What are crop circles evidence of?

If you attempt to answer, try to support whatever you happen to suggest.

August Rode

2014-11-17 03:36:30 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
If you attempt to answer, try to support whatever you happen to suggest.

Human creativity:
<Loading Image...

>

<Loading Image...

>
<Loading Image...

>

<Loading Image...

>

Here's a video that shows how crop circles are made:

The following image is of a underwater construction that was *not* made
by humans. What do you suppose it's evidence of?
<Loading Image...

m***@.not.

2014-11-22 02:29:28 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
If you attempt to answer, try to support whatever you happen to suggest.

<http://www.circlemakers.org/Img/sun_france_2.jpg>
<http://cdn1.collective-evolution.com/assets/uploads/2013/06/firefox-crop-circle1.jpg>
<http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d61874199696.jpg>
<http://media.economist.com/images/images-magazine/2011/07/09/br/20110709_brp002.jpg>
<http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20060416150330/uncyclopedia/images/archive/0/09/20060519205827!Crop_circles.jpg>
http://youtu.be/9eh9q8gadas

It shows how some that take six hours to produce are made by humans. It sure
doesn't mean every one ever made was made by humans. Maybe they all were, but
there's no evidence of that.

Post by August Rode
The following image is of a underwater construction that was *not* made
by humans. What do you suppose it's evidence of?
<http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YWtmSoimhcM/hqdefault.jpg>

Probably a type of animal.

August Rode

2014-11-22 04:01:31 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
If you attempt to answer, try to support whatever you happen to suggest.

It shows how some that take six hours to produce are made by humans. It sure
doesn't mean every one ever made was made by humans. Maybe they all were, but
there's no evidence of that.

That's true. However, it *is* the most likely possibility by a large margin.

Post by August Rode
The following image is of a underwater construction that was *not* made
by humans. What do you suppose it's evidence of?
<http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YWtmSoimhcM/hqdefault.jpg>

Probably a type of animal.

Not an alien spacecraft? You disappoint me.

Malte Runz

2014-11-22 13:07:29 UTC

"August Rode" skrev i meddelelsen news:KZTbw.720046$***@fx04.iad...

(snip)

Not an alien spacecraft? ...

Alas, it's male pufferfish showing off for the lady pufferfish.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/08/15/underwater-crop-circles-mystery-solved/#.VHB-h_mG98E

But it has to be regarded as evidence of alien UFO's nonetheless, or what?

(snip)

--
Malte Runz

m***@.not.

2014-11-30 14:29:29 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
If you attempt to answer, try to support whatever you happen to suggest.

It shows how some that take six hours to produce are made by humans. It sure
doesn't mean every one ever made was made by humans. Maybe they all were, but
there's no evidence of that.

That's true. However, it *is* the most likely possibility by a large margin.

Then provide the evidence that you're correct.

August Rode

2014-11-30 19:16:54 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
If you attempt to answer, try to support whatever you happen to suggest.

It shows how some that take six hours to produce are made by humans. It sure
doesn't mean every one ever made was made by humans. Maybe they all were, but
there's no evidence of that.

That's true. However, it *is* the most likely possibility by a large margin.

Then provide the evidence that you're correct.

Did you watch the video I linked you to? With an absurdly small number
of tools, humans can create intricate designs in a field of wheat
overnight. We've seen it done and we have confessions from any number of
people who've done it.

In 100% of the cases where we've been able to determine the perpetrator,
it was humans. Do you know of any cases where the perpetrator is both
known and not human? I don't.

m***@.not.

2014-12-03 02:38:18 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
If you attempt to answer, try to support whatever you happen to suggest.

It shows how some that take six hours to produce are made by humans. It sure
doesn't mean every one ever made was made by humans. Maybe they all were, but
there's no evidence of that.

That's true. However, it *is* the most likely possibility by a large margin.

Then provide the evidence that you're correct.

Did you watch the video I linked you to? With an absurdly small number
of tools, humans can create intricate designs in a field of wheat
overnight. We've seen it done and we have confessions from any number of
people who've done it.
In 100% of the cases where we've been able to determine the perpetrator,
it was humans.

So artificial deer are evidence that actual deer don't exist, and anything
else man made is evidence that it could come about in no other way according to
that argument. I'm more open minded and feel that there could be some "circles"
made by nonhumans as well as the ones that are made by humans. You're not. Maybe
your position is somehow superior, but so far I'm unaware of how. By your
position men pretending to be women is evidence that actual women don't exist,
which would be evidence that humans could not exist because they couldn't
reproduce. Also by your position manikins are also evidence that the human race
doesn't exist, except of course for the fact that humans make them. LOL....your
position is HILARIOUS!!!

Post by August Rode
Do you know of any cases where the perpetrator is both
known and not human? I don't.

Of course no one does or everyone would. Duh. Maybe every one that has ever
been produced has been made by humans stomping around in the dark with a board
and a couple of ropes, without it being marked off in advance, taking 6+ hours
to produce. But so far I haven't seen enough evidence to convince me that's how
every one of them came to be, especially since some of the reports I've seen
presented have indicated that the pattern came into existence in much less than
6 hours. Also it seems to me that if it was always humans doing it, there would
be a LOT more examples of groups of humans being caught doing it. Unless there
ARE a lot of examples of groups of humans being caught doing it, but I'm as yet
unaware of them. If there are and you are aware of them, then why not share
them?

August Rode

2014-12-03 09:33:27 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
If you attempt to answer, try to support whatever you happen to suggest.

It shows how some that take six hours to produce are made by humans. It sure
doesn't mean every one ever made was made by humans. Maybe they all were, but
there's no evidence of that.

That's true. However, it *is* the most likely possibility by a large margin.

Then provide the evidence that you're correct.

Did you watch the video I linked you to? With an absurdly small number
of tools, humans can create intricate designs in a field of wheat
overnight. We've seen it done and we have confessions from any number of
people who've done it.
In 100% of the cases where we've been able to determine the perpetrator,
it was humans.

So artificial deer are evidence that actual deer don't exist,

WTF? Where do you get this bullshit from? "Artificial deer" aren't
evidence for or against the existence of "actual deer".

Post by m***@.not.
and anything
else man made is evidence that it could come about in no other way according to
that argument.

Are you under the impression that "artificial deer" could be made by
"actual deer"? If not, then your analogy really *sucks*.

Post by m***@.not.
I'm more open minded and feel that there could be some "circles"
made by nonhumans as well as the ones that are made by humans.

Why do you feel that? Do you disagree that in those cases where we have
been able to identify the perpetrator(s) of crop circles, those
perpetrators have been human? If so, why do you disagree with it?

Post by m***@.not.
You're not. Maybe
your position is somehow superior, but so far I'm unaware of how.

My position is limited to the facts. I doubt you see that as superior. I
think you don't have much use for facts.

Post by m***@.not.
By your
position men pretending to be women is evidence that actual women don't exist,
which would be evidence that humans could not exist because they couldn't
reproduce. Also by your position manikins are also evidence that the human race
doesn't exist, except of course for the fact that humans make them. LOL....your
position is HILARIOUS!!!

Your strawman of my position is certainly hilarious. Your ability to
analogize is certainly crippled.

Post by August Rode
Do you know of any cases where the perpetrator is both
known and not human? I don't.

Of course no one does or everyone would. Duh.

Exactly right. So why are you disputing that human manufacture is the
most likely reason for crop circles?

