You Can't Call Them "Crap-Circles" Anymore...

CE 3 Number of posts : 338 Location : UK Registration date : 2009-09-06

Quote :: Another crop circle expert said everyone can draw their own conclusions from the circles, adding: 'The thing about maths and the circles is that you are dealing with something which isn't an exact science so one person may decode the circles as having diatonic ratios, the other may find meaning in binary numbers or astrological cycles.

'The only possible explanation which covers all areas would be humans, however this can only be a problematic relationship shared by creaters and researchers since the [UFO] researchers hate the idea that a sense of wonder and optimism is quoshed by the admittance of human involvement.'

Can anyone seriously research anything if a precondition is that if data is collected that contradicts the researchers initial standpoint , it will be ignored ?

Sherlock Holmes said .

Quote :: when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?

Know i understand that it is impossible to eliminate the immposible because i don't really know what is possible . But the truth is the truth no less .

I was once a "believer "

For crop circle research to really progress , people need to understand that people make them . Not to ridicule anyone . Not to perpetrate a hoax , but because they feel compelled .

This is the key .

FW .
Very Happy

free wheel wrote:: For crop circle research to really progress , people need to understand that people make them . Not to ridicule anyone . Not to perpetrate a hoax , but because they feel compelled .

This is the key .

OCD.

free wheel wrote:: Can anyone seriously research anything if a precondition is that if data is collected that contradicts the researchers initial standpoint , it will be ignored ?

Of course not. But sadly, we live in a world where this is the standard modus operandi for both science and UFO research in general. We all have belief systems and we all balk when that BS is challenged. This is because we have a discombobulating habit of identifying our subjective beliefs with a presumed objective truth.

It requires a truly open mind and much mental discipline to behave otherwise.

free wheel wrote:

Sherlock Holmes said .

Quote :: when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?

Know i understand that it is impossible to eliminate the immposible because i don't really know what is possible . But the truth is the truth no less .

Ah, so Sherlock Holmes was true believer/koolaid drinker too. That is not very open minded of him. If we live in a quantum universe, NOTHING is impossible!

How does that jibe with your a-priori belief systems?

free wheel wrote:: I was once a "believer "

For crop circle research to really progress , people need to understand that people make them . Not to ridicule anyone . Not to perpetrate a hoax , but because they feel compelled .

This is the key .

FW .

People "create" UFO sightings and photos too. I have even whipped up a few fake UFO photos myself. Does that mean that all UFO sightings and photos are man-made hoaxes?

Sorry, but the above is a specious statement. It could not even be called an argument since you are simply stating what you are most inclined to believe: that all crop circles are man-made. An argument would have to include evidence which supports your contention. You have not done that.

As I said previously, this is confusing your personal belief system with a supposedly objective "truth". And here is the real kicker: when you finally arrive at a conclusion, one that you believe to be "the truth", THAT is a belief. That will be your bright shiny new BS. See, you can't escape that BS unless you decide not to believe anything at all.

If you studied the phenomenon without your BS firmly attached, (i.e., that all crop circles are man-made) you might actually arrive at a different conclusion. Or not.

I am just saying.... Wink

Mike Good wrote:: If you studied the phenomenon without your BS firmly attached, (i.e., that all crop circles are man-made) you might actually arrive at a different conclusion. Or not.

I am just saying....

What have "researchers" actually given us as far as data? I have my own topic of interest, and, like a lot of other topics in this field, I wait for those answers to come from those looking in that direction ... and they don't. They sit on a back burner in my head and stay warm, and that's it. I have heard about the stalk bendings and whatever else, but no one ever makes an interpretation of the glyph that tells us anything outside of some cool pic that has mathematical properties drawn in, or some astronomical picture. Any artist with a connection to a person who can lay out the main idea, could easily make a formation that shows this.

One would tend to think that if this is a "contact thing" then it is a poor attempt at best.

I have seen ONE formation (there's a post in here on it) that said something - and that's it. Allegedly it was instantly created in a flash of light, on 7/7/07. Could this have really been made by people and the "instant creation" was a line of bull? I read somewhere that allegedly the person ran out of film just after the flash - or something like that? When he reloaded it showed the formation - something along those lines. Anyway, could this be a man-made creation? Sure. But the approach would have needed a thought pattern that used Hebrew, and referenced that through the proto-Sinai sign list in an artistic fashion. Their knowledge of the obese goddess as connected to all this would also show they knew more than the average bear. Odds are this wasn't a human creation, and the sense value involved regarding the word HvH, is mirrored in the second glyph which is cut in half. History shows that whoever created this - knows the truth. If we could verify the instant creation, we would have something. So far, I haven't seen any solid proof. There remains an outside chance this was created by people, despite the size. I would still like to meet the person who planned it out.

