Here we go again... but this is the last year you get away with it.
![MidNyte[UC]'s profile photo](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/default-user=s40-c)
MidNyte[UC]
Here's a snippet from Lucy Pringle's book 'Crop Circles: the
greatest mystery of modern times'....
'A friend, well into her 80's and suffering from severe and painful
osteoporosis, had long begged me to take her into a formation so that she
could experience the 'energies' for herself. In June 1997 the Pastry Cutter
formation appeared at East Meon, Hampshire near where she lived. Early, on
an overcast, sultry morning Diana and I walked slowly into the formation.
There was an overwhelming sense of awe and peace, just as though we had
entered a cathedral or other sacred place, which silenced even the normally
talkative Diana! By 8am I had dropped Diana home again, and a couple of
hours later she rang me in great excitement - she was totally free of pain!
What's more, she is still pain-free over a year on.'
Damn shame I don't gather proof of circles I 'visit at zero-hours from
creation', if you get my drift... still, next year. Be sure to post here
exactly how much you believe these circles are not the work of hoaxers, I'll
be collecting. It'll make for an interesting summery at the end of the year.
-MidNyte
PS, Paul Vigay: Re your views on hoaxing, you were right about one thing,
but it's just another case of too many experts, not enough investigation.
Quite a good parallel all round really.
PAN
'Crop Circle Energy' is one of the least viable no matter how open minded
you are.
MidNyte[UC] <midny...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:7vf114$2jg$1...@nclient15-gui.server.virgin.net...
MidNyte[UC]
PAN <p...@earth.com> wrote in message
news:7vh0i2$ea1$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> There's a plethora of explanations that could account for this, I think
that
> 'Crop Circle Energy' is one of the least viable no matter how open minded
> you are.
>
Plethora? Perhaps you'd like to share some of them, or are they
un-reasonable?
-MidNyte
PAN
Well in good ol' P Vigay style I shall say that the answers are out there,
go find 'em...
Twonky
language herein.....]
MidNyte[UC] <midny...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:7vhqn5$oon$1...@nclient13-gui.server.virgin.net...
>
> PAN <p...@earth.com> wrote in message
> news:7vh0i2$ea1$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > There's a plethora of explanations that could account for this,
> > I think that 'Crop Circle Energy' is one of the least viable no
> > matter how open minded you are.
> >
>
> Plethora? Perhaps you'd like to share some of them, or are they
> un-reasonable?
>
Un-reasonable? That's exactly what they are. Wait until you see
some. PAN fails to realize there are many more reasons than a
plethora, for means, other than hoaxing. I've given him plenty, but
nooooooooo....I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm delusional.
Hallucinogenic. I've been taken in by authors. All the skeptic
bullshit. Everybody's a goddamn author, so what! The question
is; Which author(s) are telling the truth? I prefer the authors
that don't insult me with; ...did you know all the crop-circles
and all the videos (past and present) of UFOs, are hoaxed?
All I ask is; the dopes on ropes re-construct the Sri Yantra......
just kidding. Re-construct a marking I pick, and do it in real time.
I'll pick the night. Hey....if you donkeys can construct them all
in real time, then you can certainly re-construct one in real time.
Under any weather conditions, of which you have constructed a
marking in the past. And I'll make goddamn sure I pick the
shortest night possible, and the worst weather conditions..
Makes me suspicious why you won't do it. Until you do, fuck you.
I'm right, and ya'll wrong.
Just think, it could be a 4hr special on TDC. An unedited, taped
before a live audience, video(s). The title could be; Hoaxers
Exposed. See the pitiful attempts at the hoaxers re-construction.
> -MidNyte
>
Twonky....who has to have his plethora removed.
>
Paul Whitehead
<midny...@virgin.net> writes
>
>PAN <p...@earth.com> wrote in message
>news:7vh0i2$ea1$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> There's a plethora of explanations that could account for this, I think
>that
>> 'Crop Circle Energy' is one of the least viable no matter how open minded
>> you are.
>>
>
>Plethora? Perhaps you'd like to share some of them, or are they
>un-reasonable?
>
>
>
are yew the missing link from Midnight Oil?
Dr P
MidNyte[UC]
Twonky <two...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7vj7e2$i17$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...
> [....For politically correct morons *FOREWARNING* naughty
> language herein.....]
>
>
> MidNyte[UC] <midny...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:7vhqn5$oon$1...@nclient13-gui.server.virgin.net...
> >
> > news:7vh0i2$ea1$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > There's a plethora of explanations that could account for this,
> > > I think that 'Crop Circle Energy' is one of the least viable no
> > > matter how open minded you are.
> > >
> >
> > Plethora? Perhaps you'd like to share some of them, or are they
> > un-reasonable?
> >
>
> some. PAN fails to realize there are many more reasons than a
> plethora, for means, other than hoaxing. I've given him plenty, but
> nooooooooo....I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm delusional.
> Hallucinogenic. I've been taken in by authors. All the skeptic
> bullshit. Everybody's a goddamn author, so what! The question
> is; Which author(s) are telling the truth? I prefer the authors
> that don't insult me with; ...did you know all the crop-circles
> and all the videos (past and present) of UFOs, are hoaxed?
>
> All I ask is; the dopes on ropes re-construct the Sri Yantra......
> just kidding. Re-construct a marking I pick, and do it in real time.
> I'll pick the night. Hey....if you donkeys can construct them all
> in real time, then you can certainly re-construct one in real time.
> Under any weather conditions, of which you have constructed a
> marking in the past. And I'll make goddamn sure I pick the
> shortest night possible, and the worst weather conditions..
>
> Makes me suspicious why you won't do it. Until you do, fuck you.
> I'm right, and ya'll wrong.
>
> Just think, it could be a 4hr special on TDC. An unedited, taped
> before a live audience, video(s). The title could be; Hoaxers
> Exposed. See the pitiful attempts at the hoaxers re-construction.
> >
> >
>
Your design, your choice of night (weekend please, i have to work :). post
it publicly, don't go too wild, it won't look good giving me an impossible
design, I'm not behind the huge media-whore designs. I'll choose the place,
you'll get to see if we can. Either that or I can send you a detailed plan &
description along with time, date and location in a password protected zip
file. After it's done, i'll send you the password. We wouldn't want you to
turn up with the boys in blue on the night now would we? Sound good? if
not, think of something better.
'Luv', Mid.
Twonky
>
> Twonky <two...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:7vj7e2$i17$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...
>
>
> Your design, your choice of night (weekend please, i have to work
> :).
> post it publicly, don't go too wild, it won't look good giving me an
> impossible design, I'm not behind the huge media-whore designs.
> I'll choose the place, you'll get to see if we can. Either that or I
> can send you a detailed plan & description along with time, date
> and location in a password protected zip file. After it's done, i'll
> send you the password. We wouldn't want you to turn up with the
> boys in blue on the night now would we? Sound good? if not, think
> of something better.
Something better.....
Impossible one? I would say they're all impossible.
Huge media whore designs? What 300 feet? The hell with
that, you're getting a non-media 800 footer. Any marking that
ever 'appeared' is up for consideration.
I'm talking a live re-construction, (not after you've constructed it),
but live, with a live audience to marvel at your artistry, A TDC four
hour, four part series, unedited, and uncensored footage. You don't
have to make any plans, because the construction has already
been done. Don't you dopes on ropes keep your artwork?
You should have "drawings" going back nine years....at least.
Before that was B&D.
Oh yeah, any constructions before 1991 B&D, also apply.
Not my design, a design you hoaxing donkeys claim you
constructed. What I am saying is; I will pick which one. Since
dopes on ropes constructed them all, I'll pick which one I want
them to re-construct. Since they have constructed them in
clear and/or inclement weather, I'll pick the weather also, and
the type of field. Preferably a nice, hilly, oil seed rape field.
High rising hills of grain, where one dope on a rope can't see
the other dope on a rope. And of course it all has to be done
in four hours at night. I'm playing by their/your rules.
Now...which one should I pick?
>
> 'Luv', Mid.
>
Twonky, the middle finger of God> ,,|,,
PAN
> > :).
> > post it publicly, don't go too wild, it won't look good giving me an
> > impossible design, I'm not behind the huge media-whore designs.
> > I'll choose the place, you'll get to see if we can. Either that or I
> > can send you a detailed plan & description along with time, date
> > and location in a password protected zip file. After it's done, i'll
> > send you the password. We wouldn't want you to turn up with the
> > boys in blue on the night now would we? Sound good? if not, think
> > of something better.
>
> Something better.....
>
> Impossible one? I would say they're all impossible.
Not if you have a reasonable understanding of mathematics and geometry...
MidNyte[UC]
All? so even the crappy ones of a smiley face or something similar we see
are made by something non-human?
>
> Huge media whore designs? What 300 feet? The hell with
> that, you're getting a non-media 800 footer. Any marking that
> ever 'appeared' is up for consideration.
For whoever made it, maybe. I am not an expert, I have been doing it since
96 only. I am offering to make a design according to pre-planned
instructions to prove that at least that particular design is man-made. Of
course we would wait a fortnight or so before giving you the password to
unzip the file, enough time for people to claim it is unhoaxable first. I
think this is from whence your defensive stance comes :) There are a few
that I wish i had proof I had created. Two are blindingly obviously hoaxed,
yet people still say it is not possible for them to be.
> I'm talking a live re-construction, (not after you've constructed it),
> but live, with a live audience to marvel at your artistry, A TDC four
> hour, four part series, unedited, and uncensored footage.
And a large group of angry farmers, lawyers and police, no doubt. Hmmm, you
never know, maybe I'll have a momentary lapse of 'not wanting to go to jail
with various farming implements inserted into me' and take you up on your
offer of supervision.
You don't
> have to make any plans, because the construction has already
> been done. Don't you dopes on ropes keep your artwork?
> You should have "drawings" going back nine years....at least.
> Before that was B&D.
>
> Oh yeah, any constructions before 1991 B&D, also apply.
>
> Not my design, a design you hoaxing donkeys claim you
> constructed. What I am saying is; I will pick which one. Since
> dopes on ropes constructed them all, I'll pick which one I want
> them to re-construct.
I will reconstruct anything i have done. Hoaxers, however, are not an
organised group, we are a few groups of people who know as much about each
others existance as the public, except for maybe a few little give-aways
that come from experience. Some of these designs I have no clue how to
reproduce, I admit that, but that don't mean it's aliens/mother nature/a
conspriracy/insert your favourite pseudoscience here. If you want to pick
any, you have to find who hoaxed it. If you want to challenge me, you have
to pick one of mine.
Since they have constructed them in
> clear and/or inclement weather, I'll pick the weather also, and
> the type of field. Preferably a nice, hilly, oil seed rape field.
Weather no problem, but how many complex formations in oilseed rape have you
ever seen?......
> High rising hills of grain, where one dope on a rope can't see
> the other dope on a rope.
.....And on hills? Slope, maybe. Again, how many?
And of course it all has to be done
> in four hours at night.
Not a problem.
> I'm playing by their/your rules.
No, you're playing by your own, which btw, appear to be changing with every
new question you are asked.
>
> Now...which one should I pick?
> Twonky, the middle finger of God> ,,|,,
>
Just for a minute, indulge me this scenario:
Nobody has ever seen a painting being created. People have seen paintings,
they have seen paints which they suspect may be used in creating a painting,
but nobody has ever seen a painting being painted except maybe the odd
person who is conveniently walking around by themselves at the time. You are
an amateur artist. You paint, you tell me so, but it is only a few simple
seascapes, no great masterpieces. I come along and tell you straight out
that I do not believe you, and you say 'fine, I will paint you a picture',
and you do so. It's a picture, but an amateurish one. I say, 'That doesn't
look to me like a real picture, it looks like an attempt at copying a
picture'. You say, 'Well, the thing is, I can paint, but I am not the best
of painters, there are others better than me'. I say, 'Prove it'. You say,
'I can't, I've never seen any painting except my own being created either,
but I know they are created because I can do most of what's involved, I just
lack the talent to create anything better'. I say, 'Bah, you say it's
artists behind these painting things, but you can't do it when asked... very
convenient, I knew it was aliens all along' and promptly stroll off to solve
another of the world's great mysteries with nothing more than intense desire
to believe and a distinct lack of common sense.
Happy self-deceit,
-Mid.
Twonky
> > > Your design, your choice of night (weekend please, i have to
> > > work
> > > :).
> > > post it publicly, don't go too wild, it won't look good giving
> > > me an
> > > impossible design, I'm not behind the huge media-whore designs.
> > > I'll choose the place, you'll get to see if we can. Either that
> > > or I
> > > can send you a detailed plan & description along with time, date
> > > and location in a password protected zip file. After it's done,
> > > i'll
> > > send you the password. We wouldn't want you to turn up with the
> > > boys in blue on the night now would we? Sound good? if not,
> > > think of something better.
> >
> > Something better.....
> >
> > Impossible one? I would say they're all impossible.
>
> All? so even the crappy ones of a smiley face or something similar
> we see
> are made by something non-human?
Did you construct that abortion? I can discern without help from
you.
Something similar? Yes, like the Sri Yantra in Oregon.
Non-human? Yes, of course it is. Scares you, does it?
>
> >
> > Huge media whore designs? What 300 feet? The hell with
> > that, you're getting a non-media 800 footer. Any marking that
> > ever 'appeared' is up for consideration.
>
> For whoever made it, maybe. I am not an expert, I have been doing it
> since 96 only. I am offering to make a design according to
> pre-planned
> instructions to prove that at least that particular design is
> man-made. Of
> course we would wait a fortnight or so before giving you the
> password to
> unzip the file, enough time for people to claim it is unhoaxable
> first. I
> think this is from whence your defensive stance comes :) There are a
> few that I wish i had proof I had created. Two are blindingly
> obviously hoaxed,
> yet people still say it is not possible for them to be.
Wrong! Only a live demonstration will do. Don't you understand that?
I don't want secret passwords, your words are no good. I want hard
facts. I want to see you re-construct it. A hoaxer would never do it
in public because the dope on a rope wouldn't be undercover of a
mainstream media editing room. Which is essentially what you're
offering me.
No thanks. Until you donkeys re-construct it live, and in color, I'm
right, and ya'll wrong. It's just too bad the world doesn't know that,
but it will, and so will you.
>
> > I'm talking a live re-construction, (not after you've constructed
> > it),
> > but live, with a live audience to marvel at your artistry, A TDC
> >four
> > hour, four part series, unedited, and uncensored footage.
>
> And a large group of angry farmers, lawyers and police, no doubt.
> Hmmm, you never know, maybe I'll have a momentary lapse of 'not
> wanting to go to jail with various farming implements inserted into
> me' and take you up on your offer of supervision.
It would all be legal. Bought and paid for, just for you (and your
partner in crime). But you would have to BYOCT.
It would an evening of revelation. I would sell hoaxer voodoo dolls.
>
>
> > You don't
> > have to make any plans, because the construction has already
> > been done. Don't you dopes on ropes keep your artwork?
> > You should have "drawings" going back nine years....at least.
> > Before that was B&D.
> >
> > Oh yeah, any constructions before 1991 B&D, also apply.
> >
> > Not my design, a design you hoaxing donkeys claim you
> > constructed. What I am saying is; I will pick which one. Since
> > dopes on ropes constructed them all, I'll pick which one I want
> > them to re-construct.
>
> I will reconstruct anything i have done. Hoaxers, however, are not
> an organised group, we are a few groups of people who know as
> much about each others existance as the public, except for maybe
> a few little give-aways that come from experience. Some of these
> designs I have no clue how to reproduce, I admit that, but that
> don't mean it's aliens/mother nature/a conspriracy/insert your
> favourite pseudoscience here. If you want to pick
> any, you have to find who hoaxed it. If you want to challenge me,
> you have to pick one of mine.
Oh, so you're a baby hoaxer. Poopsy woopsy wanna make a
markin and fool all the people? Did you get your "hoaxing
knowledge" from the Circle Jerkers site. Are they your
mentor(s)?
Hey...if Hillary Clinton can have a "vast" conspiracy against her,
then I can have a conspiracy against me. The difference is;
mine is real......it consists of you and everyone else who spoon
feed people your bull kaka, just to keep them stupid.
What you have done? Not good enough. It's any construction
which hoaxers claim. Which is all of them. So...what's your
problem?
You have no clue how to re-construct the largest claim to date,
and neither does any other "human" being.
I'll pick any construction I want to. Evidently you're not an
accomplished hoaxer. I need real donkey men hoaxers.
>
> Since they have constructed them in
> > clear and/or inclement weather, I'll pick the weather also, and
> > the type of field. Preferably a nice, hilly, oil seed rape field.
>
> Weather no problem, but how many complex formations in oilseed rape
> have you ever seen?......
Quite a few...over the years.
How many markings have you constructed in oil seed rape fields,
without tramlines? In 'any' field without tramlines?
>
> > High rising hills of grain, where one dope on a rope can't see
> > the other dope on a rope.
>
> .....And on hills? Slope, maybe. Again, how many?