Post by m***@.not.
Maybe every one that has ever
been produced has been made by humans stomping around in the dark with a board
and a couple of ropes, without it being marked off in advance, taking 6+ hours
to produce. But so far I haven't seen enough evidence to convince me that's how
every one of them came to be,

And I haven't told you that *all* of them were human manufactured, have
I? All I've said is that human manufacture is the odds-on favorite
because we have *evidence* for that and we don't have evidence for
anything else.

Post by m***@.not.
especially since some of the reports I've seen
presented have indicated that the pattern came into existence in much less than
6 hours.

Perhaps you could share some of those reports.

Post by m***@.not.
Also it seems to me that if it was always humans doing it, there would
be a LOT more examples of groups of humans being caught doing it.

Do you think that reports of people being caught making crop circles
would circulate in the media that you read or watch? I don't.

I also know that causing property damage is a crime. There's an
incentive for circlemakers *not* to get caught if they're breaking the
law. In other cases, farmers might feel they can make more money from
the woo crowd if they allow circlemakers into their fields than if they
harvest the crop.

Post by m***@.not.
Unless there
ARE a lot of examples of groups of humans being caught doing it, but I'm as yet
unaware of them. If there are and you are aware of them, then why not share
them?

From <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_circle>:
"Doug [Bower] and Dave [Chorley] claimed to be responsible for all
circles made [in England] prior to 1987, and for more than 200 crop
circles in 1978–1991..."

They weren't caught.

Here's a link to an organization of artists who specialize in circle-making:
<http://www.circlemakers.org/>

And another:
<http://www.circlemakerstv.org/>

Here's a book you might consider reading:

<http://www.amazon.ca/Round-Circles-Poltergeists-Pranksters-Cropwatchers/dp/1591021103>

If you want to continue to feel that some circles were made by
extraterrestrial means, feel free. I don't know on what basis you
believe this other than that you *want* to believe it. It's when you
want to believe something that you should be most on your guard about
reports that confirm those beliefs lest you fall prey to confirmation bias.

m***@.not.

2014-12-07 13:24:21 UTC

On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 04:33:27 -0500, August Rode <***@gmail.com> wrote:
.

Post by m***@.not.
If you attempt to answer, try to support whatever you happen to suggest.

It shows how some that take six hours to produce are made by humans. It sure
doesn't mean every one ever made was made by humans. Maybe they all were, but
there's no evidence of that.

That's true. However, it *is* the most likely possibility by a large margin.

Then provide the evidence that you're correct.

Did you watch the video I linked you to? With an absurdly small number
of tools, humans can create intricate designs in a field of wheat
overnight. We've seen it done and we have confessions from any number of
people who've done it.
In 100% of the cases where we've been able to determine the perpetrator,
it was humans.

So artificial deer are evidence that actual deer don't exist,

WTF? Where do you get this bullshit from?

You.

Post by August Rode
"Artificial deer" aren't
evidence for or against the existence of "actual deer".

Post by m***@.not.
and anything
else man made is evidence that it could come about in no other way according to
that argument.

Are you under the impression that "artificial deer" could be made by
"actual deer"? If not, then your analogy really *sucks*.

Are you under the impression that "crop circles" could be made by "actual
circles"? If not, then your supposed "criticism" really SUCKS.

Post by m***@.not.
I'm more open minded and feel that there could be some "circles"
made by nonhumans as well as the ones that are made by humans.

Why do you feel that? Do you disagree that in those cases where we have
been able to identify the perpetrator(s) of crop circles, those
perpetrators have been human?

No.

Post by August Rode
If so, why do you disagree with it?

Post by m***@.not.
You're not. Maybe
your position is somehow superior, but so far I'm unaware of how.

My position is limited to the facts. I doubt you see that as superior. I
think you don't have much use for facts.

Your strawman of my position is certainly hilarious. Your ability to
analogize is certainly crippled.

So far your position is STILL suggesting that if humans made some of them,
they necessarily must have made all of them. Etc....

Post by August Rode
Do you know of any cases where the perpetrator is both
known and not human? I don't.

Of course no one does or everyone would. Duh.

Exactly right. So why are you disputing that human manufacture is the
most likely reason for crop circles?

And I haven't told you that *all* of them were human manufactured, have
I?

I'm interested in the ones that are not, if any. So far you STILL act like
all of them necessarily are and always have been made by humans. So far I don't
share your faith.

Post by August Rode
All I've said is that human manufacture is the odds-on favorite
because we have *evidence* for that and we don't have evidence for
anything else.

Post by m***@.not.
especially since some of the reports I've seen
presented have indicated that the pattern came into existence in much less than
6 hours.

Perhaps you could share some of those reports.

I'd have to go try to find specific reports. But I know people have reported
that some circles have appeared in a matter of moments rather than 6+ hours. If
you can't believe that now, then I don't see how you ever could.

Post by m***@.not.
Also it seems to me that if it was always humans doing it, there would
be a LOT more examples of groups of humans being caught doing it.

Do you think that reports of people being caught making crop circles
would circulate in the media that you read or watch? I don't.
I also know that causing property damage is a crime.

How shall we consider that to be even more reason for the groups of people
not to be caught and exposed as the frauds they would have to be?

Post by August Rode
There's an
incentive for circlemakers *not* to get caught if they're breaking the
law.

Motion detectors are cheap and easy to come by. Driveway alert systems are
available that send a signal for miles. There are infrared camera systems that
are cheap and would do a great job of taking photos of groups of people in crop
fields at night.

Post by August Rode
In other cases, farmers might feel they can make more money from
the woo crowd if they allow circlemakers into their fields than if they
harvest the crop.

So far I haven't heard how they make money from it. Do they pay the circle
makers?

Post by m***@.not.
Unless there
ARE a lot of examples of groups of humans being caught doing it, but I'm as yet
unaware of them. If there are and you are aware of them, then why not share
them?

"Doug [Bower] and Dave [Chorley] claimed to be responsible for all
circles made [in England] prior to 1987, and for more than 200 crop
circles in 19781991..."
They weren't caught.

I don't believe they made all of them and never did. Why do you?

Post by August Rode
<http://www.circlemakers.org/>
<http://www.circlemakerstv.org/>
<http://www.amazon.ca/Round-Circles-Poltergeists-Pranksters-Cropwatchers/dp/1591021103>
If you want to continue to feel that some circles were made by
extraterrestrial means, feel free. I don't know on what basis you
believe this other than that you *want* to believe it. It's when you
want to believe something that you should be most on your guard about
reports that confirm those beliefs lest you fall prey to confirmation bias.

What if I wanted to believe humans made every one of them? How to avoid
falling prey to confirmation bias? How do you avoid it?

August Rode

2014-12-07 14:35:22 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
If you attempt to answer, try to support whatever you happen to suggest.

It shows how some that take six hours to produce are made by humans. It sure
doesn't mean every one ever made was made by humans. Maybe they all were, but
there's no evidence of that.

That's true. However, it *is* the most likely possibility by a large margin.

Then provide the evidence that you're correct.

Did you watch the video I linked you to? With an absurdly small number
of tools, humans can create intricate designs in a field of wheat
overnight. We've seen it done and we have confessions from any number of
people who've done it.
In 100% of the cases where we've been able to determine the perpetrator,
it was humans.

So artificial deer are evidence that actual deer don't exist,

WTF? Where do you get this bullshit from?

You.

If so, you have grossly misunderstood what I've been telling you.

Post by August Rode
"Artificial deer" aren't
evidence for or against the existence of "actual deer".