CE 3 Number of posts : 338 Location : UK Registration date : 2009-09-06

Mike Good wrote:

free wheel wrote:: Can anyone seriously research anything if a precondition is that if data is collected that contradicts the researchers initial standpoint , it will be ignored ?

Of course not. But sadly, we live in a world where this is the standard modus operandi for both science and UFO research in general. We all have belief systems and we all balk when that BS is challenged. This is because we have a discombobulating habit of identifying our subjective beliefs with a presumed objective truth.

It requires a truly open mind and much mental discipline to behave otherwise.

free wheel wrote:

Sherlock Holmes said .

Quote :: when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?

Know i understand that it is impossible to eliminate the immposible because i don't really know what is possible . But the truth is the truth no less .

Ah, so Sherlock Holmes was true believer/koolaid drinker too. That is not very open minded of him. If we live in a quantum universe, NOTHING is impossible!

How does that jibe with your a-priori belief systems?

free wheel wrote:: I was once a "believer "

For crop circle research to really progress , people need to understand that people make them . Not to ridicule anyone . Not to perpetrate a hoax , but because they feel compelled .

This is the key .

FW .

People "create" UFO sightings and photos too. I have even whipped up a few fake UFO photos myself. Does that mean that all UFO sightings and photos are man-made hoaxes?

Sorry, but the above is a specious statement. It could not even be called an argument since you are simply stating what you are most inclined to believe: that all crop circles are man-made. An argument would have to include evidence which supports your contention. You have not done that.

As I said previously, this is confusing your personal belief system with a supposedly objective "truth". And here is the real kicker: when you finally arrive at a conclusion, one that you believe to be "the truth", THAT is a belief. That will be your bright shiny new BS. See, you can't escape that BS unless you decide not to believe anything at all.

If you studied the phenomenon without your BS firmly attached, (i.e., that all crop circles are man-made) you might actually arrive at a different conclusion. Or not.

I am just saying.... Wink

Thanks for saying Mike .

Well , one man's bullshit is another man's gold . And everything you say makes sense , from a certain standpoint .

Cheers FW .

Oh , and by the way . I don't believe anything myself .

free wheel wrote:: Thanks for saying Mike .

Well , one man's bullshit is another man's gold . And everything you say makes sense , from a certain standpoint .

Cheers FW .

Oh , and by the way . I don't believe anything myself .

Thanks FW!

Hey, if you have no beliefs, then you are far better man than I! drunken

But you did say that you believed crop circles were man made. This is an idea I agreed with for a long time. But some subsequent data has caused me to question that. Some are man made, and others do not appear to be so.

Personally, I find it difficult to operate without beliefs. For instance, I believe that stepping in front of a rapidly moving bus might be detrimental to my health. You can test this one yourself, if you wish. But I don't recommend it and cannot be responsible for any resulting consequences.

Perhaps it would be best to just go along with this particular belief of mine - as wacky as that may sound.... Wink

Cheers!!

Mike

CE 3 Number of posts : 338 Location : UK Registration date : 2009-09-06

Mike Good wrote:

free wheel wrote:: Thanks for saying Mike .

Well , one man's bullshit is another man's gold . And everything you say makes sense , from a certain standpoint .

Cheers FW .

Oh , and by the way . I don't believe anything myself .

Thanks FW!

Hey, if you have no beliefs, then you are far better man than I! drunken

But you did say that you believed crop circles were man made. This is an idea I agreed with for a long time. But some subsequent data has caused me to question that. Some are man made, and others do not appear to be so.

Personally, I find it difficult to operate without beliefs. For instance, I believe that stepping in front of a rapidly moving bus might be detrimental to my health. You can test this one yourself, if you wish. But I don't recommend it and cannot be responsible for any resulting consequences.

Perhaps it would be best to just go along with this particular belief of mine - as wacky as that may sound.... Wink

Cheers!!

Mike

Mike , if you stood out in front of a bus , chances are you would be dead . If you believe that , better not do it .

If you know that , even better you abstain !

If i said i "belived " CC's are man made , i apologise . I should have said , "i Know "

Cheers FW .

free wheel wrote:: Mike , if you stood out in front of a bus , chances are you would be dead . If you believe that , better not do it .

If you know that , even better you abstain !

If i said i "belived" CC's are man made , i apologise . I should have said , "i Know"

Cheers FW .

FW,

Well see, there you go. You do not "know" crop circles are man made. You only believe that to be true. That is a belief, not a "knowing".

