done before even looking into it carefully? There are people who investigated it thoroughly, Jim Schnabel for instance. Your problem is that you believe the wrong sources, the pseudoscientific ones who think it is science when you fail to explain something and claim that because of your failure, nobody else can explain it either.

anti-vax activists are not pseudo-scientific, because they are telling lies. They honestly believe the wrong sources, the incompetent ones, just like you. The truth is not "obvious" as soon as you decide to distrust the people who tell it to you and trust the buffoons, loons and grifters instead. In the case of crop circles, it's probably mostly buffoons. In the case of anti-vaxxers, the grifter percentage is probably bigger than with the circles, but it's difficult to say. We can only look at what they say, not at what they actually think.

My main point: This page is for discussing improvements the article. What you want to discuss is something else. Please do it elsewhere. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling:, telling other editors to effectively STFU like you do just above to @Theanonymity.de: for no other reason than you just don't like it is unacceptable. Everyone here is free to disagree over how best the encyclopaedia; simply because someone has an idea that is different than yours does NOT entitle you to accuse them of misusing talk pages! That is precisely what talk pages are for!

Now. Regarding the subject, there is a fundamental flaw with your reasoning (and with your claim that you are acting as a 'sceptic' - it is, rather, pseudoscepticism). A true sceptic's position on this matter would be thus: "There is no evidence of p paranormal or extraterrestrial activity; there are also no known means that this could be accomplished by humans. Experiments attempting to recreate these phenomena should be carried out; if they can be accurately and repeatedly reproduced within comparable lengths of time, we conclude they're manmade. If they cannot, we draw no conclusions, and further investigation should continue."

The pseudosceptical position you push for is "they're manmade, we have no explanation as to how humans could accomplish such feats, but we just know they are anyway, and it must be the case that these clandestine hoaxters are of supreme intelligence and are using secret methods to carry this out that are unknown to science." To me that sounds like a conspiracy theory. Surely one that claims scepticism shouldn't resort to conspiracy theories in order to explain their desired conclusion? 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:D43F:9051:2D0:8EC1 (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I repeat: This page is for discussing improvements the article. See the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for more detail. You are trying to use this page for something it is not for, namely for preaching your opinion about skeptics and "true skeptics" (those incompetent morons who think they can find the truth not by using scientific methods known to filter out biases, but just by trying really hard, against human nature, not to have any in the first place), and other stuff too long for me to read. Also, whining. So, yes, STFU here about that and do it somewhere else. Here, talk about article improvement instead. If you cannot do that, just go away. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

How did what I posted not fit into the purpose of improving the article? There is an obvious mistake in the article, that says crop circles something it ain't. The way it works is indeed just by talking about the subject and then make the corresponding changes, which was exactly what we did above. Some arguments have to have long supporting paragraphs, and you can't just deny those when they are "too long". A lot of the responses you made didn't make sense, yet you are still insisting on them. And please, DO NOT FLAG ME as whatever you think I am. Keep the discussion civil and healthy by avoiding words like "your problem", "like you". There is no need to get personal here. Theanonymity.de (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

If you are truly attempting to improve this article by correcting what you believe to be obvious mistake(s), as opposed to using this Talk page as a platform for expressing your personal opinions about the topic (see WP:TPG), I suggest that now is the time to do so. That is, follow WP:BRD: add/modify/remove content based upon a reliable, independent, secondary source(s), see if it gets reverted, and if it is reverted attempt to establish consensus in favor of your desired edit(s) here via discussion. Fish or cut bait. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The whole article is messed up too bad already. We need a rewrite. Now it's like some people using academic sources as instruments to revert commonsense. I am done here. Theanonymity.de (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