Post by m***@.not.
and anything
else man made is evidence that it could come about in no other way according to
that argument.

Are you under the impression that "artificial deer" could be made by
"actual deer"? If not, then your analogy really *sucks*.

Are you under the impression that "crop circles" could be made by "actual
circles"? If not, then your supposed "criticism" really SUCKS.

Post by m***@.not.
I'm more open minded and feel that there could be some "circles"
made by nonhumans as well as the ones that are made by humans.

Why do you feel that? Do you disagree that in those cases where we have
been able to identify the perpetrator(s) of crop circles, those
perpetrators have been human?

No.

Post by August Rode
If so, why do you disagree with it?

No response?

Post by m***@.not.
You're not. Maybe
your position is somehow superior, but so far I'm unaware of how.

My position is limited to the facts. I doubt you see that as superior. I
think you don't have much use for facts.

Your strawman of my position is certainly hilarious. Your ability to
analogize is certainly crippled.

So far your position is STILL suggesting that if humans made some of them,
they necessarily must have made all of them. Etc....

I have *not* said that. My position is that if the only *known* way that
crop circles have been made is by human activity, then that is a
perfectly good assumption for the remainder *in the absence of evidence
to the contrary*.

Post by August Rode
Do you know of any cases where the perpetrator is both
known and not human? I don't.

Of course no one does or everyone would. Duh.

Exactly right. So why are you disputing that human manufacture is the
most likely reason for crop circles?

No response?

And I haven't told you that *all* of them were human manufactured, have
I?

I'm interested in the ones that are not, if any. So far you STILL act like
all of them necessarily are and always have been made by humans. So far I don't
share your faith.

You consistently twist my "faith" into something I've never said. Until
you start reading the words I actually write rather than the words you
*wish* I had written, you're going to continue to misconstrue me.

Post by August Rode
All I've said is that human manufacture is the odds-on favorite
because we have *evidence* for that and we don't have evidence for
anything else.

Post by m***@.not.
especially since some of the reports I've seen
presented have indicated that the pattern came into existence in much less than
6 hours.

Perhaps you could share some of those reports.

I'd have to go try to find specific reports. But I know people have reported
that some circles have appeared in a matter of moments rather than 6+ hours.

Please share.

Post by m***@.not.
If
you can't believe that now, then I don't see how you ever could.

I can't believe it *now* because I haven't been exposed to the evidence
for it. If you'll expose me to that evidence, I'll review it and believe
it if I find that evidence persuasive.

Post by m***@.not.
Also it seems to me that if it was always humans doing it, there would
be a LOT more examples of groups of humans being caught doing it.

Do you think that reports of people being caught making crop circles
would circulate in the media that you read or watch? I don't.
I also know that causing property damage is a crime.

How shall we consider that to be even more reason for the groups of people
not to be caught and exposed as the frauds they would have to be?

Could you rephrase your question? I can't parse it and I don't want to
answer a question you aren't asking.

Post by August Rode
There's an
incentive for circlemakers *not* to get caught if they're breaking the
law.

Are you suggesting that all grain farmers everywhere purchase such
materials to detect events that occur highly infrequently?

Post by August Rode
In other cases, farmers might feel they can make more money from
the woo crowd if they allow circlemakers into their fields than if they
harvest the crop.

So far I haven't heard how they make money from it. Do they pay the circle
makers?

The woo crowd sometimes offer to pay the farmer for access to the
circles. If the amount offered is larger than the expected value of the
crop, why would a farmer disagree?

Post by m***@.not.
Unless there
ARE a lot of examples of groups of humans being caught doing it, but I'm as yet
unaware of them. If there are and you are aware of them, then why not share
them?

"Doug [Bower] and Dave [Chorley] claimed to be responsible for all
circles made [in England] prior to 1987, and for more than 200 crop
circles in 1978–1991..."
They weren't caught.

I don't believe they made all of them and never did. Why do you?

I don't. However, I consider it a good default position until
contradictory evidence comes along.

What if I wanted to believe humans made every one of them? How to avoid
falling prey to confirmation bias? How do you avoid it?

I avoid it by not wanting to believe humans made every one of them and
by being open to evidence to the contrary. I avoid it by reading
information from *both* sides. I evaluate the arguments from both sides
critically.

m***@.not.

2014-12-20 07:20:48 UTC

On Sun, 07 Dec 2014 09:35:22 -0500, August Rode <***@gmail.com> wrote:
.

Post by m***@.not.
If you attempt to answer, try to support whatever you happen to suggest.

It shows how some that take six hours to produce are made by humans. It sure
doesn't mean every one ever made was made by humans. Maybe they all were, but
there's no evidence of that.

That's true. However, it *is* the most likely possibility by a large margin.

Then provide the evidence that you're correct.

Did you watch the video I linked you to? With an absurdly small number
of tools, humans can create intricate designs in a field of wheat
overnight. We've seen it done and we have confessions from any number of
people who've done it.
In 100% of the cases where we've been able to determine the perpetrator,
it was humans.

So artificial deer are evidence that actual deer don't exist,

WTF? Where do you get this bullshit from?

You.

If so, you have grossly misunderstood what I've been telling you.

Try explaining how.

Post by August Rode
"Artificial deer" aren't
evidence for or against the existence of "actual deer".

Post by m***@.not.
and anything
else man made is evidence that it could come about in no other way according to
that argument.

Are you under the impression that "artificial deer" could be made by
"actual deer"? If not, then your analogy really *sucks*.

Are you under the impression that "crop circles" could be made by "actual
circles"? If not, then your supposed "criticism" really SUCKS.

Post by m***@.not.
I'm more open minded and feel that there could be some "circles"
made by nonhumans as well as the ones that are made by humans.

Why do you feel that? Do you disagree that in those cases where we have
been able to identify the perpetrator(s) of crop circles, those
perpetrators have been human?

No.

Post by August Rode
If so, why do you disagree with it?

No response?

LOL!!!

Post by m***@.not.
You're not. Maybe
your position is somehow superior, but so far I'm unaware of how.

My position is limited to the facts. I doubt you see that as superior. I
think you don't have much use for facts.

Your strawman of my position is certainly hilarious. Your ability to
analogize is certainly crippled.

So far your position is STILL suggesting that if humans made some of them,
they necessarily must have made all of them. Etc....

I have *not* said that.

Then we agree the fact that humans made some of them is meaningless in
regards to whether or not any were not made by humans.

Post by August Rode
My position is that if the only *known* way that
crop circles have been made is by human activity, then that is a
perfectly good assumption for the remainder *in the absence of evidence
to the contrary*.

Then so far your position is STILL suggesting that if humans made some of
them, they necessarily must have made all of them. Etc....

Post by August Rode
Do you know of any cases where the perpetrator is both
known and not human? I don't.

Of course no one does or everyone would. Duh.

Exactly right. So why are you disputing that human manufacture is the
most likely reason for crop circles?

No response?

Can you yet comprehend what I actually have disputed?

And I haven't told you that *all* of them were human manufactured, have
I?

I'm interested in the ones that are not, if any. So far you STILL act like
all of them necessarily are and always have been made by humans. So far I don't
share your faith.

You consistently twist my "faith" into something I've never said.

Can you admit that you have faith in anything at all?

Post by August Rode
Until
you start reading the words I actually write rather than the words you
*wish* I had written, you're going to continue to misconstrue me.