The only way you can "know" anything is if you absolutely 100% ascertain an actual objective truth. Ha! You cannot do it. Well, except for maybe stepping in front of that bus and demonstrating that doing so is detrimental to your health. But even then you will not "know" that such a thing is detrimental to your health. What about all of those folks who stepped in front of moving buses and suffered nothing more health threatening than soiled undies?

Whoops, there goes that truth thing: down the toity.

The only thing I know for certain is that even things we believe we "know" can be called into question at any time. That means we don't "know" squat. Or, to put it another way: everything we "know" is squat. The only certainty is uncertainty. What a Face

Isn't logic fun? If you do it right, it only proves we are clueless. But sometimes we can mistake that squishy feeling in our shorts for certainty. It isn't: It's just a buttload of crap.... geek

Cheers!!

Mike

CE 3 Number of posts : 338 Location : UK Registration date : 2009-09-06

Well said Mike , and i could'nt agree more .

You are a very clear thinker and a pleasure to meet . Wondered when somebody was going to put up !

All said , we walk a similar path .

It is extremly hard to entertain a person that says " i know " But what if they do ? Don't we all hold a little piece of everything ? Don't you have anything to say ?

Not being nasty Mike , i like your vibe , keep pushing !!!!

FW . Very Happy

Mike Good wrote:: The only way you can "know" anything is if you absolutely 100% ascertain an actual objective truth. Ha! You cannot do it. Well, except for maybe stepping in front of that bus and demonstrating that doing so is detrimental to your health.

Sometimes a video representation can help.

CE 3 Number of posts : 338 Location : UK Registration date : 2009-09-06

Thanks Onlychild . Yup that video helped a lot ! It would certainly appear that the guy crossing the road , knew he was going to die . Probably the only thing he was ever certain of in his life !

I am joking of course but we seem to have arrived at at catch 22 scenario .
Does it really make sense to claim that it is impossible to really "know " anything !

How can we "know " that ?

Cheers FW . Very Happy

free wheel wrote:: Thanks Onlychild . Yup that video helped a lot ! It would certainly appear that the guy crossing the road , knew he was going to die . Probably the only thing he was ever certain of in his life !

I am joking of course but we seem to have arrived at at catch 22 scenario .
Does it really make sense to claim that it is impossible to really "know" anything !

How can we "know" that ?

Cheers FW .

FW,

Reality is a paradox. Our senses tell us that matter is "real", that we live in a shared world with other people negotiating the same relative obstacles (including buses, apparently) and that all of these things take place outside us.

And, how do we know this? We only know this in our mind. Everything we "know" passes through the narrow mail-slot of our sensory perceptions and all of those perceptions are subjectively colored by our personal beliefs. In other words, the "out there" is mostly in our heads.

Matter is not solid, even though our senses perceive it that way. There is much more space inside an atom than there is "matter". And those subatomic particles, that orthodoxy likes to think of as "matter" are not even matter at all: they are vibrating energy. How do you reconcile that with our cultural beliefs about reality and matter?

So, how does the above inform what you "know"? If you "know" a bus will kill you, then how do you reconcile that with a bus that is nothing more than a diaphanous fog of oscillating energy? Clearly, for that drunk dude, the diaphanous fog was all in his head - otherwise he might have avoided the bus.

It is all a cosmic snow-job, unless you make yourself aware of it. "Knowing stuff" is a ruse created by nervous types uncomfortable with uncertainty. Yet, uncertainty is perhaps the only sure bet you have.

Go ahead, jump into the paradox. The uncertainty is fine! Cool

Well, unless that makes you nervous. But trust me on this: Chicken Little is not a good role model. I know that for certain. Um, maybe..... Suspect

Cheers!!

Mike

CE 3 Number of posts : 338 Location : UK Registration date : 2009-09-06

Quote :: And, how do we know this? We only know this in our mind. Everything we "know" passes through the narrow mail-slot of our sensory perceptions and all of those perceptions are subjectively colored by our personal beliefs. In other words, the "out there" is mostly in our heads.

Like where you are going Mike .

So are you saying that it is possible for us to "know " something in our minds ?

That the truth we know , in our minds , being all there is , is somehow tainted by our beliefs ? The things we consider , probably aren't true because we cant substantiate them with evidence ?

As you say " Reality is a paradox " Perhaps even " Reality is paradox "

Cheers Mike .

FW .

Very Happy

Best to start with a complete reevaluation of HOW you think. Like Bacon said: Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true. Do you realize how many people are stuck in that approach - and don't know it?

CE 3 Number of posts : 338 Location : UK Registration date : 2009-09-06

onlychild wrote:: Best to start with a complete reevaluation of HOW you think. Like Bacon said: Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true. Do you realize how many people are stuck in that approach - and don't know it?