A nice hilly field where markings have appeared. Too tough for
you and your hoaxing donkey friends?
>
> And of course it all has to be done
> > in four hours at night.
>
> Not a problem.
It is with the marking I would pick.
>
> > I'm playing by their/your rules.
>
> No, you're playing by your own, which btw, appear to be changing
> with every new question you are asked.
That's bull, and you know it. You're the one who changes the rules
with your secret password zip files, all done clandestinely. Forget
it. You clowns will never do a live public demo of your most complex
claimed construction to date. FYI......all of them are not yours.
Some belong to me.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
Oh how friggin quaint. Give me a break Mr Artiste.
Aliens! That's it, isn't it? Well too bad, because it's going to
happen, and all of you lying hoaxing jackasses are going to be
shown for the liars you are. You and your sugar daddy
mainstream media, government, and organized religion.
An artist who paints signs the pictures. Any artist would want his
work known. But not you hoaxing jackasses. You get pleasure
from your work by knowing you deceive people, and destroy
their integrity, laugh at and ridicule them. No wonder why
you arses never sign your constructions of deception, because
you are not the artist. You are all a bunch of liars just claiming
all of them without any effort toward proving it.
Hoaxers suck, that's why.
The signature of the real artist is the appearence of the
markings themselves. Signed, sealed, and delivered.
Not constructed, broken, and squashed.
Hillary Clinton also bellowed; "The only people who believe the White
Water allegations, are the same people who believe in UFOs."
(Big laugh and applause.)
Funny lady...huh? That came from the "mouth/open pit" of
a woman who talks to the dead. Do you see anything wrong with
the picture I just painted? Pretty clear, isn't it? I can discern
things for myself. But you don't want me to.
Common sense is what proves me right. Do it again. In real time.
In front of everybody. Don't just throw a lot of bull.
So what, you're an artist who takes delight in deceiveing people,
but all along you're deceiving yourself.
The real artists don't pull the BS that you do. But they do kick ass.
>
> Happy self-deceit,
Yeah! Sure! Right! You self righteously deluded dope on a rope.
Stick that board in your pole hole.
>
> -Mid.
Forget it Mid. You're a wuss hoaxer. I need real heehawing
dopes on ropes. Hoaxers so stupid, two or three would actually try
to re-construct the three arm Julia in four hours. Are you that dope
on a rope?
Twonky......the middle finger of God> ,,|,, <for all of you on the
planet.
The human race? Orgasmic mortal sniffing dogs? Men who piss
aganst the wall and eat their own dung. Oh yuck!
Twonky
> > > Your design, your choice of night (weekend please, i have to
> > > work :).
> > > post it publicly, don't go too wild, it won't look good giving
> > > me an
> > > impossible design, I'm not behind the huge media-whore designs.
> > > I'll choose the place, you'll get to see if we can. Either that
> > > or I
> > > can send you a detailed plan & description along with time, date
> > > and location in a password protected zip file. After it's done,
> > > i'll
> > > send you the password. We wouldn't want you to turn up with the
> > > boys in blue on the night now would we? Sound good? if not,
> > > think of something better.
> >
> > Something better.....
> >
> > Impossible one? I would say they're all impossible.
>
> geometry...
I'm no mathematician, but I can make change for a dollar,
which is more than a lot of people with the new dumbed down
rules of public schooling. (Lets see, the highest score on the
test for this class is 60. So sixty is an A+, everybody
graduates.) Our future leaders? God help us.
And, thank you liberal pukes.
Reasonable geometry? It is reasonable to believe the dopes on
ropes couldn't have possibly constructed all that geometry.
How does geometry get the dopes on ropes well into fields with
no tramlines. Explain away the Sri Yantra with the hoaxing
donkeys "reasonable geometry", why don't you?
>
Twonky....the middle finger of God ,,|,, for all of you "dopes
on ropes"....why don't you hang yourselves with it?
You probably will when the truth "will out".
Ahhhhhh....tis a glorious day when the truth will out.
Finally....the key of knowledge taken from the liars and
deceivers and given to those who are perishing..
Paul Vigay
<URL:mailto:midny...@virgin.net> wrote:
> > I'm talking a live re-construction, (not after you've constructed it),
> > but live, with a live audience to marvel at your artistry, A TDC four
> > hour, four part series, unedited, and uncensored footage.
>
> And a large group of angry farmers, lawyers and police, no doubt. Hmmm, you
> never know, maybe I'll have a momentary lapse of 'not wanting to go to jail
> with various farming implements inserted into me' and take you up on your
> offer of supervision.
Well, how about re-constructing one with the prior permission of the farmer.
We've issued this challenge a number of times. Even Doug Bower was invited to
a farm to make a witnessed formation. He declined.
Jim Schnabel was invited to Monty Keen's farm to reproduce the 1992 'Charm
Bracelet' formation near Silbury Hill that he claimed he made. He couldn't
reproduce it and his attempt (in daylight, taking as much time as he needed
and no fear of being caught) was just plain rubbish and not even comparable
to the one he had claimed. Surely hoaxers should be able to reproduce their
own designs?
> I will reconstruct anything i have done. Hoaxers, however, are not an
> organised group, we are a few groups of people who know as much about each
> others existance as the public, except for maybe a few little give-aways
> that come from experience. Some of these designs I have no clue how to
> reproduce, I admit that, but that don't mean it's aliens/mother nature/a
> conspriracy/insert your favourite pseudoscience here. If you want to pick
> any, you have to find who hoaxed it. If you want to challenge me, you have
> to pick one of mine.
Perhaps we could take you up on this offer next year. I'll find a field and
obtain the relevant permission etc and you can pick the design (to be agreed
by me of course, but as you claim that so many are hoaxed I'm sure it won't
be difficult to pick a design we both agree on).
> Weather no problem, but how many complex formations in oilseed rape have
> you ever seen?......
Quite a few actually. Check out my International Crop Circle database at
http://www.interalpha.net/customer/pvigay/CCDataBase.html
> .....And on hills? Slope, maybe. Again, how many?
Not neccessarily hills, but on a slope where their is no direct line of sight
between the center of the formation and the perimeter, and no way to stretch
a cord or wire across the standing crop.
> Nobody has ever seen a painting being created. People have seen paintings,
> they have seen paints which they suspect may be used in creating a
> painting, but nobody has ever seen a painting being painted except maybe
> the odd person who is conveniently walking around by themselves at the
> time. You are an amateur artist. You paint, you tell me so, but it is only
> a few simple seascapes, no great masterpieces. I come along and tell you
> straight out that I do not believe you, and you say 'fine, I will paint you
> a picture', and you do so. It's a picture, but an amateurish one. I say,
> 'That doesn't look to me like a real picture, it looks like an attempt at
> copying a picture'. You say, 'Well, the thing is, I can paint, but I am not
> the best of painters, there are others better than me'. I say, 'Prove it'.
> You say, 'I can't, I've never seen any painting except my own being created
> either, but I know they are created because I can do most of what's
> involved, I just lack the talent to create anything better'. I say, 'Bah,
> you say it's artists behind these painting things, but you can't do it when
> asked... very convenient, I knew it was aliens all along' and promptly
> stroll off to solve another of the world's great mysteries with nothing
> more than intense desire to believe and a distinct lack of common sense.
A good analogy and one I agree with. I'm open minded on the whole aspect of
the phenomenon. However, there are still one or two anomalies that hoaxers
have been unable to reproduce. You actually sound more of a rational hoaxer
than some so perhaps we could share some thoughts. I've personally witnesses
a number of anomalous electronic and RF events in and around crop circles.
These alone are enough to convince me personally that there is something
worth investigating further. Now obviously, if you can prove that you (or
someone else) made a formation I've detected anomalies in, then perhaps we
should meet up or I should test a formation you've made and we can perhaps
look for what causes the various anomalies. I've always been open to 'any'
reason that would create the anomalies detected (strong radio interference,
EMF vortexes and disturbances etc etc which have been witnessed on calibrated
monitoring equipment).
If you can provide proof of ANY formation that you make (perhaps next year)
then I would be more than willing to record and share my testing with you.
Indeed, you can accompany me to the field and watch the equipment yourself.
I've mentioned this to several hoaxers in the past and they've all declined.
I asked Rob Irving if he would like to re-visit the Silbury Hill Koch fractal
to explain some anomalies I had detected about half an hour before I bumped
into him at The Barge. He tactfully declined my offer, which is a shame
because he might have been able to offer some mundane explanation that I (and
several others who witnessed the readings) had missed.
The problem is that it's almost an 'us and them' mentality between the
hoaxers and believers. If they are willing to help and examine some of the
anomalies instead of blindly sticking their head in the ground or just simply
dismissing the non-hoaxing evidence then it will remain an 'us and them'. I'm
more than open to sharing and demonstrating my readings inside formations. I
did quite a few this year. I only detected anomalies in about two or three
formations (which out of approx 140 formations is a lower percentage than
previous years) but none the less I'd be interested if others could see and
analyse the results - or even just witness them.
One such formation was the one below Hackpen Hill, if anyone would like to
claim it.
--
_/_/_/ _/ Paul Vigay
_/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ Director of Operations,
_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ The Independent Research Centre for
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Unexplained Phenomena (IRCUP).
_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/ Editor & Publisher of "Enigma" research journal
Enigma Homepage: http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/Enigma/
PAN
> no tramlines.
Hey Twonks, give me some urls to piccies of crop circles that have no
tramlines...
Explain away the Sri Yantra with the hoaxing
> donkeys "reasonable geometry", why don't you?
Url?
PAN
Haha, that has to be *THE* quote of the year for you Twonky...
Twonky
> > Common sense is what proves me right.
>
Sorry PAN, but nobody is going to convince me that everything, not
just some things, but *EVERYTHING* I believe is false. If I believed
God is a man, or a woman, or the earth is a living organism, or the
anomalous contrails don't mean anything, or Clinton doesn't lie, or
Hillary is sincere....etc., then I could probably believe (be
persuaded to believe) the Sri Yantra is a hoax, and all the crop
markings are constructed by people, and there is no credible
evidence for UFOs. But I'm not that stupid, like....well....guess who?
The common sense I use to have hoaxing donkeys, those dopes
on ropes, prove themselves is too sensible for any liar.
A live, public construction of their largest claim to date. Adhering
to the rules "they" put in place. Yeah! Sure! No way!
I must admit, the dicks on sticks, have common sense not to
humiliate themselves when forced into the truth.
They'll never do it. Their sugardaddy mainstream media should
fund it. Can you think of any reason why the big mainstream media
wouldn't undertake such an endeavor? I can. Common sense tells
me what it is.
Until the dopes on ropes prove otherwise, I'm right, and ya'll
be waaaaaaaaaaaaaay wrong!
>
Twonky..........the middle finger of God ,,|,, In your face human
race.
Ignore the truth, and perpetuate the lie.
If you want to see things change, then change the way you see things.
The thousand words a picture is worth, are now worth a thousand lies.
>
PAN
> >
>
> Sorry PAN, but nobody is going to convince me that everything, not
> just some things, but *EVERYTHING* I believe is false.
I didn't say everything you believe is false, I'm just referring to crop
circles...
MidNyte[UC]
> > >
> > > Impossible one? I would say they're all impossible.
> >
> > All? so even the crappy ones of a smiley face or something similar
> > we see
> > are made by something non-human?
>
> Did you construct that abortion? I can discern without help from
> you.
>
> Something similar? Yes, like the Sri Yantra in Oregon.
> Non-human? Yes, of course it is. Scares you, does it?
> >
Of course not. What scares who IMHO is not having something to believe in
scares you.
> > >
> > > Huge media whore designs? What 300 feet? The hell with
> > > that, you're getting a non-media 800 footer. Any marking that
> > > ever 'appeared' is up for consideration.
> >
> > For whoever made it, maybe. I am not an expert, I have been doing it
> > since 96 only. I am offering to make a design according to
> > pre-planned
> > instructions to prove that at least that particular design is
> > man-made. Of
> > course we would wait a fortnight or so before giving you the
> > password to
> > unzip the file, enough time for people to claim it is unhoaxable
> > first. I
> > think this is from whence your defensive stance comes :) There are a
> > few that I wish i had proof I had created. Two are blindingly
> > obviously hoaxed,
> > yet people still say it is not possible for them to be.
>
> Wrong! Only a live demonstration will do. Don't you understand that?
> I don't want secret passwords, your words are no good. I want hard
> facts.
This passworded zip file would provide hard facts. you would have in your
possesion a file detailing what would appear when & where, with every exact
detail. You would not be able to read it until after completion of the
circle, for our own protection from a) angry farmers and b) people claiming
it as a hoax because they know it is, when they would otherwise have been
taken in. Don't try and tell me that wouldn't happen either.
> I want to see you re-construct it. A hoaxer would never do it
> in public because the dope on a rope wouldn't be undercover of a
> mainstream media editing room. Which is essentially what you're
> offering me.
>
Excuse me? how exactly do we 'edit' crop circles? Either they are man-made
or not, I can prove they are, that is what I offer you. Why do you not
accept? Who's scared of what?
> No thanks. Until you donkeys re-construct it live, and in color, I'm
> right, and ya'll wrong. It's just too bad the world doesn't know that,
> but it will, and so will you.
> >
Blinkered. Your way is not the best for all concerned, only for you,
shutting out anything that you do not agree with shows insecurity.
> > > I'm talking a live re-construction, (not after you've constructed
> > > it),
> > > but live, with a live audience to marvel at your artistry, A TDC
> > >four
> > > hour, four part series, unedited, and uncensored footage.
> >
> > And a large group of angry farmers, lawyers and police, no doubt.
> > Hmmm, you never know, maybe I'll have a momentary lapse of 'not
> > wanting to go to jail with various farming implements inserted into
> > me' and take you up on your offer of supervision.
>
> It would all be legal. Bought and paid for, just for you (and your
> partner in crime). But you would have to BYOCT.
>
I am discussing with said partner the possibility of working with
researchers along those lines. Researchers mind you, not doomsday-billboard
street-preachers like yourself.
> It would an evening of revelation. I would sell hoaxer voodoo dolls.
Voodoo.... what a suprise.
> >
> >
snip
> > > Not my design, a design you hoaxing donkeys claim you
> > > constructed. What I am saying is; I will pick which one. Since
> > > dopes on ropes constructed them all, I'll pick which one I want
> > > them to re-construct.
> >
> > I will reconstruct anything i have done. Hoaxers, however, are not
> > an organised group, we are a few groups of people who know as
> > much about each others existance as the public, except for maybe
> > a few little give-aways that come from experience. Some of these
> > designs I have no clue how to reproduce, I admit that, but that
> > don't mean it's aliens/mother nature/a conspriracy/insert your
> > favourite pseudoscience here. If you want to pick
> > any, you have to find who hoaxed it. If you want to challenge me,
> > you have to pick one of mine.
>
> Oh, so you're a baby hoaxer.
Yes. So? The fact that we are inexperienced on the grand scale of things and
we still manage to have our circles tagged 'unhoaxable' would lend credence
to my explanation of the phenomenon, credence stolen from your side of the
fence.
> Poopsy woopsy wanna make a
> markin and fool all the people?
Yes, Poopsy woopsy does. It's people like you who make in enjoyable.
> Did you get your "hoaxing
> knowledge" from the Circle Jerkers site. Are they your
> mentor(s)?
>
since 95/96 (pre circle makers site AFAIK).
> Hey...if Hillary Clinton can have a "vast" conspiracy against her,
> then I can have a conspiracy against me. The difference is;
> mine is real......it consists of you and everyone else who spoon
> feed people your bull kaka, just to keep them stupid.
>
People can offer me kaka, I choose whether to beleive it or not.
> What you have done? Not good enough. It's any construction
> which hoaxers claim. Which is all of them. So...what's your
> problem?
>
My problem is I didn't make them all personally, rather obviously. I am
offering to prove my hoaxes, if others don't, there's nothing I can do about
it. That doesn't mean they are not making them.
> You have no clue how to re-construct the largest claim to date,
True.
> and neither does any other "human" being.
Untrue. I'm trying to prove my case though, you are just relying on lack of
proof from the other side of the arguement, again, indicating that you are
unsure. If you *know* that it's aliens/whatever, go find proof, go try and
proove it.
> I'll pick any construction I want to.
Because you know I (note: me, not all hoaxers) cannot do all of them, you
get me to say it publicly (which I'm not afraid to do) and you sit back smug
saying circle's are unhoaxable just because one hoaxer can't do a difficult
one.
> Evidently you're not an
> accomplished hoaxer. I need real donkey men hoaxers.
> >
Fine, however, on that statement I rest my case. I am offering you proof of
some circles, you have declined because they are not the biggest & best
circles. You are ignoring evidence because it does not suit your opinion.
> > Since they have constructed them in
> > > clear and/or inclement weather, I'll pick the weather also, and
> > > the type of field. Preferably a nice, hilly, oil seed rape field.
> >
> > Weather no problem, but how many complex formations in oilseed rape
> > have you ever seen?......
>
> Quite a few...over the years.