Post by August Rode
All I've said is that human manufacture is the odds-on favorite
because we have *evidence* for that and we don't have evidence for
anything else.

Post by m***@.not.
especially since some of the reports I've seen
presented have indicated that the pattern came into existence in much less than
6 hours.

Perhaps you could share some of those reports.

I'd have to go try to find specific reports. But I know people have reported
that some circles have appeared in a matter of moments rather than 6+ hours.

Please share.

Post by m***@.not.
If
you can't believe that now, then I don't see how you ever could.

I can't believe it *now* because I haven't been exposed to the evidence
for it. If you'll expose me to that evidence, I'll review it and believe
it if I find that evidence persuasive.

I'll provide a link at the bottom of the post.

Post by m***@.not.
Also it seems to me that if it was always humans doing it, there would
be a LOT more examples of groups of humans being caught doing it.

Do you think that reports of people being caught making crop circles
would circulate in the media that you read or watch? I don't.
I also know that causing property damage is a crime.

How shall we consider that to be even more reason for the groups of people
not to be caught and exposed as the frauds they would have to be?

Could you rephrase your question? I can't parse it

Then you couldn't answer it because you can't comprehend it, or won't admit
that you can.

Post by August Rode
and I don't want to
answer a question you aren't asking.

Post by August Rode
There's an
incentive for circlemakers *not* to get caught if they're breaking the
law.

Are you suggesting that all grain farmers everywhere purchase such
materials to detect events that occur highly infrequently?

No, but that some do in areas where they are less infrequent. Of course
farmers who want to see how many deer etc are going into their fields, or how
many local kids are going in there etc would have reason to buy them. I know
people who buy them just to play around with and get pictures of deer and
coyotes etc at night, so they can't be so much of a problem that crop farmers
can't afford them. So why don't ANY of them have such evidence of humans making
the patterns? Or are you aware of some who do?

Post by August Rode
In other cases, farmers might feel they can make more money from
the woo crowd if they allow circlemakers into their fields than if they
harvest the crop.

So far I haven't heard how they make money from it. Do they pay the circle
makers?

The woo crowd sometimes offer to pay the farmer for access to the
circles. If the amount offered is larger than the expected value of the
crop, why would a farmer disagree?

Do you think that happens in a high percentage of cases?

Post by m***@.not.
Unless there
ARE a lot of examples of groups of humans being caught doing it, but I'm as yet
unaware of them. If there are and you are aware of them, then why not share
them?

"Doug [Bower] and Dave [Chorley] claimed to be responsible for all
circles made [in England] prior to 1987, and for more than 200 crop
circles in 19781991..."
They weren't caught.

I don't believe they made all of them and never did. Why do you?

I don't. However, I consider it a good default position until
contradictory evidence comes along.

Like what?

What if I wanted to believe humans made every one of them? How to avoid
falling prey to confirmation bias? How do you avoid it?

I avoid it by not wanting to believe humans made every one of them

I certainly disbelieve that.

Post by August Rode
and by being open to evidence to the contrary.

Like what?

Post by August Rode
I avoid it by reading
information from *both* sides. I evaluate the arguments from both sides
critically.

And how do you evaluate this one:

that witenesses say appeared in 7 minutes? When you say you evaluate that
they're lying, you need to back it up with evidence.

August Rode

2014-12-20 23:18:04 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
If you attempt to answer, try to support whatever you happen to suggest.

It shows how some that take six hours to produce are made by humans. It sure
doesn't mean every one ever made was made by humans. Maybe they all were, but
there's no evidence of that.

That's true. However, it *is* the most likely possibility by a large margin.

Then provide the evidence that you're correct.

Did you watch the video I linked you to? With an absurdly small number
of tools, humans can create intricate designs in a field of wheat
overnight. We've seen it done and we have confessions from any number of
people who've done it.
In 100% of the cases where we've been able to determine the perpetrator,
it was humans.

So artificial deer are evidence that actual deer don't exist,

WTF? Where do you get this bullshit from?

You.

If so, you have grossly misunderstood what I've been telling you.

Try explaining how.

I have never said and I would never say that the fact that all *known*
perpetrators of crop circles are of human manufacture that *all* crop
circles are of human manufacture. All I've said is that that is the
*most likely* cause. It *should* be considered the most likely cause
until such time as evidence indicates otherwise.

Post by August Rode
"Artificial deer" aren't
evidence for or against the existence of "actual deer".

Post by m***@.not.
and anything
else man made is evidence that it could come about in no other way according to
that argument.

Are you under the impression that "artificial deer" could be made by
"actual deer"? If not, then your analogy really *sucks*.

Are you under the impression that "crop circles" could be made by "actual
circles"? If not, then your supposed "criticism" really SUCKS.

Post by m***@.not.
I'm more open minded and feel that there could be some "circles"
made by nonhumans as well as the ones that are made by humans.

Why do you feel that? Do you disagree that in those cases where we have
been able to identify the perpetrator(s) of crop circles, those
perpetrators have been human?

No.

Post by August Rode
If so, why do you disagree with it?

No response?

LOL!!!

LOL indeed.

Post by m***@.not.
You're not. Maybe
your position is somehow superior, but so far I'm unaware of how.

My position is limited to the facts. I doubt you see that as superior. I
think you don't have much use for facts.

Your strawman of my position is certainly hilarious. Your ability to
analogize is certainly crippled.

So far your position is STILL suggesting that if humans made some of them,
they necessarily must have made all of them. Etc....

I have *not* said that.

Then we agree the fact that humans made some of them is meaningless in
regards to whether or not any were not made by humans.

I agree that knowing that some are made by humans means doesn't mean
that all are made by humans. I do not agree that some of them having
been made by humans is meaningless.

Then so far your position is STILL suggesting that if humans made some of
them, they necessarily must have made all of them. Etc....

I've tried my best to explain it to you. You seem to be struggling
understanding my words. Either that or you're being deliberately dishonest.

Post by August Rode
Do you know of any cases where the perpetrator is both
known and not human? I don't.

Of course no one does or everyone would. Duh.

Exactly right. So why are you disputing that human manufacture is the
most likely reason for crop circles?

No response?

Can you yet comprehend what I actually have disputed?

I think so. You are disputing that all crop circles are human-made, a
position that I have never claimed to hold.

And I haven't told you that *all* of them were human manufactured, have
I?

I'm interested in the ones that are not, if any. So far you STILL act like
all of them necessarily are and always have been made by humans. So far I don't
share your faith.

You consistently twist my "faith" into something I've never said.

Can you admit that you have faith in anything at all?

When did you stop beating your wife? When you figure out why my question
is problematic, you'll know why yours is as well.

Post by August Rode
Until
you start reading the words I actually write rather than the words you
*wish* I had written, you're going to continue to misconstrue me.

Post by August Rode
All I've said is that human manufacture is the odds-on favorite
because we have *evidence* for that and we don't have evidence for
anything else.

Post by m***@.not.
especially since some of the reports I've seen
presented have indicated that the pattern came into existence in much less than
6 hours.

Perhaps you could share some of those reports.

I'd have to go try to find specific reports. But I know people have reported
that some circles have appeared in a matter of moments rather than 6+ hours.

Please share.

Post by m***@.not.
If
you can't believe that now, then I don't see how you ever could.

I can't believe it *now* because I haven't been exposed to the evidence
for it. If you'll expose me to that evidence, I'll review it and believe
it if I find that evidence persuasive.

I'll provide a link at the bottom of the post.