I don't actually know exact figures for that one Onlychild , but i would suspect that it is considerably more than i realise !

Of course , Bacon's quote is a classic . How can man believe that which he choses to be true ?

Guess we are back to belief again !

Oh well . What do i know !

In reference to the Bacon qoute , i just realised . You can only choose to believe something you chose to be true !

FW . Very Happy

free wheel wrote:: Like where you are going Mike .

So are you saying that it is possible for us to "know" something in our minds ?

Thanks FW!

"Knowing" is only a personal perception. What you think you "know" may or may not correspond with reality. Some people claim they "know god". I would concur with that: Of course they do. They look at God in the mirror every morning.

But most of those who claim to "know god" think that it is something outside themselves. THAT knowing does not correspond with reality. They are not aware of that, so what they think they "know" is only a belief, and a false one at that.

Well, according to my personal "knowing" - which may or may not correspond with what is true.

free wheel wrote:: That the truth we know , in our minds , being all there is , is somehow tainted by our beliefs ? The things we consider , probably aren't true because we cant substantiate them with evidence ?

Precisely! What a Face

free wheel wrote:: As you say "Reality is a paradox" Perhaps even "Reality is paradox"

Cheers Mike .

FW .

Couldn't have said it better myself. cherry

And now, this thing you "know" - that I have transmitted to you here - is only a thing which I believe to be true. It is my subjective truth - which may or may not correspond with reality and is subject to change without notice. scratch

Welcome to my paradox. affraid

Cheers!!

Mike

Well I guess we can close the forum now cuz we ain't gonna learn nuttin' You Can't Call Them "Crap-Circles" Anymore... - Page 3 Chuckle

Just remember as you leave, a bus is not your friend - no matter who you are Basketball

CE 3 Number of posts : 338 Location : UK Registration date : 2009-09-06

Quote :: "Knowing" is only a personal perception. What you think you "know" may or may not correspond with reality. Some people claim they "know god". I would concur with that: Of course they do. They look at God in the mirror every morning.

So should we be saying that there is no God , some of us just decide that God is what they are ? Is belief in God nothing more than a belief in oneself ?
It can't be "knowing " that one is God because we have already drawn the conclusion that we don"t know anything .

Cheers FW .

free wheel wrote:

Quote :: "Knowing" is only a personal perception. What you think you "know" may or may not correspond with reality. Some people claim they "know god". I would concur with that: Of course they do. They look at God in the mirror every morning.

So should we be saying that there is no God , some of us just decide that God is what they are ? Is belief in God nothing more than a belief in oneself ?
It can't be "knowing " that one is God because we have already drawn the conclusion that we don"t know anything .

This is where data collection begins. If we look at the component parts, "god" did not exist until history began to be rewritten. Why was it rewritten? Data suggests the story of ET intervention in human affairs if disaster in immanent, and this picture (complete with the sign of life - the so-called goddess) goes back 40,000 years.

5000 years ago there was a snap global climate change that freaked out a very small part of the population in Sumer and Egypt. These people expected those in the sky to come, but, it wasn't that big of a catastrophe ("minor" superwave) and no one showed up. People began to change beliefs (fear - human nature) and labeled the "balls of light" in the sky as deities, making the biggest ball of light (the sun) as head honcho creator.

Over time, the "personality" involved that was connected to the sun was separated and made into an invisible being in the sky. This has gone on for millennia, and here we are today STILL trying to fit this one piece of information into a discernible picture. WE are NOT god - nor is anything else god ... god never existed. If the bigger picture is looked at, it is nothing more than a cognitive error that has been around for thousands of years, and anytime it was challenged there was a backlash from the believers and priests and you were put in your place.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee Basketball

Last edited by Mike Good on Wed Jun 09, 2010 12:12 pm; edited 3 times in total

free wheel wrote:

Quote :: "Knowing" is only a personal perception. What you think you "know" may or may not correspond with reality. Some people claim they "know" I would concur with that: Of course they do. They look at God in the mirror every morning.

So should we be saying that there is no God , some of us just decide that God is what they are ? Is belief in God nothing more than a belief in oneself ?
It can't be "knowing" that one is God because we have already drawn the conclusion that we don't know anything .

Cheers FW .

Good point FW!

So, here is my own crappy belief (BS by any other name):

WE create our reality with our thinking. So, everyone of us is a sort of mini-god. And, when you put every being in the universe together, that is the omni-god. Dudes living in clouds in "heaven" are not the presumed monotheistic god, but just fragments of the whole, just like the rest of us.