> How many markings have you constructed in oil seed rape fields,
> without tramlines? In 'any' field without tramlines?
None, I don't know how they do it, I admit that. That does not neccessarily
mean that it cannot be done. I don't know how to do quantum physics, that
doesn't mean stephen hawkins is a magician. Besides, how many circles are in
fields that don't have tramlines?
> >
> > > High rising hills of grain, where one dope on a rope can't see
> > > the other dope on a rope.
> >
> > .....And on hills? Slope, maybe. Again, how many?
>
> A nice hilly field where markings have appeared. Too tough for
> you and your hoaxing donkey friends?
Show me. Back it up or leave it out.
> >
> > And of course it all has to be done
> > > in four hours at night.
> >
> > Not a problem.
>
> It is with the marking I would pick.
Yes, I'm sure. Tell me, did you used to throw temper tantrums when you lost
games in the playground?
> >
> > > I'm playing by their/your rules.
> >
> > No, you're playing by your own, which btw, appear to be changing
> > with every new question you are asked.
>
> That's bull, and you know it.
I know no such thing.
> You're the one who changes the rules
> with your secret password zip files, all done clandestinely.
Offering a new solution does not constitute changing the rules, it was an
offering.
> Forget
> it. You clowns will never do a live public demo of your most complex
> claimed construction to date.
If it was mine, I would. I cannot speak for anyone else.
>FYI......all of them are not yours.
> Some belong to me.
> >
I can well believe it, but tell me, did you:
a) do one then inspect it, see the broken stems and say 'it's impossible to
hoax convincingly' and then stop hoaxing.
or b) do one then inspect it, see the broken stems and say 'it's impossible
to hoax convincingly' and then think 'well, maybe it'll be better next
time', try it again and find it was. That's what happened with us. Funnily
enough, just doing something once didn't make us instant experts, it took
something we have dubbed 'practice'. Fancy that, we actually do a better one
each time
That's your way of disproving the analogy? 'how frigging quaint' and 'give
me a break'? Again I rest my case.
>
> Aliens! That's it, isn't it? Well too bad, because it's going to
> happen, and all of you lying hoaxing jackasses are going to be
> shown for the liars you are. You and your sugar daddy
> mainstream media, government, and organized religion.
Proove it. You want proof from me, i want proof from you. You already have
my offer.
>
> An artist who paints signs the pictures. Any artist would want his
> work known.
That's irrelevant, but just to answer it anyway, remember what happened with
grapeshot do we?
> But not you hoaxing jackasses. You get pleasure
> from your work by knowing you deceive people, and destroy
> their integrity, laugh at and ridicule them. No wonder why
> you arses never sign your constructions of deception, because
> you are not the artist. You are all a bunch of liars just claiming
> all of them without any effort toward proving it.
That would be nice and convenient for you wouldn't it? Why would you think
people trying to hoax a circle would want to ruin the effect by prooving it
was a hoax before people even passed their judgement?
> Hoaxers suck, that's why.
Well that's swung it, now I believe you. Now my whole belief systems has
changed on the strength of that one awe-inspiring comment.
> Signed, sealed, and delivered.
> Not constructed, broken, and squashed.
>
> Hillary Clinton also bellowed; "The only people who believe the White
> Water allegations, are the same people who believe in UFOs."
> (Big laugh and applause.)
> Funny lady...huh? That came from the "mouth/open pit" of
> a woman who talks to the dead. Do you see anything wrong with
> the picture I just painted? Pretty clear, isn't it?
I don't see any differnece between someone who talks to the dead and someone
who thinks circles in corn are not made by people with planks. Both
unsubstantiated, and both to the contrary of scientific knowledge.
> I can discern
> things for myself. But you don't want me to.
>
I do. I'm offering you more evidence for you to include in your reasoning
when you're building these beliefs, you don't want to accept it. Why? Too
cosy with your green friends?
> Common sense is what proves me right. Do it again. In real time.
> In front of everybody. Don't just throw a lot of bull.
No need, this password/zip thing would be proof. I couldn't give you exact
description, time, date, picture in advance unless I was the one planning
it. You get the file, a week later the circle appears and you get the
password, you unzip the files, check with the details of the circle. If they
match, I'm either psychic (Don't go there) or I did it. I'll want your
opinions as to genuine/fake stated in public first though, or are you afraid
of being caught out?
>
> So what, you're an artist who takes delight in deceiveing people,
Yes.
> but all along you're deceiving yourself.
>
I don't think so, if you do, proove it. Like I say, I'm offering you proof,
you are declining and not offering your own proof. Smacks of uncertainty.
> The real artists don't pull the BS that you do. But they do kick ass.
They kick ass all right, but they are people who kick ass, IMHO. (And in the
opinion of science, unless of course you can proove different).
> >
> > Happy self-deceit,
>
> Yeah! Sure! Right! You self righteously deluded dope on a rope.
Self-righteous is me all right, that comes from haveing people 'cured' by a
circle that I made, talk about power of the mind. Deluded? Maybe, still
waiting for proof (or even just a hint of proof.)
> Stick that board in your pole hole.
Is that a technique you used in your hoax? How would you talk to your
partner in crime?
> >
> > -Mid.
>
> Forget it Mid. You're a wuss hoaxer. I need real heehawing
> dopes on ropes. Hoaxers so stupid, two or three would actually try
> to re-construct the three arm Julia in four hours. Are you that dope
> on a rope?
>
Four hours? Didn't your sides star-witness claim it was 45 minutes between
not being there and then being there? In broad daylight? Obviously his word
can be taken, but not ours, the difference is so obvious. Perhaps you could
point it out just to the slower of us? Why exactly do you poeple trust one
person says that it appeared in 45 minutes, but not others who say they made
it?
> Twonky......the middle finger of God> ,,|,, <for all of you on the
> planet.
>
> The human race? Orgasmic mortal sniffing dogs? Men who piss
> aganst the wall and eat their own dung. Oh yuck!
>
Hope 'they' don't come for you tonight, I'd like to hear your answers.
-Mid
MidNyte[UC]
Paul Vigay <pvi...@cropcircleresearch.com> wrote in message
news:ant04084...@Liberator.nom...
That was my precise point in 'discussion' with twonky, I can reproduce my
own designs, just not designs that are more complex.
> > I will reconstruct anything i have done. Hoaxers, however, are not an
> > organised group, we are a few groups of people who know as much about
each
> > others existance as the public, except for maybe a few little give-aways
> > that come from experience. Some of these designs I have no clue how to
> > reproduce, I admit that, but that don't mean it's aliens/mother nature/a
> > conspriracy/insert your favourite pseudoscience here. If you want to
pick
> > any, you have to find who hoaxed it. If you want to challenge me, you
have
> > to pick one of mine.
>
> Perhaps we could take you up on this offer next year. I'll find a field
and
> obtain the relevant permission etc and you can pick the design (to be
agreed
> by me of course, but as you claim that so many are hoaxed I'm sure it
won't
> be difficult to pick a design we both agree on).
I will speak to my partner who I think will agree, I myself would like to.
What is your opinion on the password protected zipfile idea, BTW?
(irrespective of the live-reproduction debate) would it be sufficient proof
for you as it is, or would there need to be a change in details?
>
> > Weather no problem, but how many complex formations in oilseed rape have
> > you ever seen?......
>
> Quite a few actually. Check out my International Crop Circle database at
> http://www.interalpha.net/customer/pvigay/CCDataBase.html
>
Will do, but is there any statistical analysis of the complexity of circles
and the difficulty of 'working' in whichever particular crop it's in? Maybe
I could start one.
> > .....And on hills? Slope, maybe. Again, how many?
>
> Not neccessarily hills, but on a slope where their is no direct line of
sight
> between the center of the formation and the perimeter, and no way to
stretch
> a cord or wire across the standing crop.
Could you name one/a few? I'd like to see if I could find an explanation for
that.
Thankyou. :)
> I'm open minded on the whole aspect of
> the phenomenon. However, there are still one or two anomalies that hoaxers
> have been unable to reproduce.
The anomalies IMHO are either by accident (believe me, we've thrown people
way off completely by accident) or are damn clever and elaborate tricks, but
I'd like to be able explain them
> You actually sound more of a rational hoaxer
> than some so perhaps we could share some thoughts.
If such a thing exists I would like to think I was an example :) I'd like
to share ideas though.
> I've personally witnesses
> a number of anomalous electronic and RF events in and around crop circles.
> These alone are enough to convince me personally that there is something
> worth investigating further. Now obviously, if you can prove that you (or
> someone else) made a formation I've detected anomalies in, then perhaps we
> should meet up or I should test a formation you've made and we can perhaps
> look for what causes the various anomalies.
I'd like that.
> I've always been open to 'any'
> reason that would create the anomalies detected (strong radio
interference,
> EMF vortexes and disturbances etc etc which have been witnessed on
calibrated
> monitoring equipment).
> If you can provide proof of ANY formation that you make (perhaps next
year)
> then I would be more than willing to record and share my testing with you.
> Indeed, you can accompany me to the field and watch the equipment
yourself.
I'd like that too.
>
> I've mentioned this to several hoaxers in the past and they've all
declined.
> I asked Rob Irving if he would like to re-visit the Silbury Hill Koch
fractal
> to explain some anomalies I had detected about half an hour before I
bumped
> into him at The Barge. He tactfully declined my offer, which is a shame
> because he might have been able to offer some mundane explanation that I
(and
> several others who witnessed the readings) had missed.
>
> The problem is that it's almost an 'us and them' mentality between the
> hoaxers and believers. If they are willing to help and examine some of the
> anomalies instead of blindly sticking their head in the ground or just
simply
> dismissing the non-hoaxing evidence then it will remain an 'us and them'.
I agree. Maybe we can start a trend :)
> I'm
> more than open to sharing and demonstrating my readings inside formations.
I
> did quite a few this year. I only detected anomalies in about two or three
> formations (which out of approx 140 formations is a lower percentage than
> previous years) but none the less I'd be interested if others could see
and
> analyse the results - or even just witness them.
>
> One such formation was the one below Hackpen Hill, if anyone would like to
> claim it.
Not me :)
> --
> _/_/_/ _/ Paul Vigay
> _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ Director of Operations,
> _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ The Independent Research Centre for
> _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Unexplained Phenomena (IRCUP).
> _/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/ Editor & Publisher of "Enigma" research
journal
> Enigma Homepage: http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/Enigma/
>
Feel free to mail me if you want to discuss any details/planning out of
public view.
-Mid
MidNyte[UC]
> ropes couldn't have possibly constructed all that geometry.
>
Yeah PAN, you listen to him. It's much more reasonable to think that little
green men flew light years to come here and make a little mark in a field
than it is to think that maybe someone is better at making marks than he can
imagine. Shame on you.
-Mid
Paul Vigay
<URL:mailto:midny...@virgin.net> wrote:
[snip]
> I will speak to my partner who I think will agree, I myself would like to.
> What is your opinion on the password protected zipfile idea, BTW?
> (irrespective of the live-reproduction debate) would it be sufficient proof
> for you as it is, or would there need to be a change in details?
Sorry, I think I missed the beginning of this thread. What were you planning
for the zip file? Do you mean you would supply a GIF image or something in
advance in a password protected zip file? I think that would be acceptable,
assuming that the final formation was un-ambiguous.
> Will do, but is there any statistical analysis of the complexity of circles
> and the difficulty of 'working' in whichever particular crop it's in? Maybe
> I could start one.
Certainly. Feedback is more than welcome. Indeed, I hope to open a
chatroom/guestbook area where people can exchange comments etc. I've also
setup a crop circle mailing list, which will hopefully stick more to crop
circle research than this newsgroup. :-)
> Could you name one/a few? I'd like to see if I could find an explanation
> for that.
One particular one, which I believe was subsequently 'claimed' by hoaxers was
a large nested crescent design which appeared below Olivers Castle in 1994. I
measured it myself and you couldn't stretch a cord from the centre to the
perimeter unless you stood on a ladder or something. I'm sure I could find
other examples though.
> The anomalies IMHO are either by accident (believe me, we've thrown people
> way off completely by accident) or are damn clever and elaborate tricks,
> but I'd like to be able explain them
At last, a hoaxer who seems willing to cooperate with research. I'd be more
than willing to visit a formation with you sometime and let you examine our
testing protocols and see if we detect any anomalies. Obviously, if there is
a flaw in our testing I would be interested to find out so that we can make
future testing more stringent.
> I agree. Maybe we can start a trend :)
:-)
> > One such formation was the one below Hackpen Hill, if anyone would like
> > to claim it.
>
> Not me :)
:-)
> Feel free to mail me if you want to discuss any details/planning out of
> public view.
Indeed. I may well take you up on that.
regards
Twonky
language herein.....]
MidNyte[UC] <midny...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:801on5$kof$1...@nclient13-gui.server.virgin.net...
>
> > > >
> > > > Impossible one? I would say they're all impossible.
> > >
> > > All? so even the crappy ones of a smiley face or something
> > > similar we see
> > > are made by something non-human?
> >
> > Did you construct that abortion? I can discern without help from
> > you.
> >
> > Something similar? Yes, like the Sri Yantra in Oregon.
> > Non-human? Yes, of course it is. Scares you, does it?
> > >
>
> Of course not. What scares who IMHO is not having something to
> believe in scares you.
Come on will ya, everyone believes in something. Like you believe
in yourself, and the mainstream media. Oh almighty hoaxing
jackass.
You don't seem to understand me. I don't want to see your "plant".
I don't doubt you can re-construct one, but it's not one I want to see
you re-construct. How large would it be? Anyting 300 feet and under,
with less than a hundred surrounding circles is out. And I would have
to see it re-constructed in real time.
>
> > I want to see you re-construct it. A hoaxer would never do it
> > in public because the dope on a rope wouldn't be undercover of a
> > mainstream media editing room. Which is essentially what you're
> > offering me.
> >
>
> Excuse me? how exactly do we 'edit' crop circles? Either they are
> man- made or not, I can prove they are, that is what I offer you.
> Why do you not accept? Who's scared of what?
Evidently you're unfamiliar with the editing rooms of the BIG
mainstream media. Where else can you see a couple of "dicks
on sticks" construct a three hundred foot marking in forty-five
minutes minus commercials? Oh yeah, they're all hoaxed alright.
Took the clowns six hours, with plenty of help from NBC.
Okay so you can construct small messy ones. Even the two
donkeys B&C could do that, but you couldn't re-construct the "one"
I want you to.
>
> > No thanks. Until you donkeys re-construct it live, and in color,
> > I'm right, and ya'll wrong. It's just too bad the world doesn't
> > know that, but it will, and so will you.
> > >
>
> Blinkered. Your way is not the best for all concerned, only for you,
> shutting out anything that you do not agree with shows insecurity.
You bet your bum....insecurity. I don't trust you lying SOBs at all.
Please stop begging me to accept your dumb ass offer.
Real time, or nothing. A public display/humiliation. Not one of yours,
one of mine.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > It would all be legal. Bought and paid for, just for you (and your
> > partner in crime). But you would have to BYOCT.
> >
>
> I am discussing with said partner the possibility of working with
> researchers along those lines. Researchers mind you, not
> doomsday-billboard street-preachers like yourself.
What is so doomsday about the reality of extraterrestrials. It may
be doomsday for you, and organized religion, and mainstream media,
and governments, but not for me.
Not quite a billboard street-preacher, more like a NewsGroup groupy.
Here to straighten you guys out. Have to make you realize we are
not all sitting with mouth wide open ready to be spoon fed your
bullshit.
>
> > It would an evening of revelation. I would sell hoaxer voodoo
> > dolls.
>
> Voodoo.... what a suprise.
Just voodoo dolls, and pins. So what. What are you implying?
I can't make a few dollars off the markings? Why not?
> > >
> > >
> snip
>
> >
> > Oh, so you're a baby hoaxer.
>
> Yes. So? The fact that we are inexperienced on the grand scale of
> things and
> we still manage to have our circles tagged 'unhoaxable' would lend
> credence
> to my explanation of the phenomenon, credence stolen from your side
> of the fence.
No it wouldn't, and hasn't...okay. The only thing that would lend
credence is, if you could re-construct the largest claim to date.
Not one of your zip file constructions.
Some of them are unhoaxable. Humanly impossible to achieve.
>
> > Poopsy woopsy wanna make a
> > markin and fool all the people?
>
> Yes, Poopsy woopsy does. It's people like you who make in enjoyable.
Real time only though. Then we'll see who makes lying and deception
enjoyable. I would really enjoy watching you re-construct the marking
I choose. In front of a live audience. Huffing and puffing your way to
infamy.
>
> > Did you get your "hoaxing
> > knowledge" from the Circle Jerkers site. Are they your
> > mentor(s)?
> >
> since 95/96 (pre circle makers site AFAIK).
Oh competition for the Circle Jerkers. Into hard research, and
and squash wheat art? You have to upgrade your markings.
>
> > Hey...if Hillary Clinton can have a "vast" conspiracy against her,
> > then I can have a conspiracy against me. The difference is;
> > mine is real......it consists of you and everyone else who spoon
> > feed people your bull kaka, just to keep them stupid.