Post by m***@.not.
Also it seems to me that if it was always humans doing it, there would
be a LOT more examples of groups of humans being caught doing it.

Do you think that reports of people being caught making crop circles
would circulate in the media that you read or watch? I don't.
I also know that causing property damage is a crime.

How shall we consider that to be even more reason for the groups of people
not to be caught and exposed as the frauds they would have to be?

Could you rephrase your question? I can't parse it

Then you couldn't answer it because you can't comprehend it, or won't admit
that you can.

It's made of English words but it's so oddly worded that I can't
comprehend it. I notice that you didn't bother to rephrase and ask again
as I asked you to do. Please.

Post by August Rode
and I don't want to
answer a question you aren't asking.

Post by August Rode
There's an
incentive for circlemakers *not* to get caught if they're breaking the
law.

Are you suggesting that all grain farmers everywhere purchase such
materials to detect events that occur highly infrequently?

Is this speculation on your part? Or do you actually know of situations
where this happens?

Post by m***@.not.
I know
people who buy them just to play around with and get pictures of deer and
coyotes etc at night, so they can't be so much of a problem that crop farmers
can't afford them. So why don't ANY of them have such evidence of humans making
the patterns? Or are you aware of some who do?

Post by August Rode
In other cases, farmers might feel they can make more money from
the woo crowd if they allow circlemakers into their fields than if they
harvest the crop.

So far I haven't heard how they make money from it. Do they pay the circle
makers?

The woo crowd sometimes offer to pay the farmer for access to the
circles. If the amount offered is larger than the expected value of the
crop, why would a farmer disagree?

Do you think that happens in a high percentage of cases?

From
<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/09/090915-crop-circles-google-earth.html>:

--- begin quote ---

How do the local farmers feel waking up to find an entire field of wheat
flattened? Crop circles pump millions of pounds into the Wiltshire
economy, said Lundberg. The circles are a major tourist attraction,
spawning bus tours, daily helicopter tours, T-shirts, books, and other
trinkets.

The circles draw people who believe the formations have a unique energy.
They visit the formations as a sort of spiritual Mecca, to meditate,
pray, dance, and commune with worldly spirits. Farmers frequently charge
a small fee or have a donation box for people who want to enter the circles.

"In 1996 a circle appeared near Stonehenge and the farmer set up a booth
and charged a fee," said Lundberg. "He collected 30,000 pounds (U.S.
$47,000) in four weeks. The value of the crop had it been harvested was
probably about 150 pounds ($235). So, yeah, they're happy."

--- end quote ---

Often enough, I'd say.

Post by m***@.not.
Unless there
ARE a lot of examples of groups of humans being caught doing it, but I'm as yet
unaware of them. If there are and you are aware of them, then why not share
them?

"Doug [Bower] and Dave [Chorley] claimed to be responsible for all
circles made [in England] prior to 1987, and for more than 200 crop
circles in 1978–1991..."
They weren't caught.

I don't believe they made all of them and never did. Why do you?

I don't. However, I consider it a good default position until
contradictory evidence comes along.

Like what?

Clear, unedited photographic or video evidence would do for a start.

What if I wanted to believe humans made every one of them? How to avoid
falling prey to confirmation bias? How do you avoid it?

I avoid it by not wanting to believe humans made every one of them

I certainly disbelieve that.

That's *your* problem.

Post by August Rode
and by being open to evidence to the contrary.

Like what?

See above.

Post by August Rode
I avoid it by reading
information from *both* sides. I evaluate the arguments from both sides
critically.

http://youtu.be/Ql1PPkZiHl8
that witenesses say appeared in 7 minutes? When you say you evaluate that
they're lying, you need to back it up with evidence.

I'm not going to say they're lying. I'm going to say that I'm not
convinced by arguments from ignorance and grainy video. No evidence was
presented that is the least bit convincing.

For example, at the 1:20 point in the video, the video maker says "For
man to create this colossal sized crop circle im [sic] guessing would
take a 100 man team weeks to plan and weeks to complete". He makes no
effort to explain how he arrived at that conclusion. It looks like
something he pulled directly from his nether regions.

What am I supposed to make of the video spliced in at the 2:00 mark?
It's so contrasty and grainy that it's impossible to make out what we're
seeing. And what's the purpose of the video clip at 2:45? It doesn't
show anything. The video at 3:10 shows what could be a car traveling
down a road for all that I can make out.

At 3:50, he asks "Now ask yourself what on earth could make something so
complex and precise in such a short amount of time"? He's loaded his
question with assumptions that I reject. That doesn't look like a
particularly complex pattern to me. It's nothing but circles of varying
sizes arrange along arcs. In fact, it looks suspiciously like the one
that I linked you to a while back where the makers shot video or their
own circle making. He answers his own question with "The answer I
believe is nothing on earth we know of could form this in minutes". He's
provided as yet no evidence that it was formed in minutes to begin with.
Secondly, his conclusion arises from an argument from ignorance. *He*
doesn't know who the makers could be, therefore the makers can't be human.

He makes claims about EM readings being higher at crop circles than
normal but presents no evidence for that.

And just how the hell was someone able to interpret the "message" shown
at the 6:00 mark?

The video fragment at 6:30 is uninterpretable. How do we even know that
it's running at normal speed? You might care to read the following:
<http://www.robertschoch.net/Crop%20Circle%20Video%20Oliver%27s%20Castle%20Fraud%20LWCMD%20CT.htm>

And you could do the maker a favor by telling him to use a spell
checker. Seriously, we're not dealing with someone who is well educated
here.

m***@.not.

2014-12-25 13:38:49 UTC

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 18:18:04 -0500, August Rode <***@gmail.com> wrote:
.

Post by m***@.not.
If you attempt to answer, try to support whatever you happen to suggest.

It shows how some that take six hours to produce are made by humans. It sure
doesn't mean every one ever made was made by humans. Maybe they all were, but
there's no evidence of that.

That's true. However, it *is* the most likely possibility by a large margin.

Then provide the evidence that you're correct.

Did you watch the video I linked you to? With an absurdly small number
of tools, humans can create intricate designs in a field of wheat
overnight. We've seen it done and we have confessions from any number of
people who've done it.
In 100% of the cases where we've been able to determine the perpetrator,
it was humans.

So artificial deer are evidence that actual deer don't exist,

WTF? Where do you get this bullshit from?

You.

If so, you have grossly misunderstood what I've been telling you.

Try explaining how.

Post by August Rode
"Artificial deer" aren't
evidence for or against the existence of "actual deer".

Post by m***@.not.
and anything
else man made is evidence that it could come about in no other way according to
that argument.

Are you under the impression that "artificial deer" could be made by
"actual deer"? If not, then your analogy really *sucks*.

Are you under the impression that "crop circles" could be made by "actual
circles"? If not, then your supposed "criticism" really SUCKS.

Post by m***@.not.
I'm more open minded and feel that there could be some "circles"
made by nonhumans as well as the ones that are made by humans.

Why do you feel that? Do you disagree that in those cases where we have
been able to identify the perpetrator(s) of crop circles, those
perpetrators have been human?

No.

Post by August Rode
If so, why do you disagree with it?

No response?

LOL!!!

LOL indeed.

Agreed.

Post by m***@.not.
You're not. Maybe
your position is somehow superior, but so far I'm unaware of how.

My position is limited to the facts. I doubt you see that as superior. I
think you don't have much use for facts.

Your strawman of my position is certainly hilarious. Your ability to
analogize is certainly crippled.