See, unlike enlightened fellows like yourself, I do actually operate with a belief system. It is just easier that way. But, from my perspective, my BS is superior to that of others (big surprise there!). Isn't that always the way? I said it was paradox, not that I wasn't a hypocrite....! Suspect

Unfortunately, I am not a great guru but just a mere mortal trying to figure it out like everybody else. Well, some people don't try to figure it out at all. I think they call them republicans. Sleep

But the reason I think my BS smells better than other forms of BS is that it is a really cool mash-up of ancient wisdom teachings and quantum physics. Those two things confirm each other. It is kind of cool when you have a philosophical belief system that is supported by scientific evidence. Cool

That BS that god is some dude that lives in the sky is not supported by science. And that scientific BS that only matter is "real" and other stuff doesn't matter? That is not supported by ancient wisdom teachings. Strangely enough, that "scientific" BS about matter is not supported by the science of quantum physics either. Who'd a thunk it? Question

See how that works? I can thumb my nose at both sides and still have one or the other covering my back! Republicans don't have either one of those... Sleep

Your BS may differ....

Cheers!!

Mike

onlychild wrote:: Well I guess we can close the forum now cuz we ain't gonna learn nuttin'

Just remember as you leave, a bus is not your friend - no matter who you are

Onlychild,

Jesus!

Boy that Jesus guy's dad must be really ashamed of him. He just wasted his life running around half-naked performing insipid show tunes - only to get runned over by a bus.

What tragic waste of a perfectly good life. Well at least he died with a smile on his face! What a Face

Hey, it made me smile too! C'est la vie. It just goes to show that nothing goes to waste - except human garbage. pale

Cheers!!

Mike

Mike Good wrote:: So, here is my own crappy belief (BS by any other name):

WE create our reality with our thinking.

And because EVERYONE does this, there are multiple "realities". Six point five-plus billion to be more exact.

So, everyone of us is a sort of mini-god.

Bad choice of words. The word god should not even be used as it perpetuates the meme.

And, when you put every being in the universe together, that is the omni-god.

See - the word and idea are both ingrained so deeply, it's hard to stop using it.

Dudes living in clouds in "heaven" are not the presumed monotheistic god, but just fragments of the whole, just like the rest of us.

I like the word neighbors myself; short and to the point.

See, unlike enlightened fellows like yourself, I do actually operate with a belief system. It is just easier that way. But, from my perspective, my BS is superior to that of others (big surprise there!).

Is that another way of saying "My sh*t don't stink?"

But the reason I think my BS smells better than other forms of BS (Yep, I was right LOL) is that it is a really cool mash-up of ancient wisdom teachings and quantum physics. Those two things confirm each other. It is kind of cool when you have a philosophical belief system that is supported by scientific evidence.

Unless, what people say the ancients are saying - is wrong. After all, isn't that what this is about - wrong thinking? And then too, it doesn't give you a context in which everything flows together.

That BS that god is some dude that lives in the sky is not supported by science.

With the addition that the idea is based on something else, it's easy to see how they arrived at that conclusion. We see "balls of light" in the sky all the time. This ball of light was the biggest (closest) of all, and then we have to consider that their picture (the being in the sky) was not the same as our picture. In fact, it was more a UFO picture.

Ra was "in" his "boat" traversing across the sky. We would call that - being in orbit around the earth. With this as an original idea, it's easy to see how, over time, the "being" aspect was removed from the sun and placed in the sky as a NEW picture. You couldn't see him, so he HAD to be invisible. If we can see this idea was based on error to begin with, logic wins. No need to compare ancient anything to quantum anything. Just correct thinking.

Guest

I would recommend to watch this documentary and pay attention of what Michael Glickman - GEODAT says. It may change your mind about CCs. Very Happy

New swirled order (crop circle documentary 2009)

Until such a time as you can sit down and put into words what these formations are saying, tell me what you have learned about the overall picture that exists and how this picture is educating humanity, I still say it's worthless. It's like finding The Voynich manuscript - you can ooo and ahh until you are blue in the face, but you can't read it. It's worthless in that respect.

CE 3 Number of posts : 338 Location : UK Registration date : 2009-09-06

M.G , bless him , has not yet crossed the bridge .
You are totally correct Onlychild to point out the Absence of context
where the crop formations are concerned .
Does anyone want to listen ?
The CC's are made by people .
This does not mean that CC's do not mean anything .
This does not mean that you have to reject your " belief "system
What easier way to have your design embedded in a wheat field in Wiltshire than to have people do it for you !.

FW , Very Happy

» Area 51, who cares anymore?
» My Review of "The Orion Mystery" by Robert Blauval and Adrian Gilbert
» The truth about crop circles