> >
> People can offer me kaka, I choose whether to beleive it or not.
Exactly my point. I don't believe your kaka. And I'm not a hypocrite
like you and Ms Clinton, aka the butt of butter.
>
> > What you have done? Not good enough. It's any construction
> > which hoaxers claim. Which is all of them. So...what's your
> > problem?
> >
> My problem is I didn't make them all personally, rather obviously. I
> am
> offering to prove my hoaxes, if others don't, there's nothing I can
> do about
> it. That doesn't mean they are not making them.
Yes it does....absolutely. If you can't construct them, then they
can't either. It doesn't take a genius to flatten wheat...with a
plank.
>
> > You have no clue how to re-construct the largest claim to date,
>
> True.
Okay then, I don't want to talk to you anymore. I need real dopes
on ropes. Masters of the 600-900 footers. Miracle workers who put
constructions well into fields with no tramlines, and make thin 1-3
stalk wide rings. Thinner than a humans foot/feet.
>
> > and neither does any other "human" being.
>
> Untrue. I'm trying to prove my case though, you are just relying on
> lack of
> proof from the other side of the arguement, again, indicating that
> you are unsure. If you *know* that it's aliens/whatever, go find
> proof, go try and proove it.
Relying on lack of proof? You admit it, there is no proof people
construct them all. But there is proof people don't construct them
all. That proof is the NBC funded New Zealand construction. The three
arm Julia. The Sri Yantra in Oregon. And that massive ground marking
which "appeared" (in Arizona I think).
>
> > I'll pick any construction I want to.
>
> Because you know I (note: me, not all hoaxers) cannot do all of
> them, you
> get me to say it publicly (which I'm not afraid to do) and you sit
> back smug
> saying circle's are unhoaxable just because one hoaxer can't do a
> difficult
> one.
No because two or three hoaxers can't do an extraordinarily
complex construction. What with the weaving of layers, swirled
in differing directions, bent, not broken. Very time consuming.
How do they do it? I'm sure you'll tell me.
>
> > Evidently you're not an
> > accomplished hoaxer. I need real donkey men hoaxers.
> > >
>
> Fine, however, on that statement I rest my case. I am offering you
> proof of
> some circles, you have declined because they are not the biggest &
> best
> circles. You are ignoring evidence because it does not suit your
> opinion.
I'm ignoring your "evidence" because it doesn't address the issue
of size and complexity. I can roll around in a field also. But I
choose not too. I keep my art where it belongs.
>
> > > > Since they have constructed them in
> > > > clear and/or inclement weather, I'll pick the weather also,
> > > >and
> > > > the type of field. Preferably a nice, hilly, oil seed rape
> > > > field.
> > >
> > > Weather no problem, but how many complex formations in oilseed
> > > rape have you ever seen?......
> >
> > Quite a few...over the years.
> > How many markings have you constructed in oil seed rape fields,
> > without tramlines? In 'any' field without tramlines?
>
> None, I don't know how they do it, I admit that. That does not
> neccessarily
> mean that it cannot be done. I don't know how to do quantum physics,
> that
> doesn't mean stephen hawkins is a magician. Besides, how many
> circles are in
> fields that don't have tramlines?
Plenty. One is enough I should think. Just like one Sri Yantra.
>
> > >
> > > > High rising hills of grain, where one dope on a rope can't see
> > > > the other dope on a rope.
> > >
> > > .....And on hills? Slope, maybe. Again, how many?
> >
> > A nice hilly field where markings have appeared. Too tough for
> > you and your hoaxing donkey friends?
>
> Show me. Back it up or leave it out.
Go to Paul Vigay's site. There are a lot of sites where you can
see this stuff. I had to look for it all so now you can go fish.
>
> > >
> > > And of course it all has to be done
> > > > in four hours at night.
> > >
> > > Not a problem.
> >
> > It is with the marking I would pick.
>
> Yes, I'm sure. Tell me, did you used to throw temper tantrums when
> you lost
> games in the playground?
No. I never lost. Others threw the tantrum, as you are doing now.
>
> > >
> > > > I'm playing by their/your rules.
> > >
> > > No, you're playing by your own, which btw, appear to be changing
> > > with every new question you are asked.
> >
> > That's bull, and you know it.
>
> I know no such thing.
>
> > You're the one who changes the rules
> > with your secret password zip files, all done clandestinely.
>
> Offering a new solution does not constitute changing the rules, it
> was an offering.
And I told you, I don't want it. It doesn't serve my purpose, which
is to expose the dopes on ropes for the dopes they are.
>
> > Forget
> > it. You clowns will never do a live public demo of your most
> > complex
> > claimed construction to date.
>
> If it was mine, I would. I cannot speak for anyone else.
Because the constructions you put forth can be constructed, or you
wouldn't offer it up. I want a claimed marking that is humanly
impossible to re-construct, in "true" time. And there are plenty.
It's just that the claiments won't oblige me.
>
> >FYI......all of them are not yours.
> > Some belong to me.
> > >
>
> I can well believe it, but tell me, did you:
>
> a) do one then inspect it, see the broken stems and say 'it's
> impossible to hoax convincingly' and then stop hoaxing.
No. I weighed the evidence both pro and con, and went with the
most reasonable. It's called discernment. You hoaxing jackasses
lost hands down. No contest.
>
> or b) do one then inspect it, see the broken stems and say 'it's
> impossible
> to hoax convincingly' and then think 'well, maybe it'll be better
> next
> time', try it again and find it was. That's what happened with us.
> Funnily
> enough, just doing something once didn't make us instant experts, it
> took
> something we have dubbed 'practice'. Fancy that, we actually do a
> better one each time.
Yeah...I noticed the improvement this year. Wait until next year
and see what you're going to claim.
It was quaint. Friggin or otherwise. I do need a break from the crap
that comes from people like you.
I rest my case also, on your shoulders. Prove to me that people
construct all markings or I will just go on going on. And I am
perfectly justified in my volition using common sense.
>
> >
> > Aliens! That's it, isn't it? Well too bad, because it's going to
> > happen, and all of you lying hoaxing jackasses are going to be
> > shown for the liars you are. You and your sugar daddy
> > mainstream media, government, and organized religion.
>
> Proove it. You want proof from me, i want proof from you. You
> already have my offer.
Your offer, but no proof in your offer.
My proof...........
Videos, films, and stills from years ago and up to Mexico City,
ongoing since 1991. STS48 shuttle video, it is not space ice.
You see, I don't believe every single UFO video, film, picture,
eyewitness reports are all hoaxes, balloons, space ice,
delusions, flares, Venus, swamp gas, headlights, reflections,
balloons, blimps, stars, natural phenomena. If they are, then
you better get video taped evidence out of our courts. Because
any video can be hoaxed. Just as the Rodney King, video taped
beating, could be a hoax. If I were one of those cops convicted by
the video tape, I would demand a new trial on the grounds of a
possible hoax.
> >
> > An artist who paints signs the pictures. Any artist would want his
> > work known.
>
> That's irrelevant, but just to answer it anyway, remember what
> happened with grapeshot do we?
Yeah, you guys carry a lot of construction equipment into the fields.
What about markings well into fields without tramlines? Nobody
seems to want to address that issue. And the thin rings, 1-3 stalks
wide.
BowWow and Chalkey claimed they jumped to make a grapeshot.
That would be 20 feet in distance with an arc of 11 feet, from a
standing, stationary position, and then, jumped back.
Nobody in the mainstream media called them on that little beauty.
>
> > But not you hoaxing jackasses. You get pleasure
> > from your work by knowing you deceive people, and destroy
> > their integrity, laugh at and ridicule them. No wonder why
> > you arses never sign your constructions of deception, because
> > you are not the artist. You are all a bunch of liars just
> ?claiming all of them without any effort toward proving it.
>
> That would be nice and convenient for you wouldn't it? Why
> would you think
> people trying to hoax a circle would want to ruin the effect by
> prooving it was a hoax before people even passed their judgement?
They "prove it" by claiming them all. That's why the media ignores
the markings now, because they helped the 'dicks on sticks' to own
them all, in the eyes of the mindless lethargic that is. But a frugal,
enquiring, discerning mind like I possess, wants to know the truth.
>
> > Hoaxers suck, that's why.
>
> Well that's swung it, now I believe you. Now my whole belief systems
> has changed on the strength of that one awe-inspiring comment.
They do suck. Just keep on believing what you believe, I will be
much better off, and so will you.
>
> > Signed, sealed, and delivered.
> > Not constructed, broken, and squashed.
> >
> > Hillary Clinton also bellowed; "The only people who believe the
> > White
> > Water allegations, are the same people who believe in UFOs."
> > (Big laugh and applause.)
> > Funny lady...huh? That came from the "mouth/open pit" of
> > a woman who talks to the dead. Do you see anything wrong with
> > the picture I just painted? Pretty clear, isn't it?
>
> I don't see any differnece between someone who talks to the dead and
> someone
> who thinks circles in corn are not made by people with planks.
My point exactly. She is a hypocrite, and I am not.
Made with planks. How time consuming would that be for an 800
foot construction. Weaving, braiding, different layers swirled in
differing directions. Ooooo...lots of back breaking work. At night,
no lights......mmmmmm....let me see the dopes on ropes
re-construct them. Real time, not zip file time.
>
> Both unsubstantiated, and both to the contrary of scientific
> knowledge.
And so isn't your claim that all the crop markings are made with
planks. Christ Jesus....what do think I am? Do you think I'm
as stupid as you, and would believe as you? Forget it. You're on
the losing side. My claims aren't substantiated because those who
have the power to substantiate them just ignore the evidence that
does substantiate them.
>
> > I can discern
> > things for myself. But you don't want me to.
> >
> I do. I'm offering you more evidence for you to include in your
> reasoning
> when you're building these beliefs, you don't want to accept it.
> Why? Too cosy with your green friends?
Grey friends, Grey. I accept you dopes on ropes can construct some.
I just think it would be easier to draw, copy and paste, then it is to
huff, puff, stomp, squash, and break. Especially those extremely
large markings that just "appear".
>
> > Common sense is what proves me right. Do it again. In real time.
> > In front of everybody. Don't just throw a lot of bull.
>
> No need, this password/zip thing would be proof. I couldn't give you
> exact
> description, time, date, picture in advance unless I was the one
> planning
> it. You get the file, a week later the circle appears and you get
> the
> password, you unzip the files, check with the details of the circle.
> If they
> match, I'm either psychic (Don't go there) or I did it. I'll want
> your
> opinions as to genuine/fake stated in public first though, or are
> you afraid of being caught out?
You are afraid of "being caught out". I'll plan it. You play by the
rules and re-construct it. Not yours....mine.
>
> >
> > So what, you're an artist who takes delight in deceiveing people,
>
> Yes.
Well this is one person you're not deceiving. I've got your lying
number. I think you are a real ass for doing what you do.
You should be a politician. They all lie with impunity also.
You and those like you, are going to get it. Get ready for your
roof jump....splat.
>
> > but all along you're deceiving yourself.
> >
> I don't think so, if you do, proove it. Like I say, I'm offering you
> proof,
> you are declining and not offering your own proof. Smacks of
> uncertainty.
What proof are you offering? Nothing but more deception. Bring it
out in the open. Put it on the table for all to see. You guys are like
snakes. Hide under a rock and come out at night to slither around
in grain fields. Get a life will you? Doesn't your wife wonder where
you disappear to?
>
> > The real artists don't pull the BS that you do. But they do kick
> > ass.
>
> They kick ass all right, but they are people who kick ass, IMHO.
> (And in the opinion of science, unless of course you can proove
> different).
Yes, I can prove different, with the stuff the mainstream media
doesn't tell us about. Just because they don't report something
doesn't mean it isn't happening, and visa versa.
> > >
> > > Happy self-deceit,
> >
> > Yeah! Sure! Right! You self righteously deluded dope on a rope.
>
> Self-righteous is me all right, that comes from haveing people
> 'cured' by a circle that I made, talk about power of the mind.
> Deluded? Maybe,still waiting for proof (or even just a hint of
> proof.)
Well aren't you just the subtle little deceiver, congratulations.
Was it really your construction, or are you just claiming it? Do you
have a secret zip file proving it? Geeezzzz...you dopes on ropes are
really trying. Reason and logic is your downfall. (For me anyway.)
>
> > Stick that board in your pole hole.
>
> Is that a technique you used in your hoax? How would you talk to
> your partner in crime?
No, I'm not stupid enough to go out in a field of grain to squash out
messy designs in fields by stomping, breaking and squashing plants.
Talk to my partner? With a walkie talkie I guess. But the transmission
could be picked up by anyone with a high speed scanner. Ohoh..
caught.
> > >
> > > -Mid.
> >
> > Forget it Mid. You're a wuss hoaxer. I need real heehawing
> > dopes on ropes. Hoaxers so stupid, two or three would actually try
> > to re-construct the three arm Julia in four hours. Are you that
> > dope on a rope?
> >
> Four hours? Didn't your sides star-witness claim it was 45 minutes
> between not being there and then being there? In broad daylight?
> Obviously his word can be taken, but not ours, the difference is so
> obvious. Perhaps you could point it out just to the slower of us?
> Why exactly do you poeple trust one person says that it appeared
> in 45 minutes, but not others who say they made it?
Yeah, the single arm Julia by stonehenge, "witnessed" by a pilot.
Flew to his destination and it wasn't there, flew from his
destination, forty-five minutes later, and there it was. Want to hear
something silly? I beleive him. It stands to reason the markings
would just appear, and are not constructed. Do you think hoaxers
actually constructed that marking in forty-five minutes, in broad
daylight?
Okay....you re-construct it, in forty-five minutes.
The only way you dopes on ropes can construct a marking in forty-five
minutes is on the TV, for NBC, TDC, A&E, TLC, NOVA, CNN....etc..,
minus commercials. All liberal media of course.
>
> > Twonky......the middle finger of God> ,,|,, <for all of you on the
> > planet.
> >
> > The human race? Orgasmic mortal sniffing dogs? Men who piss
> > aganst the wall and eat their own dung. Oh yuck!
> >
>
> Hope 'they' don't come for you tonight, I'd like to hear your
> answers.
They're not coming for me, they're already here. I'm coming for you
and the likes of you though.
>
> -Mid
Twonky....the middle finger of God~ ,,|,, ~In your face human race.
I refuse to march in the "Parade of the Parachuting Dummy Brigade".
Platoons of goons and buffoons trying to sell me their silly balloons.
It's a new day, a new age, the dawning of the age of Aquarius.
Are you ready world?
> Twonky for PRES.
Lets surprise the shit out of the elite. Write me in.
two...@mindspring.com
Be well, safe, and wary ~the world is full of (elites) treachery.
(-_-) <Twonky symbol to Grey aliens, our little buddies.
We think alike.
BHRATAR SUASTI BHRATAR SUASTIKA
Cathy Smiles
> <URL:mailto:midny...@virgin.net> wrote: [snip]
> > I will speak to my partner who I think will agree, I myself would like to.
> > What is your opinion on the password protected zipfile idea, BTW?
> > (irrespective of the live-reproduction debate) would it be sufficient proof
> > for you as it is, or would there need to be a change in details?
>
> for the zip file? Do you mean you would supply a GIF image or something in
> advance in a password protected zip file? I think that would be acceptable,
> assuming that the final formation was un-ambiguous.
This is great that we can get some cooperation between the hoaxers and
researchers. However, we *know* that hoaxing goes on because of some of the
crap that appears in the fields, but until all hoaxers are able to prove that
they made all crop circles, then there is always the slightest chance that
they were made by something we, at present, no nothing about....
Will this ever happen..?? Probably not, because the hoaxers have created a
situation where if they were to admit to all their 'work' and there was just
one formation that nobody claimed, then they would have to admit that there
could be genuine phenomena.... and their bubble would be burst!
--
Cathy Smiles
Are you prepared to sacrifice what you are today, for what you could become
tomorrow....???
Volcane
> > between not being there and then being there? In broad daylight?
> > Obviously his word can be taken, but not ours, the difference is so
> > obvious. Perhaps you could point it out just to the slower of us?
> > Why exactly do you poeple trust one person says that it appeared
> > in 45 minutes, but not others who say they made it?
>
> Yeah, the single arm Julia by stonehenge, "witnessed" by a pilot.
> Flew to his destination and it wasn't there, flew from his
> destination, forty-five minutes later, and there it was. Want to hear
> something silly? I beleive him. It stands to reason the markings
> would just appear, and are not constructed. Do you think hoaxers
> actually constructed that marking in forty-five minutes, in broad
> daylight?
>
Can you remember ,Twonky what time of day the Pilot flew over the formation?
I understood it to be early in the morning and hence the light and shadow
changes are very drastic at that time. I work with a pilot and he has also
has seen some very peculiar happenings from the air and are, entirely
without question all, explainable with good science.