So far your position is STILL suggesting that if humans made some of them,
they necessarily must have made all of them. Etc....

I have *not* said that.

Then we agree the fact that humans made some of them is meaningless in
regards to whether or not any were not made by humans.

I agree that knowing that some are made by humans means doesn't mean
that all are made by humans. I do not agree that some of them having
been made by humans is meaningless.

Explain how you want people to feel that humans having made some of them has
significant meaning "in regards to whether or not any were not made by humans."

Then so far your position is STILL suggesting that if humans made some of
them, they necessarily must have made all of them. Etc....

I've tried my best to explain it to you.

Present what you consider to be a respectable explanation that you've tried
to make.

Post by August Rode
You seem to be struggling
understanding my words. Either that or you're being deliberately dishonest.

Post by August Rode
Do you know of any cases where the perpetrator is both
known and not human? I don't.

Of course no one does or everyone would. Duh.

Exactly right. So why are you disputing that human manufacture is the
most likely reason for crop circles?

No response?

Can you yet comprehend what I actually have disputed?

I think so. You are disputing that all crop circles are human-made,

I'm considering the possibility that some are not. You're clinging to the
possibility that all of them are.

Post by August Rode
a position that I have never claimed to hold.

People don't always admit to what they believe for whatever reason(s).

And I haven't told you that *all* of them were human manufactured, have
I?

I'm interested in the ones that are not, if any. So far you STILL act like
all of them necessarily are and always have been made by humans. So far I don't
share your faith.

You consistently twist my "faith" into something I've never said.

Can you admit that you have faith in anything at all?

When did you stop beating your wife? When you figure out why my question
is problematic, you'll know why yours is as well.

Your reaction clearly shows that you're ashamed of your own faith in
everything you have faith in. A pathetic though amusing position, and one that I
don't believe even the majority of atheists are in. I do suspect that ONLY
atheists are in that position, but quite possibly not the majority of them as I
said.

Post by August Rode
Until
you start reading the words I actually write rather than the words you
*wish* I had written, you're going to continue to misconstrue me.

Post by August Rode
All I've said is that human manufacture is the odds-on favorite
because we have *evidence* for that and we don't have evidence for
anything else.

Post by m***@.not.
especially since some of the reports I've seen
presented have indicated that the pattern came into existence in much less than
6 hours.

Perhaps you could share some of those reports.

I'd have to go try to find specific reports. But I know people have reported
that some circles have appeared in a matter of moments rather than 6+ hours.

Please share.

Post by m***@.not.
If
you can't believe that now, then I don't see how you ever could.

I can't believe it *now* because I haven't been exposed to the evidence
for it. If you'll expose me to that evidence, I'll review it and believe
it if I find that evidence persuasive.

I'll provide a link at the bottom of the post.

Post by m***@.not.
Also it seems to me that if it was always humans doing it, there would
be a LOT more examples of groups of humans being caught doing it.

Do you think that reports of people being caught making crop circles
would circulate in the media that you read or watch? I don't.
I also know that causing property damage is a crime.

How shall we consider that to be even more reason for the groups of people
not to be caught and exposed as the frauds they would have to be?

Could you rephrase your question? I can't parse it

Then you couldn't answer it because you can't comprehend it, or won't admit
that you can.

It's made of English words but it's so oddly worded that I can't
comprehend it. I notice that you didn't bother to rephrase and ask again
as I asked you to do. Please.

How shall we consider the fact "that causing property damage is a
crime" to be even more reason for the groups of people not to be caught and
exposed "in the media that you read or watch" as the frauds they would have to
be?

Post by August Rode
and I don't want to
answer a question you aren't asking.

Post by August Rode
There's an
incentive for circlemakers *not* to get caught if they're breaking the
law.

Are you suggesting that all grain farmers everywhere purchase such
materials to detect events that occur highly infrequently?

Is this speculation on your part? Or do you actually know of situations
where this happens?

Not personally at the moment but I have certainly known of grain fields that
deer and local kids went into. In fact I've gone into some myself a number of
times when I was a kid. I also hung around several farms when I was a kid and
the farmers seemed pleased when they saw deer in their grazing pastures, yet
were ready to kill them when they saw them in grain fields...a significant thing
I point out to eliminationists in other forums. If you can't believe such
technology as the motion activated camera is easily available to the common man
see:

http://is.gd/tYltWC

Post by August Rode
In other cases, farmers might feel they can make more money from
the woo crowd if they allow circlemakers into their fields than if they
harvest the crop.

So far I haven't heard how they make money from it. Do they pay the circle
makers?

The woo crowd sometimes offer to pay the farmer for access to the
circles. If the amount offered is larger than the expected value of the
crop, why would a farmer disagree?

Do you think that happens in a high percentage of cases?

From
--- begin quote ---
How do the local farmers feel waking up to find an entire field of wheat
flattened? Crop circles pump millions of pounds into the Wiltshire
economy, said Lundberg. The circles are a major tourist attraction,
spawning bus tours, daily helicopter tours, T-shirts, books, and other
trinkets.
The circles draw people who believe the formations have a unique energy.
They visit the formations as a sort of spiritual Mecca, to meditate,
pray, dance, and commune with worldly spirits. Farmers frequently charge
a small fee or have a donation box for people who want to enter the circles.
"In 1996 a circle appeared near Stonehenge and the farmer set up a booth
and charged a fee," said Lundberg. "He collected 30,000 pounds (U.S.
$47,000) in four weeks. The value of the crop had it been harvested was
probably about 150 pounds ($235). So, yeah, they're happy."
--- end quote ---
Often enough, I'd say.

One good example isn't a lot from my pov, but there may be several more.
That doesn't mean it's a benefit to the majority of farmers though. It also
doesn't explain how the people who make them practice in advance, etc....

Post by m***@.not.
Unless there
ARE a lot of examples of groups of humans being caught doing it, but I'm as yet
unaware of them. If there are and you are aware of them, then why not share
them?

"Doug [Bower] and Dave [Chorley] claimed to be responsible for all
circles made [in England] prior to 1987, and for more than 200 crop
circles in 19781991..."
They weren't caught.

I don't believe they made all of them and never did. Why do you?

I don't. However, I consider it a good default position until
contradictory evidence comes along.

Like what?

Clear, unedited photographic or video evidence would do for a start.

Of what?

What if I wanted to believe humans made every one of them? How to avoid
falling prey to confirmation bias? How do you avoid it?

I avoid it by not wanting to believe humans made every one of them

I certainly disbelieve that.

That's *your* problem.

LOL...how could I possibly consider disbelieving you about that to be a
problem? How could I overcome the supposed problem when all evidence so far
suggests that you DO want to believe humans made every one of them?

Post by August Rode
and by being open to evidence to the contrary.

Like what?

See above.

Post by August Rode
I avoid it by reading
information from *both* sides. I evaluate the arguments from both sides
critically.

http://youtu.be/Ql1PPkZiHl8
that witenesses say appeared in 7 minutes? When you say you evaluate that
they're lying, you need to back it up with evidence.

I'm not going to say they're lying. I'm going to say that I'm not
convinced by arguments from ignorance

Which is your position.

Post by August Rode
and grainy video.

There's certainly no reason to believe the quality should be significantly
better if they managed to get what it appears to be.

Post by August Rode
No evidence was
presented that is the least bit convincing.

You can't provide any evidence that the men were lying.