So much for fishing. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Just adding a note that 2600:1702:4960:1DE0's pseudoskepticism argument was also flawed. The easiest explanations are often the best ones and scientific skepticism is a proper default position until evidence shows otherwise, especially for extraordinary claims. Of course, in relation to this topic it doesn't mean that everything must either be of ET or human origin, it can include human interpretations of natural features, or of other features where humans, other animals, plants or fungi contributed. But all that is diversion, since what is needed here are reliable sources that contradict the material that is contested. That is why Hob pointed at WP:NOTFORUM. Ufology is also part of paranormal topics since a long time, especially that proponents often associate it with other dimensions, spirituality, telepathy, etc. But yes, it does not mean that searching for evidence of life in the universe is pseudoscience when done properly. So far no evidence was discovered and the Fermi paradox explains why this is unsurprising, even if it is estimated that life probably exists elsewhere in the universe, considering its age, size and our own existence. There also are programs aimed at airspace and national security and it is normal for those to care about potential threats, primarily terrestrial... You will find no NASA official statement claiming that crop circles are created by ETs. —PaleoNeonate – 19:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The definition of pseudoscience is an expert explanation for a phenomenon which doesn't have any grounding in orthodox Newtonian methodology. It doesn't mean its wholly wrong. For example, people who believe in aliens can't prove that aliens actually exist at all since there is no proof using orthodox science. However, some believe the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming, and indeed Drake suggests that the probability of technologically advanced life on other planets is a certainly concluding that there are 22 sextrillion worlds out there that could be good candidates. However, Fermi simply begs the question "Where are they then?". The problem is the paradoxical nature of the argument when the evidence flies in the face of science which doesn't always hold all the answers. 81.110.125.223 (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Rewrite needed

This article is permeated with ridicule for alternative explanations. What is missing is any explanation as to how elaborate crop circles (patterns) could be made successfully without the perpetrators being noticed, which is case for the vast majority of circles. Some of the crop patterns need a university level of mathematics before the concepts in play can even be grasped, much less executed successfully on the ground. In view of increased plausibility of ufos at time of writing (29May21), this article requires an objective rewrite sticking to what can be proven. Doug McLeod — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:2a06:ae00:e9af:f895:604:74e5 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

If you have sources for such details, we can add them. But I don't see a problem with not being noticed at night in the country. Do you think farmers have hordes of watchmen patrolling the fields at night?

Math is also not a problem. It is taught in schools, and some people pay attention. You are underestimating those people. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Much trigonometry was in 3rd grade high-school in my location and time, with basic circle geometry earlier than that, —PaleoNeonate – 08:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Just a comment for now on the edit/revert that's currently going. I'd like to flag up that the statement that The concept of "crop circles" began with the original hoaxes by Doug Bower and Dave Chorley, starting in 1976 is simply untrue. Research has shown that worldwide there were dozens pre-1960 (although mostly simple circles, and unphotographed back in those days) and over 80 in the 1960s, ISBN reference available. I hope to come back to this when I've got time. The article's second sentence mentioning Colin Andrews, at the top of the article is I believe widely accepted. And as Professor Richard Taylor states in his Physics World article in 2011, Ref 10 - even after Bower and Chorley confessed (many would say claimed) to have made 250 (although their claimed numbers varied, but 250 will do)..."that still left more than 1000 other formations unaccounted for". And from memory, in one published count, actually over 2000 by the time of their claims in September 1991. I don't think that that first sentence in the History section mentioning Bower and Chorley should be included, but I'm not going to fight over it. Ditto the second sentence about the 'Tully Nests' which properly belongs in the Section of the article actually on Bower and Chorley. Those two sentences mislead the uninformed reader and don't belong at the top of the History section, imo. Geoff L Geoffhl (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway: unless and until there are independent, reliable secondary sources that directly support these claims, no readers are being "misled" by including the Bower & Chorley information. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Dr Terence Meaden: The Circles Effect And Its Mysteries (Artetech, 1989); Jenny Randles and Paul Fuller: Crop Circles: A Mystery Solved (Robert Hale, 1991); Multiple issues of The Journal of Meteorology (Tornado and Storm Research Organisation throughout the 1980s); Terry Wilson: The Secret History of Crop Circles (Centre for Crop Circle studies, 1997); Irving, Lundberg and Pilkington: The Field Guide: The Art, History and Philosophy of Crop Circle Making (Strange Attractor, 2011). All of these reliable, objective volumes, contain copious evidence of pre-1970s crop circles. I would go through it all and add to the article and include the references etc, but someone will just think of a reason why they don't count and remove them again. But if you are serious in your remark about people not being misled, perhaps you might look at some of this evidence some time. 94.5.225.249 (talk) 07:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

reliable, objective volumes You made a funny. Those people have lost the discussion decades ago, and their reasoning is anything but reliable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Is this attempt to make a wiki page still going forward? You might want to ask me some of these questions, I'm a crop scientist who was the expert advisor for a short time with BLT (until I realised they weren't in it for the science at all). I have a Quora space here on crop circles if you want to peruse the articles. I can certainly clear up some of these issues you're having... https://qr.ae/pvbleZ 81.110.125.223 (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Simple - read this. https://qr.ae/pGzWQS 81.110.125.223 (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)