I also read in you post that the STS48 Shuttle video did not show ice
fragments? What evidence do you have for saying that? I have seen the
video myself and I have analysed in the computer. I looked at the "ice"
pixels to try and determine whether passed under the Atmosphere of Earth.
If I could prove the atmosphere was between the ice and the camera then I
might believe the claims that it was a rail gun in action against a UFO
attack fleet. All I could determine was that the ice or whatever had
exactly the same lumincance and colour as the atmosphere. I could not
determine anything from my work so what did you do or more importantly how
did you come to your conclusion that these white blobs were indeed not ice.
Why doyou asume its dicks with sticks? Some of the hoaxers I know have
produced some very inventive tools.
I think you have to remeber that the human race as a whole are capable of
incredibly clever acts (Space travel, Nuclear Power, Computing, Drug
research). Flattening of corn in ornate patterns ranks fairly low in my
book.
Get fuckin' real!
Vol
Freelance Scientist
PAN
Yeah, maybe you've got a point there!!
PAN
more
> than willing to visit a formation with you sometime and let you examine
our
> testing protocols and see if we detect any anomalies. Obviously, if there
is
> a flaw in our testing I would be interested to find out so that we can
make
> future testing more stringent.
If only it were summer...
PAN
> Here to straighten you guys out
purple haze all in my brain
lately things just don't seem the same
actin' funny but i don't know why
s'cuse me while i kiss the sky
MidNyte[UC]
> In article <801on7$kof$2...@nclient13-gui.server.virgin.net>, MidNyte[UC]
> <URL:mailto:midny...@virgin.net> wrote:
> [snip]
> > I will speak to my partner who I think will agree, I myself would like
to.
> > What is your opinion on the password protected zipfile idea, BTW?
> > (irrespective of the live-reproduction debate) would it be sufficient
proof
> > for you as it is, or would there need to be a change in details?
>
planning
> for the zip file? Do you mean you would supply a GIF image or something in
> advance in a password protected zip file? I think that would be
acceptable,
> assuming that the final formation was un-ambiguous.
>
That was it exactly. Picture, date, location in a password protected zipfile
posted here a week before the formation appeared, the password one week
after. Since the zip was kept by yourselves, there could be no tampering
from us. If it didn't prove we were responcible, it would prove we were
psychic :)
> > Will do, but is there any statistical analysis of the complexity of
circles
> > and the difficulty of 'working' in whichever particular crop it's in?
Maybe
> > I could start one.
>
> Certainly. Feedback is more than welcome. Indeed, I hope to open a
> chatroom/guestbook area where people can exchange comments etc. I've also
> setup a crop circle mailing list, which will hopefully stick more to crop
> circle research than this newsgroup. :-)
I keep meaning to subscribe :) Message board sounds like a good idea.
>
> > Could you name one/a few? I'd like to see if I could find an explanation
> > for that.
>
> One particular one, which I believe was subsequently 'claimed' by hoaxers
was
> a large nested crescent design which appeared below Olivers Castle in
1994. I
> measured it myself and you couldn't stretch a cord from the centre to the
> perimeter unless you stood on a ladder or something. I'm sure I could find
> other examples though.
>
I'll have a look. Maybe though, (not claiming the idea for my own :) they
used a ladder? steppies are quite easy to get out there, and it's not much
hassle for quite a lot of credability. Maybe someone could be bothered, even
if I never could. :)
> > The anomalies IMHO are either by accident (believe me, we've thrown
people
> > way off completely by accident) or are damn clever and elaborate tricks,
> > but I'd like to be able explain them
>
> At last, a hoaxer who seems willing to cooperate with research. I'd be
more
> than willing to visit a formation with you sometime and let you examine
our
> testing protocols and see if we detect any anomalies. Obviously, if there
is
> a flaw in our testing I would be interested to find out so that we can
make
> future testing more stringent.
Sounds good, I'm definatly up for that, I think my partner in crime (PIC
from now) will be too.
I'm as interested in the anomalies as anyone else, just that I have a
different view on why they're there :)
>
> > I agree. Maybe we can start a trend :)
>
> :-)
>
> > > One such formation was the one below Hackpen Hill, if anyone would
like
> > > to claim it.
> >
> > Not me :)
>
> :-)
>
> > Feel free to mail me if you want to discuss any details/planning out of
> > public view.
>
> Indeed. I may well take you up on that.
>
OK, midny...@virgin.net is the most reliable :)
> regards
MidNyte[UC]
PAN <p...@earth.com> wrote in message news:804rt9$34$2...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > At last, a hoaxer who seems willing to cooperate with research. I'd be
> more
> > than willing to visit a formation with you sometime and let you examine
> our
> > testing protocols and see if we detect any anomalies. Obviously, if
there
> is
> > a flaw in our testing I would be interested to find out so that we can
> make
> > future testing more stringent.
>
>
>
MidNyte[UC]
Cathy Smiles <Ca...@vigay.com> wrote in message
news:ant07165...@A7000.nom...
> > In article <801on7$kof$2...@nclient13-gui.server.virgin.net>, MidNyte[UC]
> > <URL:mailto:midny...@virgin.net> wrote: [snip]
> > > I will speak to my partner who I think will agree, I myself would like
to.
> > > What is your opinion on the password protected zipfile idea, BTW?
> > > (irrespective of the live-reproduction debate) would it be sufficient
proof
> > > for you as it is, or would there need to be a change in details?
> >
planning
> > for the zip file? Do you mean you would supply a GIF image or something
in
> > advance in a password protected zip file? I think that would be
acceptable,
> > assuming that the final formation was un-ambiguous.
>
> researchers. However, we *know* that hoaxing goes on because of some of
the
> crap that appears in the fields, but until all hoaxers are able to prove
that
> they made all crop circles, then there is always the slightest chance that
> they were made by something we, at present, no nothing about....
>
> Will this ever happen..?? Probably not, because the hoaxers have created
a
> situation where if they were to admit to all their 'work' and there was
just
> one formation that nobody claimed, then they would have to admit that
there
> could be genuine phenomena.... and their bubble would be burst!
>
>
> --
> Cathy Smiles
> Are you prepared to sacrifice what you are today, for what you could
become
> tomorrow....???
>
I admit there *could* be, I just think that the most likely explanation is
pranksters rather than anything non-human.
-Mid
MidNyte[UC]
> >
> > Of course not. What scares who IMHO is not having something to
> > believe in scares you.
>
> Come on will ya, everyone believes in something. Like you believe
> in yourself, and the mainstream media. Oh almighty hoaxing
> jackass.
> >
Insult instead of answer = insecurity. Look it up if you don't believe me.
> > > > >
snip
> >
> > This passworded zip file would provide hard facts. you would have in
> > your possesion a file detailing what would appear when & where,
> > with every exact
> > detail. You would not be able to read it until after completion of
> > the
> > circle, for our own protection from a) angry farmers and b) people
> > claiming
> > it as a hoax because they know it is, when they would otherwise have
> > been taken in. Don't try and tell me that wouldn't happen either.
>
> You don't seem to understand me. I don't want to see your "plant".
> I don't doubt you can re-construct one, but it's not one I want to see
> you re-construct. How large would it be? Anyting 300 feet and under,
> with less than a hundred surrounding circles is out. And I would have
> to see it re-constructed in real time.
> >
Why real-time? If you're syaing it would take longer than one night, do you
think people wouldn't notice a half-finished circle left in the daylight to
be finished the next night?
> > > I want to see you re-construct it. A hoaxer would never do it
> > > in public because the dope on a rope wouldn't be undercover of a
> > > mainstream media editing room. Which is essentially what you're
> > > offering me.
> > >
> >
> > Excuse me? how exactly do we 'edit' crop circles? Either they are
> > man- made or not, I can prove they are, that is what I offer you.
> > Why do you not accept? Who's scared of what?
>
> Evidently you're unfamiliar with the editing rooms of the BIG
> mainstream media. Where else can you see a couple of "dicks
> on sticks" construct a three hundred foot marking in forty-five
> minutes minus commercials? Oh yeah, they're all hoaxed alright.
>
> Took the clowns six hours, with plenty of help from NBC.
>
> Okay so you can construct small messy ones. Even the two
> donkeys B&C could do that, but you couldn't re-construct the "one"
> I want you to.
> >
AFAIK, four of my circles have been authenticated unanimously, others are in
dispute. Maybe I couldn't reconstruct the one you want, but that doesn't
mean no-one could. I can't do magic, but I don't believe Paul Daniels is an
alien.
> > > No thanks. Until you donkeys re-construct it live, and in color,
> > > I'm right, and ya'll wrong. It's just too bad the world doesn't
> > > know that, but it will, and so will you.
> > > >
> >
> > Blinkered. Your way is not the best for all concerned, only for you,
> > shutting out anything that you do not agree with shows insecurity.
>
> You bet your bum....insecurity. I don't trust you lying SOBs at all.
> Please stop begging me to accept your dumb ass offer.
> Real time, or nothing. A public display/humiliation. Not one of yours,
> one of mine.
> >
I shall offer (not beg) no more, just don't ever say to people you've done
all you can to figure out the enigma of circles - you haven't.
> <<<SNIP>>>
> > >
> > > It would all be legal. Bought and paid for, just for you (and your
> > > partner in crime). But you would have to BYOCT.
> > >
> >
> > I am discussing with said partner the possibility of working with
> > researchers along those lines. Researchers mind you, not
> > doomsday-billboard street-preachers like yourself.
>
> What is so doomsday about the reality of extraterrestrials. It may
> be doomsday for you, and organized religion, and mainstream media,
> and governments, but not for me.
Sure, it would be arrogant to believe earth is the only planet with life in
the almost infinite universe, but coming here to 'squish corn'? And the bit
about 'warning us subtly, without causing panic' is just simple 'I've made
the UFO's are coming lie work, now, what can I use as a believable motive?'
tactics as used in any playground.
> Not quite a billboard street-preacher, more like a NewsGroup groupy.
> Here to straighten you guys out. Have to make you realize we are
> not all sitting with mouth wide open ready to be spoon fed your
> bullshit.
From whence the bullshit springs is a matter of opinion.
> >
> > > It would an evening of revelation. I would sell hoaxer voodoo
> > > dolls.
> >
> > Voodoo.... what a suprise.
>
> Just voodoo dolls, and pins. So what. What are you implying?
> I can't make a few dollars off the markings? Why not?
No, no, go for it. Just don't be expecting me to have horrible stomach pains
when you jab the doll of me.
> > > >
> > > >
> > snip
> >
> > >
> > > Oh, so you're a baby hoaxer.
> >
> > Yes. So? The fact that we are inexperienced on the grand scale of
> > things and
> > we still manage to have our circles tagged 'unhoaxable' would lend
> > credence
> > to my explanation of the phenomenon, credence stolen from your side
> > of the fence.
>
> No it wouldn't, and hasn't...okay.
Explain how making a circle that fools the 'experts' doesn't lend credence
to the theory that all circles are hoaxed? It certainly doesn't prove it
outright, but it lends credence... unless of course you are choising your
evidence again.
> The only thing that would lend
> credence is, if you could re-construct the largest claim to date.
> Not one of your zip file constructions.
> Some of them are unhoaxable. Humanly impossible to achieve.
Not so. If I had a lifetime of practice, I could not paint like the masters,
that doesn't mean the masters are painted by aliens. Just you couldn't do it
& I can't do it, doesn't mean nobody can.
> >
> > > Poopsy woopsy wanna make a
> > > markin and fool all the people?
> >
> > Yes, Poopsy woopsy does. It's people like you who make in enjoyable.
>
> Real time only though. Then we'll see who makes lying and deception
> enjoyable. I would really enjoy watching you re-construct the marking
> I choose. In front of a live audience. Huffing and puffing your way to
> infamy.
Yeah, I'm sure you would. How much would you enjoy a challenge that you
wouldn't win before you started? Like I said, I'll re-create mine, that's
all i can offer to anyone.
> >
> > > Did you get your "hoaxing
> > > knowledge" from the Circle Jerkers site. Are they your
> > > mentor(s)?
> > >
> > since 95/96 (pre circle makers site AFAIK).
>
> Oh competition for the Circle Jerkers. Into hard research, and
> and squash wheat art? You have to upgrade your markings.
> >
> > > Hey...if Hillary Clinton can have a "vast" conspiracy against her,
> > > then I can have a conspiracy against me. The difference is;
> > > mine is real......it consists of you and everyone else who spoon
> > > feed people your bull kaka, just to keep them stupid.
> > >
> > People can offer me kaka, I choose whether to beleive it or not.
>
> Exactly my point. I don't believe your kaka. And I'm not a hypocrite
> like you and Ms Clinton, aka the butt of butter.
> >
Fine, you don't have to believe, just as long as you don't go around saying
I've never offered any proof of what I say.
> > > What you have done? Not good enough. It's any construction
> > > which hoaxers claim. Which is all of them. So...what's your
> > > problem?
> > >
> > My problem is I didn't make them all personally, rather obviously. I
> > am
> > offering to prove my hoaxes, if others don't, there's nothing I can
> > do about
> > it. That doesn't mean they are not making them.
>
> Yes it does....absolutely. If you can't construct them, then they
> can't either. It doesn't take a genius to flatten wheat...with a
> plank.
> >
Bollocks. "I can't do magic, so Paul Daniels is obviously an alien". That's
an exact parallel of what you are saying, so, you agree with that, or you
want to back down?
> > > You have no clue how to re-construct the largest claim to date,
> >
> > True.
>
> Okay then, I don't want to talk to you anymore. I need real dopes
> on ropes. Masters of the 600-900 footers. Miracle workers who put
> constructions well into fields with no tramlines, and make thin 1-3
> stalk wide rings. Thinner than a humans foot/feet.
Fine. Be sure to tell everyone here next year which circles you think are
hoaxed and which are 'genuine'. My 'pathetic useless' zipfiles will be here
waiting to make an arse of you.
> >
> > > and neither does any other "human" being.
> >
> > Untrue. I'm trying to prove my case though, you are just relying on
> > lack of
> > proof from the other side of the arguement, again, indicating that
> > you are unsure. If you *know* that it's aliens/whatever, go find
> > proof, go try and proove it.
>
> Relying on lack of proof? You admit it, there is no proof people
> construct them all. But there is proof people don't construct them
> all. That proof is the NBC funded New Zealand construction. The three
> arm Julia. The Sri Yantra in Oregon. And that massive ground marking
> which "appeared" (in Arizona I think).
> >
> > > I'll pick any construction I want to.
> >
> > Because you know I (note: me, not all hoaxers) cannot do all of
> > them, you
> > get me to say it publicly (which I'm not afraid to do) and you sit
> > back smug
> > saying circle's are unhoaxable just because one hoaxer can't do a
> > difficult
> > one.
>
> No because two or three hoaxers can't do an extraordinarily
> complex construction. What with the weaving of layers, swirled
> in differing directions, bent, not broken. Very time consuming.
> How do they do it? I'm sure you'll tell me.
two or three? Why the limit, is there an International Hoaxing Commission I
was previously unaware of? As for construction effects, they are a product
of the common stomping method, and yes, I *will* prove that next year.
> >
> > > Evidently you're not an
> > > accomplished hoaxer. I need real donkey men hoaxers.
> > > >
> >
> > Fine, however, on that statement I rest my case. I am offering you
> > proof of
> > some circles, you have declined because they are not the biggest &
> > best
> > circles. You are ignoring evidence because it does not suit your
> > opinion.
>
> I'm ignoring your "evidence" because it doesn't address the issue
> of size and complexity. I can roll around in a field also. But I
> choose not too. I keep my art where it belongs.
Complexity maybe, but you do not even know which designs I am claiming.
Size, maybe there are 20 people in my team, how do you know? you've written
us of before you've even asked. I hope you are not in any kind of research
career.
> >
> > > > > Since they have constructed them in
> > > > > clear and/or inclement weather, I'll pick the weather also,
> > > > >and
> > > > > the type of field. Preferably a nice, hilly, oil seed rape
> > > > > field.
> > > >
> > > > Weather no problem, but how many complex formations in oilseed
> > > > rape have you ever seen?......
> > >
> > > Quite a few...over the years.
> > > How many markings have you constructed in oil seed rape fields,
> > > without tramlines? In 'any' field without tramlines?
> >
> > None, I don't know how they do it, I admit that. That does not
> > neccessarily
> > mean that it cannot be done. I don't know how to do quantum physics,
> > that
> > doesn't mean stephen hawkins is a magician. Besides, how many
> > circles are in
> > fields that don't have tramlines?
>
> Plenty. One is enough I should think. Just like one Sri Yantra.
Don't know. Honest answer (rather than lieing around evidence that doesn't
fit my theory), but then, I don't know how Paul Daniels makes people
'disappear', but I don't expect Greys have anything to do with it.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > High rising hills of grain, where one dope on a rope can't see
> > > > > the other dope on a rope.
> > > >
> > > > .....And on hills? Slope, maybe. Again, how many?
> > >
> > > A nice hilly field where markings have appeared. Too tough for
> > > you and your hoaxing donkey friends?
> >
> > Show me. Back it up or leave it out.