Post by August Rode
For example, at the 1:20 point in the video, the video maker says "For
man to create this colossal sized crop circle im [sic] guessing would
take a 100 man team weeks to plan and weeks to complete". He makes no
effort to explain how he arrived at that conclusion. It looks like
something he pulled directly from his nether regions.

How long would it take to plan? How many people would it take how long to
pull it off? How much practice would it take them to make sure they could get it
perfect the first time they tried to produce it in the dark in seven minutes?
Where and how would they practice?

Post by August Rode
What am I supposed to make of the video spliced in at the 2:00 mark?
It's so contrasty and grainy that it's impossible to make out what we're
seeing.

It looks like an infrared panning of the field to me, unless they were
lying. What's so hard for you to believe about that?

Post by August Rode
And what's the purpose of the video clip at 2:45? It doesn't
show anything.

It shows dawn beginning, some hills in the background, and lights from
probably houses and/or barns unless they were lying. What's so hard for you to
believe about that?

Post by August Rode
The video at 3:10 shows what could be a car traveling
down a road for all that I can make out.

It shows the field with the pattern in it, and a road behind the field with
a car traveling on it unless they were lying. What's so hard for you to believe
about that?

Post by August Rode
At 3:50, he asks "Now ask yourself what on earth could make something so
complex and precise in such a short amount of time"? He's loaded his
question with assumptions that I reject.

He asked a question that you can't even attempt to answer, or at least you
can't attempt to provide evidence to support any answer you could try to
provide.

Post by August Rode
That doesn't look like a
particularly complex pattern to me. It's nothing but circles of varying
sizes arrange along arcs. In fact, it looks suspiciously like the one
that I linked you to a while back where the makers shot video or their
own circle making.

It took them how long?

Post by August Rode
He answers his own question with "The answer I
believe is nothing on earth we know of could form this in minutes". He's
provided as yet no evidence that it was formed in minutes to begin with.

Yes he has, though he may be lying about it. What evidence do you like to
imagine he COULD HAVE provided beyond what he did, if it was in fact produced in
a matter of minutes?

Post by August Rode
Secondly, his conclusion arises from an argument from ignorance.

So most definitely does any that you might have.

Post by August Rode
*He*
doesn't know who the makers could be, therefore the makers can't be human.

*You* don't know who the makers could be, therefore the makers must be
human?

Post by August Rode
He makes claims about EM readings being higher at crop circles than
normal but presents no evidence for that.

I take it for granted he was referring to findings that other people have
made, not necessarily himself personally. Is this the first time you've ever
heard of someone doing something like that?

Post by August Rode
And just how the hell was someone able to interpret the "message" shown
at the 6:00 mark?

At the 4:51 mark he says that humans sent a similar type of message to see
if something would reply. Do you think he lied about that?

Post by August Rode
The video fragment at 6:30 is uninterpretable. How do we even know that
it's running at normal speed?

How do we know that any videos are running at normal speed? What is the
significance in this particular case?

Post by August Rode
<http://www.robertschoch.net/Crop%20Circle%20Video%20Oliver%27s%20Castle%20Fraud%20LWCMD%20CT.htm>
And you could do the maker a favor by telling him to use a spell
checker. Seriously, we're not dealing with someone who is well educated
here.

If you're so superior to him then make your own video showing what really
happened and post a link to it after you get it on line so we can all see how
well you did. Don't forget to use your spell checker when you do it.

August Rode

2014-12-25 18:45:23 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
If you attempt to answer, try to support whatever you happen to suggest.

It shows how some that take six hours to produce are made by humans. It sure
doesn't mean every one ever made was made by humans. Maybe they all were, but
there's no evidence of that.

That's true. However, it *is* the most likely possibility by a large margin.

Then provide the evidence that you're correct.

Did you watch the video I linked you to? With an absurdly small number
of tools, humans can create intricate designs in a field of wheat
overnight. We've seen it done and we have confessions from any number of
people who've done it.
In 100% of the cases where we've been able to determine the perpetrator,
it was humans.

So artificial deer are evidence that actual deer don't exist,

WTF? Where do you get this bullshit from?

You.

If so, you have grossly misunderstood what I've been telling you.

Try explaining how.

Post by August Rode
"Artificial deer" aren't
evidence for or against the existence of "actual deer".

Post by m***@.not.
and anything
else man made is evidence that it could come about in no other way according to
that argument.

Are you under the impression that "artificial deer" could be made by
"actual deer"? If not, then your analogy really *sucks*.

Are you under the impression that "crop circles" could be made by "actual
circles"? If not, then your supposed "criticism" really SUCKS.

Post by m***@.not.
I'm more open minded and feel that there could be some "circles"
made by nonhumans as well as the ones that are made by humans.

Why do you feel that? Do you disagree that in those cases where we have
been able to identify the perpetrator(s) of crop circles, those
perpetrators have been human?

No.

Post by August Rode
If so, why do you disagree with it?

No response?

LOL!!!

LOL indeed.

Agreed.

Post by m***@.not.
You're not. Maybe
your position is somehow superior, but so far I'm unaware of how.

My position is limited to the facts. I doubt you see that as superior. I
think you don't have much use for facts.

Your strawman of my position is certainly hilarious. Your ability to
analogize is certainly crippled.

So far your position is STILL suggesting that if humans made some of them,
they necessarily must have made all of them. Etc....

I have *not* said that.

Then we agree the fact that humans made some of them is meaningless in
regards to whether or not any were not made by humans.

I agree that knowing that some are made by humans means doesn't mean
that all are made by humans. I do not agree that some of them having
been made by humans is meaningless.

Explain how you want people to feel that humans having made some of them has
significant meaning "in regards to whether or not any were not made by humans."

The question that I ask is, "What is the likelihood that, once the maker
of a crop circle is identified, it will turn out to be humans?"
Inference from the available data and basic probability calculations
take care of the rest. The available data says that for *all* crop
circles whose makers are identified, those makers are human. The
probability calculation is therefore straightforward. The probability
that any crop circle for whom the makers are currently unknown was made
by humans is 100%.

Your insistence to the contrary, I do not confuse probability for proof.
Probabilities may change as new data becomes available and this needs to
be taken into consideration. I am therefore open-minded to looking at
good quality evidence for the non-human manufacture of crop circles when
such evidence becomes available.

Then so far your position is STILL suggesting that if humans made some of
them, they necessarily must have made all of them. Etc....

I've tried my best to explain it to you.

Present what you consider to be a respectable explanation that you've tried
to make.

What parts of:

"I have never said and I would never say that
the fact that all *known* perpetrators of crop
circles are of human manufacture that *all*
crop circles are of human manufacture. All I've
said is that that is the *most likely* cause.
It *should* be considered the most likely cause
until such time as evidence indicates otherwise."

did you have trouble understanding?

Until you acknowledge that I have never claimed that all crop circles
were of human manufacture, there is no point talking to you. You'll get
nothing more from me on this subject until you acknowledge that. I'm fed
up with your twisting my words into something I never said.

<snip>

m***@.not.

2014-12-29 12:44:04 UTC

Post by m***@.not.
If you attempt to answer, try to support whatever you happen to suggest.

It shows how some that take six hours to produce are made by humans. It sure
doesn't mean every one ever made was made by humans. Maybe they all were, but
there's no evidence of that.

That's true. However, it *is* the most likely possibility by a large margin.

Then provide the evidence that you're correct.

Did you watch the video I linked you to? With an absurdly small number
of tools, humans can create intricate designs in a field of wheat
overnight. We've seen it done and we have confessions from any number of
people who've done it.
In 100% of the cases where we've been able to determine the perpetrator,
it was humans.

So artificial deer are evidence that actual deer don't exist,

WTF? Where do you get this bullshit from?

You.

If so, you have grossly misunderstood what I've been telling you.

Try explaining how.

Post by August Rode
"Artificial deer" aren't
evidence for or against the existence of "actual deer".

Post by m***@.not.
and anything
else man made is evidence that it could come about in no other way according to
that argument.

Are you under the impression that "artificial deer" could be made by
"actual deer"? If not, then your analogy really *sucks*.

Are you under the impression that "crop circles" could be made by "actual
circles"? If not, then your supposed "criticism" really SUCKS.

Post by m***@.not.
I'm more open minded and feel that there could be some "circles"
made by nonhumans as well as the ones that are made by humans.

Why do you feel that? Do you disagree that in those cases where we have
been able to identify the perpetrator(s) of crop circles, those
perpetrators have been human?

No.

Post by August Rode
If so, why do you disagree with it?

No response?

LOL!!!

LOL indeed.

Agreed.

Post by m***@.not.
You're not. Maybe
your position is somehow superior, but so far I'm unaware of how.

My position is limited to the facts. I doubt you see that as superior. I
think you don't have much use for facts.

Your strawman of my position is certainly hilarious. Your ability to
analogize is certainly crippled.

So far your position is STILL suggesting that if humans made some of them,
they necessarily must have made all of them. Etc....

I have *not* said that.

Then we agree the fact that humans made some of them is meaningless in
regards to whether or not any were not made by humans.

I agree that knowing that some are made by humans means doesn't mean
that all are made by humans. I do not agree that some of them having
been made by humans is meaningless.

Explain how you want people to feel that humans having made some of them has
significant meaning "in regards to whether or not any were not made by humans."

The question that I ask is, "What is the likelihood that, once the maker
of a crop circle is identified, it will turn out to be humans?"

So far it has no meaning in regards to whether or not they were all made by
humans.

Post by August Rode
Inference from the available data and basic probability calculations
take care of the rest. The available data says that for *all* crop
circles whose makers are identified, those makers are human.

That's because humans are the only things making such patterns that humans
are able to idenetify, so as I continue to point out it's meaningless. As yet
you haven't shared any reason to even pretend it has significant meaning, though
you certainly act like you think it does.

Post by August Rode
The
probability calculation is therefore straightforward. The probability
that any crop circle for whom the makers are currently unknown was made
by humans is 100%.

Were you drunk?

Post by August Rode
Your insistence to the contrary,

Present the quote(s).

Post by August Rode
I do not confuse probability for proof.
Probabilities may change as new data becomes available and this needs to
be taken into consideration. I am therefore open-minded

I've never encountered anyone who didn't claim to be open-minded, though
I've encountered a number of them that I feel are very much the opposite.

Post by August Rode
to looking at
good quality evidence for the non-human manufacture of crop circles when
such evidence becomes available.

Then so far your position is STILL suggesting that if humans made some of
them, they necessarily must have made all of them. Etc....

I've tried my best to explain it to you.

Present what you consider to be a respectable explanation that you've tried
to make.

"I have never said and I would never say that
the fact that all *known* perpetrators of crop
circles are of human manufacture that *all*
crop circles are of human manufacture. All I've
said is that that is the *most likely* cause.

You don't know if it is or not though. You're only guessing it is and trying
to support that guess by the fact that we can only tell that SOME OF THEM are
made by humans. You want that fact to be much MUCH more significant than it is.
So far it appears to have between very little and no significance....none that
you have yet presented.

Post by August Rode
It *should* be considered the most likely cause
until such time as evidence indicates otherwise."
did you have trouble understanding?

You want the human limitation to be more significant than it is, but I feel
sure you also don't want me to be aware of that. I am. It's like saying the fact
that we can't detect life on any other planets in the universe is evidence that
there's none anywhere except here. It's not that our limitation makes it less
likely, it's just that we are severly limitted.

Post by August Rode
Until you acknowledge that I have never claimed that all crop circles
were of human manufacture, there is no point talking to you.

Ok, AFAIK you have never claimed that all crop circles were of human
manufacture. Unless you can quote me saying you have made that claim, it's now
your turn to acknowledge that I've never claimed you have made it.

Post by August Rode
You'll get
nothing more from me on this subject until you acknowledge that. I'm fed
up with your twisting my words into something I never said.

Let's try something else then. You have kept on and on about the fact that
the only patterns we're able to find out the makers of have been made by humans.
But you have not been able to present any significance to that fairly obvious
fact. Well, it's an EXTREMELY obvious fact since it would be huge news if it
were shown that some were made by dogs, or xts, or deer, or escaped chimpanzees,
or even weather patterns. In fact afaik it would be huge news if they were ever
shown to be made by ANYTHING other than by humans. So try to explain how you
think the obvious and basic fact you keep bringing up has any significance at
all in regards to the possibility that some of them were NOT made by humans.
Actually it seems that I've challenged you on this before and you couldn't
provide a respectable explanation, but even if that's true here's giving you
another opportunity to finally provide one. IF you can that is. Of course if you
can't there is still an interesting aspect to it, which is why you ever bothered
to bring it up in the first place even though there appears to be no
significance to it.
. . .

Post by August Rode
You consistently twist my "faith" into something I've never said.

Can you admit that you have faith in anything at all?

When did you stop beating your wife? When you figure out why my question
is problematic, you'll know why yours is as well.

Post by m***@.not.
it seems to me that if it was always humans doing it, there would
be a LOT more examples of groups of humans being caught doing it.

Do you think that reports of people being caught making crop circles
would circulate in the media that you read or watch? I don't.
I also know that causing property damage is a crime.

How shall we consider that to be even more reason for the groups of people
not to be caught and exposed as the frauds they would have to be?

Could you rephrase your question? I can't parse it

Then you couldn't answer it because you can't comprehend it, or won't admit
that you can.

It's made of English words but it's so oddly worded that I can't
comprehend it. I notice that you didn't bother to rephrase and ask again
as I asked you to do. Please.

Post by August Rode
and I don't want to
answer a question you aren't asking.

Post by August Rode
There's an
incentive for circlemakers *not* to get caught if they're breaking the
law.

Are you suggesting that all grain farmers everywhere purchase such
materials to detect events that occur highly infrequently?

Is this speculation on your part? Or do you actually know of situations
where this happens?

Post by August Rode
In other cases, farmers might feel they can make more money from
the woo crowd if they allow circlemakers into their fields than if they
harvest the crop.

So far I haven't heard how they make money from it. Do they pay the circle
makers?

The woo crowd sometimes offer to pay the farmer for access to the
circles. If the amount offered is larger than the expected value of the
crop, why would a farmer disagree?

Do you think that happens in a high percentage of cases?

Post by m***@.not.
Unless there
ARE a lot of examples of groups of humans being caught doing it, but I'm as yet
unaware of them. If there are and you are aware of them, then why not share
them?

"Doug [Bower] and Dave [Chorley] claimed to be responsible for all
circles made [in England] prior to 1987, and for more than 200 crop
circles in 19781991..."
They weren't caught.

I don't believe they made all of them and never did. Why do you?

I don't. However, I consider it a good default position until
contradictory evidence comes along.

Like what?

Clear, unedited photographic or video evidence would do for a start.

Of what?

. . .