>
> Go to Paul Vigay's site. There are a lot of sites where you can
> see this stuff. I had to look for it all so now you can go fish.
> >
And you can extrapolate 3D information from a photograph can you? very
clever.
> > > >
> > > > And of course it all has to be done
> > > > > in four hours at night.
> > > >
> > > > Not a problem.
> > >
> > > It is with the marking I would pick.
> >
> > Yes, I'm sure. Tell me, did you used to throw temper tantrums when
> > you lost
> > games in the playground?
>
> No. I never lost. Others threw the tantrum, as you are doing now.
I have answered every one of your accusations, hardly the temper tantrum of
avoiding the questions with insults that I am getting in return. And you
never lost? perhaps you should read the psychology behind believing you have
never lost a single fight in your life. Seriously, look it up, I think
you'll find it interesting.
snip
> >
> > Offering a new solution does not constitute changing the rules, it
> > was an offering.
>
> And I told you, I don't want it. It doesn't serve my purpose, which
> is to expose the dopes on ropes for the dopes they are.
Any evidence should be useful in serving your purpose. Any eveidence you
have would interest me, whether i believe it or not.
> >
> > > Forget
> > > it. You clowns will never do a live public demo of your most
> > > complex
> > > claimed construction to date.
> >
> > If it was mine, I would. I cannot speak for anyone else.
>
> Because the constructions you put forth can be constructed, or you
> wouldn't offer it up. I want a claimed marking that is humanly
> impossible to re-construct, in "true" time. And there are plenty.
> It's just that the claiments won't oblige me.
I don't think any marking is impossible to reproduce,, and you saying that
because I can't do it or you can't do it won't change my belief that someone
else can.
> >
> > >FYI......all of them are not yours.
> > > Some belong to me.
> > > >
> >
> > I can well believe it, but tell me, did you:
> >
> > a) do one then inspect it, see the broken stems and say 'it's
> > impossible to hoax convincingly' and then stop hoaxing.
>
> No. I weighed the evidence both pro and con, and went with the
> most reasonable. It's called discernment. You hoaxing jackasses
> lost hands down. No contest.
Most reasonable? explain the reasoning that leads you to think that nobody
else can do anything that you can't do.
> >
> > or b) do one then inspect it, see the broken stems and say 'it's
> > impossible
> > to hoax convincingly' and then think 'well, maybe it'll be better
> > next
> > time', try it again and find it was. That's what happened with us.
> > Funnily
> > enough, just doing something once didn't make us instant experts, it
> > took
> > something we have dubbed 'practice'. Fancy that, we actually do a
> > better one each time.
>
> Yeah...I noticed the improvement this year. Wait until next year
> and see what you're going to claim.
Certainly, zipfiles at the ready. If you don't want them, ignore them, other
people round here welcome something real.
OK, how's this?: I (with partner) can construct a circle of X complexity.
Since I am self-taught and with little practice it is safe to assume that
another group can construct a circle that is more complex than mine. If my
circle is half as complex as the best i have seen, then i can be certain
beyond reasonable doubt that the most complex is also humanly created,
albiet beyond my means.
> >
> > >
> > > Aliens! That's it, isn't it? Well too bad, because it's going to
> > > happen, and all of you lying hoaxing jackasses are going to be
> > > shown for the liars you are. You and your sugar daddy
> > > mainstream media, government, and organized religion.
> >
> > Proove it. You want proof from me, i want proof from you. You
> > already have my offer.
>
> Your offer, but no proof in your offer.
>
Either it prooves I hoaxed it or it prooves I'm psychic, take your pick.
> My proof...........
> Videos, films, and stills from years ago and up to Mexico City,
> ongoing since 1991. STS48 shuttle video, it is not space ice.
> You see, I don't believe every single UFO video, film, picture,
> eyewitness reports are all hoaxes, balloons, space ice,
> delusions, flares, Venus, swamp gas, headlights, reflections,
> balloons, blimps, stars, natural phenomena. If they are, then
> you better get video taped evidence out of our courts. Because
> any video can be hoaxed. Just as the Rodney King, video taped
> beating, could be a hoax. If I were one of those cops convicted by
> the video tape, I would demand a new trial on the grounds of a
> possible hoax.
>
And those have what to do with circles?
> > >
> > > An artist who paints signs the pictures. Any artist would want his
> > > work known.
> >
> > That's irrelevant, but just to answer it anyway, remember what
> > happened with grapeshot do we?
>
> Yeah, you guys carry a lot of construction equipment into the fields.
Me personally (and partner), 2 stompers, 1 50 metre wire, nothing more.
> What about markings well into fields without tramlines? Nobody
> seems to want to address that issue. And the thin rings, 1-3 stalks
> wide.
>
Dont' know, I'd like to explain it as much as the next person. Maybe you
could help find out rather than just sit back on your alien conspiracy?
> BowWow and Chalkey claimed they jumped to make a grapeshot.
> That would be 20 feet in distance with an arc of 11 feet, from a
> standing, stationary position, and then, jumped back.
> Nobody in the mainstream media called them on that little beauty.
same again, your opinion?
> >
> > > But not you hoaxing jackasses. You get pleasure
> > > from your work by knowing you deceive people, and destroy
> > > their integrity, laugh at and ridicule them. No wonder why
> > > you arses never sign your constructions of deception, because
> > > you are not the artist. You are all a bunch of liars just
> > ?claiming all of them without any effort toward proving it.
> >
> > That would be nice and convenient for you wouldn't it? Why
> > would you think
> > people trying to hoax a circle would want to ruin the effect by
> > prooving it was a hoax before people even passed their judgement?
>
> They "prove it" by claiming them all That's why the media ignores
> the markings now, because they helped the 'dicks on sticks' to own
> them all, in the eyes of the mindless lethargic that is. But a frugal,
> enquiring, discerning mind like I possess, wants to know the truth.
Please do not use the words frugal, deiscerning or enquiring when reffering
to someone who will refuse evidence that does not fit their own theories,
whether it be youself or someone else.
> >
> > > Hoaxers suck, that's why.
> >
> > Well that's swung it, now I believe you. Now my whole belief systems
> > has changed on the strength of that one awe-inspiring comment.
>
> They do suck. Just keep on believing what you believe, I will be
> much better off, and so will you.
Deal. Just don't be saying you've explored all avenues if you refuse
evidence.
> >
> > > Signed, sealed, and delivered.
> > > Not constructed, broken, and squashed.
> > >
> > > Hillary Clinton also bellowed; "The only people who believe the
> > > White
> > > Water allegations, are the same people who believe in UFOs."
> > > (Big laugh and applause.)
> > > Funny lady...huh? That came from the "mouth/open pit" of
> > > a woman who talks to the dead. Do you see anything wrong with
> > > the picture I just painted? Pretty clear, isn't it?
> >
> > I don't see any differnece between someone who talks to the dead and
> > someone
> > who thinks circles in corn are not made by people with planks.
>
> My point exactly.
Did you miss the 'not'?
> She is a hypocrite, and I am not.
> Made with planks. How time consuming would that be for an 800
> foot construction. Weaving, braiding, different layers swirled in
> differing directions. Ooooo...lots of back breaking work. At night,
> no lights......mmmmmm....let me see the dopes on ropes
> re-construct them. Real time, not zip file time.
Construction - Incidental, no effort required
Light - no problem, eyes adjust after approx 5/10 minutes
Work - Well, weird hobby, but WTF, keeps us fit.
Real-time - More people = same man-hours in less actual hours
any more?
> >
> > Both unsubstantiated, and both to the contrary of scientific
> > knowledge.
>
> And so isn't your claim that all the crop markings are made with
> planks.
Yes.
> Christ Jesus....what do think I am? Do you think I'm
> as stupid as you, and would believe as you? Forget it. You're on
> the losing side.
I think that 90% of the public would dis-agree. True the public are mostly
jaskasses, but still, what can we do?
> My claims aren't substantiated because those who
> have the power to substantiate them just ignore the evidence that
> does substantiate them.
And that would be who? Greys, MIB's, T42?
> >
> > > I can discern
> > > things for myself. But you don't want me to.
> > >
> > I do. I'm offering you more evidence for you to include in your
> > reasoning
> > when you're building these beliefs, you don't want to accept it.
> > Why? Too cosy with your green friends?
>
> Grey friends, Grey.
My apologies, there is no need for racism in something as important as
fantasy.
> I accept you dopes on ropes can construct some.
Some? which? and why not all? where's the line? define it.
> I just think it would be easier to draw, copy and paste, then it is to
> huff, puff, stomp, squash, and break. Especially those extremely
> large markings that just "appear".
> >
> > > Common sense is what proves me right. Do it again. In real time.
> > > In front of everybody. Don't just throw a lot of bull.
> >
> > No need, this password/zip thing would be proof. I couldn't give you
> > exact
> > description, time, date, picture in advance unless I was the one
> > planning
> > it. You get the file, a week later the circle appears and you get
> > the
> > password, you unzip the files, check with the details of the circle.
> > If they
> > match, I'm either psychic (Don't go there) or I did it. I'll want
> > your
> > opinions as to genuine/fake stated in public first though, or are
> > you afraid of being caught out?
>
> You are afraid of "being caught out". I'll plan it. You play by the
> rules and re-construct it. Not yours....mine.
Seeing as you're ao insistant, name your circle, I'll see about practicing
in 2000, maybe by 2001 I could manage it. seriously, name one, I'll work on
it.
> >
> > >
> > > So what, you're an artist who takes delight in deceiveing people,
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Well this is one person you're not deceiving. I've got your lying
> number. I think you are a real ass for doing what you do.
> You should be a politician. They all lie with impunity also.
> You and those like you, are going to get it. Get ready for your
> roof jump....splat.
I say what I say from personal experience, witnessed by others, something
you can cannot claim with your conspiracy theory. I do not lie, I offer my
opinion. Roof jump? nope, you're stuck with my spanner in your works for a
few years yet.
> >
> > > but all along you're deceiving yourself.
> > >
> > I don't think so, if you do, proove it. Like I say, I'm offering you
> > proof,
> > you are declining and not offering your own proof. Smacks of
> > uncertainty.
>
> What proof are you offering? Nothing but more deception. Bring it
> out in the open. Put it on the table for all to see.
Open? posted here a week in advance of the formation. what's hidden about
that.
> You guys are like
> snakes. Hide under a rock and come out at night to slither around
> in grain fields. Get a life will you? Doesn't your wife wonder where
> you disappear to?
Have a life thankyou, circles are not the be-all and end-all of my
existance. My wife knows where i go too, thanks for asking.
> >
> > > The real artists don't pull the BS that you do. But they do kick
> > > ass.
> >
> > They kick ass all right, but they are people who kick ass, IMHO.
> > (And in the opinion of science, unless of course you can proove
> > different).
>
> Yes, I can prove different
You can proove?, go on.
> , with the stuff the mainstream media
> doesn't tell us about. Just because they don't report something
> doesn't mean it isn't happening, and visa versa.
Wasn't that my point? Perhaps you should take five minutes out to
reconstruct your belief system?
> > > >
> > > > Happy self-deceit,
> > >
> > > Yeah! Sure! Right! You self righteously deluded dope on a rope.
> >
> > Self-righteous is me all right, that comes from haveing people
> > 'cured' by a circle that I made, talk about power of the mind.
> > Deluded? Maybe,still waiting for proof (or even just a hint of
> > proof.)
>
> Well aren't you just the subtle little deceiver, congratulations.
> Was it really your construction, or are you just claiming it? Do you
> have a secret zip file proving it?
Nope, didn't think of it till the other day, plus proving it was never much
of a point until now. Next year though.
> Geeezzzz...you dopes on ropes are
> really trying. Reason and logic is your downfall. (For me anyway.)
Excuse me? I answer your accusations with reasona nd logic, you ignore said
logic and turn to insult.
> >
> > > Stick that board in your pole hole.
> >
> > Is that a technique you used in your hoax? How would you talk to
> > your partner in crime?
>
> No, I'm not stupid enough to go out in a field of grain to squash out
> messy designs in fields by stomping, breaking and squashing plants.
you said earlier you had created a circle, now you say you didn't? or are
you saying you have a method other than the stomper?
> Talk to my partner? With a walkie talkie I guess. But the transmission
> could be picked up by anyone with a high speed scanner. Ohoh..
> caught.
I don't think you have tried it. If you had you'd know you need no
communication other than voice, it's quite out there at 2am you know :)
> > > >
> > > > -Mid.
> > >
> > > Forget it Mid. You're a wuss hoaxer. I need real heehawing
> > > dopes on ropes. Hoaxers so stupid, two or three would actually try
> > > to re-construct the three arm Julia in four hours. Are you that
> > > dope on a rope?
> > >
> > Four hours? Didn't your sides star-witness claim it was 45 minutes
> > between not being there and then being there? In broad daylight?
> > Obviously his word can be taken, but not ours, the difference is so
> > obvious. Perhaps you could point it out just to the slower of us?
> > Why exactly do you poeple trust one person says that it appeared
> > in 45 minutes, but not others who say they made it?
>
> Yeah, the single arm Julia by stonehenge, "witnessed" by a pilot.
> Flew to his destination and it wasn't there, flew from his
> destination, forty-five minutes later, and there it was. Want to hear
> something silly? I beleive him. It stands to reason the markings
> would just appear, and are not constructed. Do you think hoaxers
> actually constructed that marking in forty-five minutes, in broad
> daylight?
>
No I don't, I think they made it the night before and the pilot was mistaken
or is lying. Stands to reason? what reason? justify that statement.
> Okay....you re-construct it, in forty-five minutes.
If you can prove it was done in 45 minutes sure. And no, lone testimony
doesn't count, after all, you don't accept my lone testimony, why should i
excpet yours?
>
> The only way you dopes on ropes can construct a marking in forty-five
> minutes is on the TV, for NBC, TDC, A&E, TLC, NOVA, CNN....etc..,
> minus commercials. All liberal media of course.
AFAIK, none of them claimed to be that quick.
> >
> > > Twonky......the middle finger of God> ,,|,, <for all of you on the
> > > planet.
> > >
> > > The human race? Orgasmic mortal sniffing dogs? Men who piss
> > > aganst the wall and eat their own dung. Oh yuck!
> > >
> >
> > Hope 'they' don't come for you tonight, I'd like to hear your
> > answers.
>
> They're not coming for me, they're already here. I'm coming for you
> and the likes of you though.
> >
In your spaceship? no chance, I'd see the strobe before you got here.
Oh, and spare us all the bandwidth of downloading your monster
ego-masterbating signature next time please, real men only need one line. :)
-Mid.
Twonky
language herein.....]
MidNyte[UC] <midny...@virgin.net> wrote in message
Tsk tsk....chatty little girls....
They're not little marks at all. Maybe the ones you construct are
little marks in the fields, but they're not all your constructions, so
they're not all little marks in a field. They go from little (human
messy constructed) marks to (humanly impossible to construct)
huge marks. I like those, you can stick yours.
Anyway....little green men....hmmmmm....
That's not what I mean at all. It might be what you mean, but not me.
It goes much deeper than little green men. But I suppose little green
men is as deep as your little green brain will allow you to go.
Wait until you know the truth. You'll just shit! And you'll know why
you have been duped into thinking you are doing a wonderful thing
for God and country. You dopes on ropes are nothing but a bunch of
goddamned clowns. That's all you dicks pushing sticks are, is
mainstream media dupes. The jesters, in the courts of the powers
and principalities.
Dance your little circle dance my little hoaxing circle jerkers, you
pathetic clowns. You are their roller rolling, planking wanking, pole
holing jackasses. Good job. You make perfect assholes of
yourselves trying to buffalo rational people into believing humans
constructed all of them. You think I'm the only one who feels this
way? You asses can have some, but not all. We want some.
I think hoaxers talk so stupidly because they suffer from terminal
dizzyness, and plank wank.
>
> -Mid
I can say what I say to you hoaxing dickheads, because you
haven't proved you hoaxed them all. I call you and your sugardaddy
mainstream media to a challenge, and you arses balk. Well balk
you too. Because you can't and won't re-construct your largest
claim to date, that makes me right, and ya'll be waaaaaaaaaaaaay
wrong liars! Can't argue with reason and logic, it's as simple as
that!
You mendacious clowns won't get out there and do it, so keep your
mouths shut about you bozos constructing them all, because it is
now known...you didn't. You just lied about it all these years.
How come? You have been lying all this time? Really? I didn't know
that. I'm devastated. Yeah! Sure!
>
Twonky...the middle finger of God ,,|,,
And in the light of the God who bends the light.
Hmmmm....bending light sounds like science.
Paul Vigay
<URL:mailto:midny...@virgin.net> wrote:
> That was it exactly. Picture, date, location in a password protected
> zipfile posted here a week before the formation appeared, the password one
> week after. Since the zip was kept by yourselves, there could be no
> tampering from us. If it didn't prove we were responcible, it would prove
> we were psychic :)
That would be acceptable to me!
> I keep meaning to subscribe :) Message board sounds like a good idea.
I'll see what I can get setup.
> Sounds good, I'm definatly up for that, I think my partner in crime (PIC
> from now) will be too. I'm as interested in the anomalies as anyone else,
> just that I have a different view on why they're there :)
Would you care to share some thoughts?
Twonky
MidNyte[UC]
> > <URL:mailto:midny...@virgin.net> wrote: [snip]
> > > I will speak to my partner who I think will agree, I myself
> > > would like to.
> > > What is your opinion on the password protected zipfile idea,
> > > BTW?
> > > (irrespective of the live-reproduction debate) would it be
> > > sufficient proof for you as it is, or would there need to
> > > be a change in details?
> >
> > you planning for the zip file? Do you mean you would supply a
> > file? I think that would be acceptable, assuming that the final
> > formation was un-ambiguous.
>
> This is great that we can get some cooperation between the
> hoaxers and researchers. However, we *know* that hoaxing goes
> on because of some of the crap that appears in the fields, but until
> all hoaxers are able to prove that they made all crop circles, then
> there is always the slightest chance that they were made by
> something we, at present, no nothing about....
>
> Will this ever happen..?? Probably not, because the hoaxers
> have created a situation where if they were to admit to all their
> 'work' and there was just one formation that nobody claimed, then
> they would have to admit that there could be genuine
> phenomena.... and their bubble would be burst!
>
>
> --
> Cathy Smiles
Hi Cathy Smiles. Is that Paul V's domain?
You seem like a reasonable person, so let me ask;
Do you think my request for a live, public demo, of a
"re-construction", of their largest, most complicated, humanly
impossible marking they claim they constructed, is asking too
much?
That's the only way I'll ever believe them. Why don't the hoaxing
donkeys ask their TV sugardaddies to fund it? The hoaxers could have
a press release saying they intend to make real jackasses out of
themselves, (as if they haven't already). Their bubble is burst.
Hoaxers and the mainstream media will never "come together" with
serious reaearchers, never. Hoaxers have sliced their own throats.
They wrote books on the subject. I never read one, but dollar to a
do-nut, they claimed them all. They have web sites devoted to
inspiring hoaxers on how to deceive sincere, serious researchers.
Probably in their 'books' also. (Instructions for constructions of
destructions.) Destruction in more ways than one.
As you can guess, I'm pretty passionate about this stuff.
>
> Are you prepared to sacrifice what you are today, for what you could
> become tomorrow....???
Yes. Absolutely. If it's what I think it is.
If not, then.....nevermind.
>
>
Twonky........Who refuses to march in the "Parade of the Parachuting
Dummy Brigade". Platoons of goons and buffoons, trying to sell me
their silly balloons.
PAN
> > <URL:mailto:midny...@virgin.net> wrote: [snip]
> > > I will speak to my partner who I think will agree, I myself would like
to.
> > > What is your opinion on the password protected zipfile idea, BTW?
> > > (irrespective of the live-reproduction debate) would it be sufficient
proof
> > > for you as it is, or would there need to be a change in details?
> >
planning
> > for the zip file? Do you mean you would supply a GIF image or something
in
acceptable,
> > assuming that the final formation was un-ambiguous.
>
> This is great that we can get some cooperation between the hoaxers and
> researchers. However, we *know* that hoaxing goes on because of some of
the
> crap that appears in the fields, but until all hoaxers are able to prove
that
> they made all crop circles, then there is always the slightest chance that
> they were made by something we, at present, no nothing about....
I think the emphasis would be to *PROVE* that they are made by something
else, most people reckon that the formations are hoaxed and as the years
have gone by the hoaxed numbers seem to have grown at the same rate as the
hoaxers that claim them, in the early days, well people were a bit greener
then.
> Will this ever happen..?? Probably not, because the hoaxers have created
a
> situation where if they were to admit to all their 'work' and there was
just
> one formation that nobody claimed, then they would have to admit that
there
> could be genuine phenomena.... and their bubble would be burst!
What was that saying about flying pigs...
PAN
> from now) will be too.
> I'm as interested in the anomalies as anyone else, just that I have a
> different view on why they're there :)
Out of interest why do you think they are here then?
PAN
> incredibly clever acts (Space travel, Nuclear Power, Computing, Drug
> research). Flattening of corn in ornate patterns ranks fairly low in my
> book.
>
> Get fuckin' real!
Now I'd like to buy that man a drink...not gin though!
PAN
>
> They're not little marks at all. Maybe the ones you construct are
> little marks in the fields, but they're not all your constructions, so
> they're not all little marks in a field. They go from little (human
> messy constructed) marks to (humanly impossible to construct)
> huge marks. I like those, you can stick yours.
That is where your petty argument and subjective falsehoods fall down, you
belittle the human race so much, sure, I know we don't live in a perfect
world but what is a perfect world, everyones idea of a perfect world would
probably be different anyway, but as mentioned earlier, if we can go to the
moon, send probes to Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Youranus!, Neptune etc through
the advent of mathematics and physics then a crop circle, no matter how
fucking big it is, is bugger all in comparison. But then you probably don't
even believe there is a moon anyway, it's probably a big conspiracy and it's
made of cheese.
Volcane
I'd buy Twonky one if he responded to my message.
Vol
MidNyte[UC]
> Tsk tsk....chatty little girls....
>
> They're not little marks at all. Maybe the ones you construct are
> little marks in the fields, but they're not all your constructions, so
> they're not all little marks in a field. They go from little (human
> messy constructed) marks to (humanly impossible to construct)
> huge marks. I like those, you can stick yours.
Prove mathematically/physically/whatever that they are impossible. Go on,
you do the proof. Lack of opposing evidence does not constitute proof. You
have not proven to me that you are not an alien, that doesn't mean I have
proof that you are.
>
> Anyway....little green men....hmmmmm....
> That's not what I mean at all. It might be what you mean, but not me.
> It goes much deeper than little green men. But I suppose little green
> men is as deep as your little green brain will allow you to go.
> Wait until you know the truth. You'll just shit!
Why don't you astonish me with the truth? and as for little green men, how
come you believers think that making them little and grey instead of little
and green makes a shit of difference?
> And you'll know why
> you have been duped into thinking you are doing a wonderful thing
> for God and country.
I'm not religeous (again because it's just the same as beliveing in aliens
who visit us, it's the need to believe), and I'm not particularly proud of
my country either.
You dopes on ropes are nothing but a bunch of
> goddamned clowns. That's all you dicks pushing sticks are, is
> mainstream media dupes. The jesters, in the courts of the powers
> and principalities.
>
Yeah, but I've fooled you before.
> Dance your little circle dance my little hoaxing circle jerkers, you
> pathetic clowns. You are their roller rolling, planking wanking, pole
> holing jackasses. Good job. You make perfect assholes of
> yourselves trying to buffalo rational people into believing humans
> constructed all of them.
The majority of opinion appears to be with us due a distinct lack of
evidence from your side. How about you change that?
> You think I'm the only one who feels this
> way? You asses can have some, but not all. We want some.
No, Unfortunatly since the X-Files there are a lot more people who
'believe'.
>
> I think hoaxers talk so stupidly because they suffer from terminal
> dizzyness, and plank wank.
>
Very clever. Any chance you coming out from behind your insults?
> >
> > -Mid
> I can say what I say to you hoaxing dickheads, because you
> haven't proved you hoaxed them all. I call you and your sugardaddy
> mainstream media to a challenge, and you arses balk.
*I* accepted, when you heard it you shit and turned away. You said my
circles weren't good enough, not even knowing which I had claimed. You
balked, it's here in public.
> Well balk
> you too. Because you can't and won't re-construct your largest
> claim to date, that makes me right, and ya'll be waaaaaaaaaaaaay
> wrong liars! Can't argue with reason and logic, it's as simple as
> that!
>
Can't argue with reason and logic when there's none present. Lack of
evidence from my side does not prove your side.
> You mendacious clowns won't get out there and do it, so keep your
> mouths shut about you bozos constructing them all, because it is
> now known...you didn't.
now known? prove it.
> You just lied about it all these years.
> How come? You have been lying all this time? Really? I didn't know
> that. I'm devastated. Yeah! Sure!
>
Err, say again?
> >
> Twonky...the middle finger of God ,,|,,
> And in the light of the God who bends the light.
> Hmmmm....bending light sounds like science.
>
>
>
>
-Mid
MidNyte[UC]
> > Tsk tsk....chatty little girls....
> >
> > They're not little marks at all. Maybe the ones you construct are
> > little marks in the fields, but they're not all your constructions, so
> > they're not all little marks in a field. They go from little (human
> > messy constructed) marks to (humanly impossible to construct)
> > huge marks. I like those, you can stick yours.
>
> belittle the human race so much, sure, I know we don't live in a perfect
> world but what is a perfect world, everyones idea of a perfect world would
> probably be different anyway, but as mentioned earlier, if we can go to
the
> moon, send probes to Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Youranus!, Neptune etc through
> the advent of mathematics and physics then a crop circle, no matter how
> fucking big it is, is bugger all in comparison. But then you probably
don't
> even believe there is a moon anyway, it's probably a big conspiracy and
it's
> made of cheese.
>
>
Of course it is, even I know that. And besides, Wallace & gromit proved it,
or is he going to tell me that wasn't real footage?
-Mid
MidNyte[UC]
> >
> > This is great that we can get some cooperation between the hoaxers and
> > researchers. However, we *know* that hoaxing goes on because of some of
> the
> > crap that appears in the fields, but until all hoaxers are able to prove
> that
> > they made all crop circles, then there is always the slightest chance
that
> > they were made by something we, at present, no nothing about....
>
> I think the emphasis would be to *PROVE* that they are made by something
> else, most people reckon that the formations are hoaxed and as the years
> have gone by the hoaxed numbers seem to have grown at the same rate as the
> hoaxers that claim them, in the early days, well people were a bit greener
> then.
>
Abso - f**king - lutely. Like I said to Twonky before, lack of evidence of
hoaxing does not constitute proof that it is something else. Maybe he'd like
to get a lawyers opinion on the conclusivity of lack of contradictory
evidence... then again, he admits he's never lost a fight, maybe he's scared
of the first time he couldn't get away with deluding himself?
> > Will this ever happen..?? Probably not, because the hoaxers have
created
> a
> > situation where if they were to admit to all their 'work' and there was
> just
> > one formation that nobody claimed, then they would have to admit that
> there
> > could be genuine phenomena.... and their bubble would be burst!
>
> What was that saying about flying pigs...
>
>
;)
-Mid (oink oink)
MidNyte[UC]
> > That was it exactly. Picture, date, location in a password protected
> > zipfile posted here a week before the formation appeared, the password
one
> > week after. Since the zip was kept by yourselves, there could be no
> > tampering from us. If it didn't prove we were responcible, it would
prove
> > we were psychic :)
>
> That would be acceptable to me!
Done deal.
>
> > I keep meaning to subscribe :) Message board sounds like a good idea.
>
> I'll see what I can get setup.
>
I'l do it properly soon :) just that there's 100 things to doa night, and
only time for 10 ATM :)
> > Sounds good, I'm definatly up for that, I think my partner in crime (PIC
> > from now) will be too. I'm as interested in the anomalies as anyone
else,
> > just that I have a different view on why they're there :)
>
> Would you care to share some thoughts?
>
I didn't mean anything specific, just that I think they are more likely a
byproduct of hoaxing. Either the the method or the disruption to the field.
I've heard (not conclusively though) that the tops of the crop can create
quite an electrostatic field, maybe the lack of said static field in the
formation could be behind it? But anyway, nothing specific.
-Mid
MidNyte[UC]
> > Sounds good, I'm definatly up for that, I think my partner in crime (PIC
> > from now) will be too.
> > I'm as interested in the anomalies as anyone else, just that I have a
> > different view on why they're there :)
>
>
>
-Mid
MidNyte[UC]
> Hoaxers and the mainstream media will never "come together" with
> serious reaearchers, never.
Are you implying that you are a serious researcher? I sincerely hope not.
> Hoaxers have sliced their own throats.
> They wrote books on the subject. I never read one,
Well lordy rest-a my case. Maybe within those pages is the answer you never
conceived, something that would just click into place and change your mind.
You'll never be a serious researcher with a blinkered attitude like that.
Than again, did you not say earlier you've never lost anything? did it never
occur to you that you have, just that you never admit it?
> but dollar to a
> do-nut, they claimed them all. They have web sites devoted to
> inspiring hoaxers on how to deceive sincere, serious researchers.
I'm not defending that, but it *is* in a public place, said researchers have
as much access to it as hoaxers, if anything it would work to the
researchers advantage, instead of one group of hoaxers knowing a particlur
trick and researchers having to figure it out, everyone would know and
no-one would be in the dark about it. Except you, of course, because you
never read hoaxer's books etc, as you said above.
> Probably in their 'books' also. (Instructions for constructions of
> destructions.) Destruction in more ways than one.
>
> As you can guess, I'm pretty passionate about this stuff.
To passionate to view objectively perhaps?
> Twonky........Who refuses to march in the "Parade of the Parachuting
> Dummy Brigade". Platoons of goons and buffoons, trying to sell me
> their silly balloons.
>
-Mid
PAN
> >
> >
> LOL!!
>
> I'd buy Twonky one if he responded to my message.
Christ, the way he answers man, you'd have to buy him a bloody brewery!!!
PAN
you
> > belittle the human race so much, sure, I know we don't live in a perfect
> > world but what is a perfect world, everyones idea of a perfect world
would
> > probably be different anyway, but as mentioned earlier, if we can go to
> the
> > moon, send probes to Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Youranus!, Neptune etc
through
> > the advent of mathematics and physics then a crop circle, no matter how
> > fucking big it is, is bugger all in comparison. But then you probably
> don't
> > even believe there is a moon anyway, it's probably a big conspiracy and
> it's
> > made of cheese.
> >
> >
>
> Of course it is, even I know that. And besides, Wallace & gromit proved
it,
> or is he going to tell me that wasn't real footage?
Hey, we all know that was a hollywood set and not the real moon!
Twonky
> snip
>
>
> > Hoaxers and the mainstream media will never "come together"
> > with serious reaearchers, never.
>
> Are you implying that you are a serious researcher? I sincerely
> hope not.
Not at all. I follow and use results of serious research.
Are 'you' implying that you are a serious researcher? I sincerely
hope not.
>
> > Hoaxers have sliced their own throats.
> > They wrote books on the subject. I never read one,
>
> Well lordy rest-a my case. Maybe within those pages is the
> answer you never conceived, something that would just click into
> place and change your mind.
The dopes on ropes have no surprises for me, but I have for them.
They got their book contracts as a benefit working/jerking for the
mainstream media. They write lies, serious researchers write truth.
I found that out a long time ago....before there were any hoaxers,
famous or otherwise.
>
> You'll never be a serious researcher with a blinkered attitude like
> that. Than again, did you not say earlier you've never lost
> anything? did it never occur to you that you have, just that you
> never admit it?
I've lost plenty, just not on the playground. And I'm not going to
lose to the likes of you and your ilk either.
I wouldn't want to be a serious researcher in the crop-circle
'fields', because all they do is get ridiculed by mainstream media.
Mainstream media hates serious research on the subject. That's
why the Murdoch media introduced BowWow and Chalkey. The
master hoaxers, your mentors. Do you have pictures of them in your
living room or bedroom? Do you have any pictures of "the man behind
the curtain", the instigator, the head snake, Mr. Jim Schnabel?
>
> > but dollar to a
> > do-nut, they claimed them all. They have web sites devoted to
> > inspiring hoaxers on how to deceive sincere, serious researchers.
>
> I'm not defending that, but it *is* in a public place, said
> researchers have
> as much access to it as hoaxers, if anything it would work to the
> researchers advantage, instead of one group of hoaxers knowing a
> particlur trick and researchers having to figure it out, everyone
> would know and no-one would be in the dark about it. Except you,
> of course, because you never read hoaxer's books etc, as you said
> above.
Trick? Oh good. Now it's tricks. Yeah...pretty good trick those thin
1-3 stalk wide rings, and markings appearing in fields with no
tramlines. And oil seed rape flattened with the little yellow flower
still intact. Funny too, because those plants should have broken
when bent more than a few degrees. They snap like celery. Pretty
good trick to remove all the heads of wheat in a marking also, (there
has been some with missing heads. Just like hoaxers heads are
missing, at least what should be inside is missing). How about
markings in snow, on ice to thin to walk on. They're explained by
the "authorities" as caused by swamp gas. Now I have to discern
if swamp gas can construct geometrical shapes, repeatedly.
Perfect circles with rings? I'll have to think about it.
All I want is for someone, some hoaxing donkey to prove what the
brotherhood of hoaxing jackasses claim. Their largest construction
to date. Until then, knock it off with your stupid offer. Drop it
already, and be assured in knowing that I am right.
>
> > Probably in their 'books' also. (Instructions for constructions of
> > destructions.) Destruction in more ways than one.
> >
> > As you can guess, I'm pretty passionate about this stuff.
>
> To passionate to view objectively perhaps?
Not really. I've been at this for a long time. I've weighed both sides
and as I said to you before, reason and logic won out. That means
you hoaxing jackasses lost, hands down. Long before you ever
made your first construction.
There is nothing more for you to prove. Hoaxers own them all (in
fiction). I'm here to prove they don't, in reality. The world "knows"
they are all hoaxes, so why do you bother with me? Am I a threat
to the lie? The government, mainstream media, and organized
religion all teach the hoax theory of crop-circles and UFOs. So if
they are all accepted by the lethargic of the world as hoaxed,
what's your problem with me? I'm just a lonely voice in the
wilderness. (A very pissed off voice I might add.)
How about that "security" tape taken outside the Minister of
Defences' residence? Why the hell can't we get that, and make it
public? That would be solid, indisputable evidence of lying, and
deception by the mainstream media, all of their mouthpieces,
and everyone of their hoaxing donkeys. The fact that the video exists
at all, is proof enough for me that the markings, which are clearly
humanly impossible to duplicate, are real, that they appear, they
are not constructed by people. The "construct", of the "construction",
of the "constructed" ones, is tell tale of, beware; "a liar was
here".
When 'serious' researchers asked the MoD if the public could
view the tape, the response was, no way, uh uh. But 'we' will tell
you; People didn't make it, it was an airborne event/element.
Which to those who think like you, airborne means the wind.
The wind couldn't have constructed that marking. So now, what am
I to believe? Who am I to believe? How do I discern that little
episode in the ongoing saga? I think you know.
>
> >
>
> -Mid
>
Twonky....the middle finger of God ,,|,,
Twonky........Who refuses to march in the "Parade of the
Parachuting Dummy Brigade". Platoons of goons and buffoons,
trying to sell me their silly balloons.
HEY JIM, GOD IS WATCHING YOU! ,,|,,
Twonky
>
> That was it exactly. Picture, date, location in a password
> protected zipfile posted here a week before the formation
> appeared, the password one week after. Since the zip was
> kept by yourselves, there could be no tampering from us.
> If it didn't prove we were responcible, it would prove we were
> psychic :)
So, you're going to post a file of a marking you are going to
construct, a week before you construct it? And then a week
after you construct it, you're going to give everybody the
password? So it has to be found and examined within a week
for the 'serious' researchers to be properly "fooled". What if it
isn't noticed? I think the unsuspecting victim of your dastardly
deed will have to be "coached" into finding it.
How are we to know if different passwords won't unzip
different files? You may have a dozen markings drawn up
in that secret zip file. You have two weeks to construct any
one of them. I wouldn't trust you at all. I am wary of your
enthusiasm to have somebody acquiesce. And of course
you found a trusting soul. I've learned my lesson. "No more
Mr Nice Guy."
Paul, You guys (serious researchers) have been beaten up so
much by the mainstream media, why do you just grab for more
from a braggart dope on a rope?
Will everything in the zip and the fields be time stamped?
Will you state exact times? If you do, then I hope the weather
changes for the worst at that time.
I've had some astounding psychic occurrences. I don't turn
them on and off, they just seem to happen. Like the communion
I have with the Greys. Do you think I could come up with such an
extraordinary theory on my own? I have help. You could say; info
from the horses mouth, my little Grey buddies. And not info from
the horses ass, like you and your buddies "PIC" receive..
>
> > That would be acceptable to me!
>
> Done deal.
Done deal? Not for me. All I have to say is; Paul should demand
it be pysically examined and not just an aerial shot, (if it could
possibly be worthy of an aerial shot). And that can't happen unless
he knows where it is. And if he knows where it is, then he knows
it's a hoax. So, he would have to be deceived in some way.
The "coaching" into finding it? Well......you two boys have fun.
And Paul, you be careful of that snake.
Also, I would have that zip file decompiled.
When you're done playing with your zip files, shake and bake me
an 800-900 footer, in a field with no tramlines, thin 1-3 stalk wide
rings, standing center, in real time.
>
> >
> > I keep meaning to subscribe :) Message board sounds like a good
> > idea.
> >
> I'll see what I can get setup.
> >
> > I'l do it properly soon :) just that there's 100 things to doa
> > night, and only time for 10 ATM :)
>
> Sounds good, I'm definatly up for that, I think my partner in
> crime (PIC from now) will be too. I'm as interested in the
> anomalies as anyone else, just that I have a different view on
> why they're there :)
I know why they're here. To tell us who, what, and why we are
here. How would you like to see recordings of earths history?
Our 'view' is totally original and unique. Explains our missing link.
The markings are the signature, not the art, of the artist of all
that you see. Now that's real art, and artist.
> >
> > Would you care to share some thoughts?
> >
>
> I didn't mean anything specific, just that I think they are more
> likely a byproduct of hoaxing. Either the the method or the
> disruption to the field.
Right, disruption, and destruction of the plants in hoaxed
constructions. Pole holes, broken and crushed plants, scraping
on the stalks....etc...etc....etc.....a real mess.
>
> I've heard (not conclusively though) that the tops of the crop can
> create quite an electrostatic field, maybe the lack of said static
> field in the formation could be behind it? But anyway, nothing
> specific.
Well I mean specific. And to the point. Perfectly clear and
coherent.
>
> -Mid
>
Twonky.....the middle finger of God~ ,,|,, ~Are you ready world?
I am the only Deistic Christian on the planet ~and loving it.
Twonky
> snip
>
> > Tsk tsk....chatty little girls....
> >
> > They're not little marks at all. Maybe the ones you construct are
> > little marks in the fields, but they're not all your
> > constructions, so
> > they're not all little marks in a field. They go from little
> > (human
> > messy constructed) marks to (humanly impossible to construct)
> > huge marks. I like those, you can stick yours.
>
The size and complexity. Reason and common sense.
>
> Go on, you do the proof. Lack of opposing evidence does not
> constitute proof. You have not proven to me that you are not an
> alien, that doesn't mean I have proof that you are.
How can I be an alien? Aliens don't exist in lethargic majority
opinion.
A refusal of the opposing side to confirm claims is evidence
that constitutes proof; all are not hoaxed.
>
> >
> > Anyway....little green men....hmmmmm....
> > That's not what I mean at all. It might be what you mean, but not
> > me.
> > It goes much deeper than little green men. But I suppose little
> > green
> > men is as deep as your little green brain will allow you to go.
> > Wait until you know the truth. You'll just shit!
>
> Why don't you astonish me with the truth? and as for little green
> men, how
> come you believers think that making them little and grey instead of
> little and green makes a shit of difference?
It does make a difference, not that you would notice. Astonish you.
How about the human race being genetically engineered, by the
little Greys. They're a hell of a lot smarter than you.
>
> > And you'll know why
> > you have been duped into thinking you are doing a wonderful thing
> > for God and country.
>
> I'm not religeous (again because it's just the same as beliveing in
> aliens who visit us, it's the need to believe), and I'm not
> particularly proud of my country either.
Common mis-perception. Aliens aren't visiting us. They've been here
for a long long time. Since the beginning you could say.
I'm not religious either. And I hate the government, the mainstream
media, and organized religion. The powers and principalities.
And you hoaxing dopes on ropes too. I would like to snap your neck.
>
> You dopes on ropes are nothing but a bunch of
> > goddamned clowns. That's all you dicks pushing sticks are, is
> > mainstream media dupes. The jesters, in the courts of the powers
> > and principalities.
> >
> Yeah, but I've fooled you before.
"....fooled me before"? You mean deceived don't you?
When? Do I know you?
That's what jesters do. Entertain people by being the fools for the
court. I hope I don't know you. I know your spirit though.
>
> > Dance your little circle dance my little hoaxing circle jerkers,
> > you pathetic clowns. You are their roller rolling, planking
> > wanking,
> > pole holing jackasses. Good job. You make perfect assholes of
> > yourselves trying to buffalo rational people into believing humans
> > constructed all of them.
>
> The majority of opinion appears to be with us due a distinct lack of
> evidence from your side. How about you change that?
The majority of opinion is with you, because the mainstream media
helps you jackasses immensely. Without their help you would be a
pile of poop. The mainstream media ignores serious research.
That's why the majority opinion of the lethargic of the world is with
you mainstream media dopes on ropes.
I gave you my "evidence", all you give me is claimed markings.
No proof, just claims. And you parrot the mainstream crap.
>
> > You think I'm the only one who feels this
> > way? You asses can have some, but not all. We want some.
>
> No, Unfortunatly since the X-Files there are a lot more people who
> 'believe'.
I don't watch the X-files. You do evidently. Has had a bad effect on
you. Made you stupid. Just as TDC's "Mind Altering Programming"
has altered your mind into sludge.
>
> >
> > I think hoaxers talk so stupidly because they suffer from terminal
> > dizzyness, and plank wank.
> >
> Very clever. Any chance you coming out from behind your insults?
Here I am. Any chance of you coming out from behind your hoaxing
dribble to prove the things you and your cronies spew? Construct for
me the marking I desire. Yeah! Sure! The marking you desire is more
like it.
>
> > >
> > > -Mid
> > I can say what I say to you hoaxing dickheads, because you
> > haven't proved you hoaxed them all. I call you and your sugardaddy
> > mainstream media to a challenge, and you arses balk.
>
> *I* accepted, when you heard it you shit and turned away. You said
> my circles weren't good enough, not even knowing which I had
> claimed. You balked, it's here in public.
And so are the ones you circle jerkers can't re-construct.
Oh goody, what a guy. Little messy crap markings. I bet a dog would
go into your marking and take a dump. Dogs seem to shy away from
genuine markings. Do you bring your doggy with you on your sojourning
in the fields.
>
> > Well balk
> > you too. Because you can't and won't re-construct your largest
> > claim to date, that makes me right, and ya'll be waaaaaaaaaaaaay
> > wrong liars! Can't argue with reason and logic, it's as simple as
> > that!
> >
> Can't argue with reason and logic when there's none present. Lack of
> evidence from my side does not prove your side.
It sure does. I point out a marking that is said to be a hoax, and you
can't re-construct it, because it is humanly impossible to construct
in the first place. Now you prove me wrong and construct it in front
of your peers.
>
> > You mendacious clowns won't get out there and do it, so keep your
> > mouths shut about you bozos constructing them all, because it is
> > now known...you didn't.
>
> now known? prove it.
You won't re-construct certain markings that are considered hoaxes
anyway. You suck as a hoaxer. Can't duplicate a hoax. You refuse
to undertake a reasonable request for proof on your part.
>
> > You just lied about it all these years.
> > How come? You have been lying all this time? Really? I didn't know
> > that. I'm devastated. Yeah! Sure!
> >
> Err, say again?
Since 1996...right? Isn't that the time you received your donkey
training? You guys remind me of the donkey that goes around
and around in circles turning the water wheel. A whip at your
backside, heehaw heeehaaww....
>
> > >
> > Twonky...the middle finger of God ,,|,,
> > And in the light of the God who bends the light.
> > Hmmmm....bending light sounds like science.
> >
>
> -Mid
What year is this? 1999 years after who? Matrea? Budah?
Muhamed? Hmmmmm....who could it be?
,,|,,
>
Twonky not donkey like hoaxing jackasses......YOU and PIC.
Who made that? Mid claimed he did. Will he prove it? No.
But he'll claim it. (And the jerk wants proof from me.)
Get a life, and leave the markings to me.
>
Paul Vigay
<URL:mailto:two...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> So, you're going to post a file of a marking you are going to construct, a
> week before you construct it? And then a week after you construct it,
> you're going to give everybody the password? So it has to be found and
> examined within a week for the 'serious' researchers to be properly
> "fooled". What if it isn't noticed? I think the unsuspecting victim of
> your dastardly deed will have to be "coached" into finding it.
Obviously researchers would need to find it for themselves because if it were
pointed out to them it might arise suspicion as to it's origin.
> How are we to know if different passwords won't unzip different files? You
> may have a dozen markings drawn up in that secret zip file. You have two
> weeks to construct any one of them. I wouldn't trust you at all. I am wary
> of your enthusiasm to have somebody acquiesce. And of course you found a
> trusting soul. I've learned my lesson. "No more Mr Nice Guy."
I'm willing to accept that. I work as a computer programmer and 'hacker'. If
there's a hidden file in it I'll find it - but there again, I probably
wouldn't be trusted because I can already unzip password protected zip files
(one of the advantages of having a non-Windows PC is that I can access files
that other people can't!!)
> Paul, You guys (serious researchers) have been beaten up so much by the
> mainstream media, why do you just grab for more from a braggart dope on a
> rope?
At the end of the day, I have faith in the genuine phenomena. It shouldn't
need to be defended. It is it indeed real then it should stand up on it's own
merits. As they say, The truth is out there. There is only so much deception
that can go on before people start twigging that a coverup is being
orchestrated somewhere.
Plus I'm not in it for media attention or for writing books etc. I'm
primarily in it for personal curiosity. I'm still intrigued as to what's
creating the 'genuine' formations, and I simply like sharing my findings with
others - hence my web site. I could probably charge access for it (as some
sites so) but I'm not in it to make money from the subject. I have a 'normal'
job for things like that.
I simply want to get to the bottom of the subject for my own satisfaction.
> Done deal? Not for me. All I have to say is; Paul should demand it be
> pysically examined and not just an aerial shot, (if it could possibly be
> worthy of an aerial shot). And that can't happen unless he knows where it
> is. And if he knows where it is, then he knows it's a hoax. So, he would
> have to be deceived in some way. The "coaching" into finding it?
> Well......you two boys have fun. And Paul, you be careful of that snake.
Oh absolutely. I'd certainly want to examine the formation on the ground. You
can't really tell a lot from an aerial shot - other than checking the
geometry via my computer analysis software. If I get nothing on the ground
then I'll say so. If I get anomalies and it IS a hoaxed circle, then I'd be
intrigued as to what causes the anomalies. I've nothing to hide, or gain. If
it's hoaxed and my equipment indicates something 'weird' then I'd value
criticism. That way I can ensure more stringent testing in the future.
> When you're done playing with your zip files, shake and bake me an 800-900
> footer, in a field with no tramlines, thin 1-3 stalk wide rings, standing
> center, in real time.
Yes, I too would like to see something like that re-created in front of my
eyes. Something makes me think that hoaxers will always decline the offer
though. This is why I'm confident that nothing will be settled by antics next
year. We know hoaxing goes on, but I'm open to communication and sharing of
ideas with the hoaxers. Indeed, if we can find enough evidence to convince a
hoaxer or two of a genuine phenomena, then that may even have more
credibility than just another believer coming forward.
Paul Vigay
Hehe! I actually host quite a few domains. :-)
One of the benefits of working for a major ISP ;-)
> That's the only way I'll ever believe them. Why don't the hoaxing donkeys
> ask their TV sugardaddies to fund it? The hoaxers could have a press
> release saying they intend to make real jackasses out of themselves, (as if
> they haven't already). Their bubble is burst.
I'd like to know how much the New Zealand hoax cost to perpetrate. Not only
did they fly the hoaxers out there but they had to airlift all the equipment
and cranes etc to a remote part of New Zealand to ensure that researchers
didn't get a chance to inspect the formation on the ground. Even then,
according to the timelapse sequence I have on video it took around six hours
to construct.
> Hoaxers and the mainstream media will never "come together" with serious
> reaearchers, never. Hoaxers have sliced their own throats. They wrote books
> on the subject. I never read one, but dollar to a do-nut, they claimed them
> all. They have web sites devoted to inspiring hoaxers on how to deceive
> sincere, serious researchers. Probably in their 'books' also. (Instructions
> for constructions of destructions.) Destruction in more ways than one.
A lot of their debunking attempts are pretty lane and ignorant though, so I
think most serious scientists and people with open minds will be able to sort
through the rubbish and come to their own conclusions. Some of the hoaxers
claims are laughable (Doug and Dave creating grapeshot circles via pogo
sticks for instance) and people will see them for who they are.
> As you can guess, I'm pretty passionate about this stuff.
Indeed, as am I - not so much for the genuine circles (I know that myself and
don't need convincing otherwise) but what irritates me is when hoaxers peddle
misinformation and lies in order to deceive ordinary people who might be
interested in finding out more about the subject from an open-minded
perspective.
MidNyte[UC]
> > Are you implying that you are a serious researcher? I sincerely
> > hope not.
>
> Not at all. I follow and use results of serious research.
> Are 'you' implying that you are a serious researcher? I sincerely
> hope not.
> >
> > > Hoaxers have sliced their own throats.
> > > They wrote books on the subject. I never read one,
> >
> > Well lordy rest-a my case. Maybe within those pages is the
> > answer you never conceived, something that would just click into
> > place and change your mind.
>
> The dopes on ropes have no surprises for me, but I have for them.
> They got their book contracts as a benefit working/jerking for the
> mainstream media. They write lies
You said you'd never read the books, how can you justify 'knowing' that?
> , serious researchers write truth.
> I found that out a long time ago....before there were any hoaxers,
> famous or otherwise.
> >
> > You'll never be a serious researcher with a blinkered attitude like
> > that. Than again, did you not say earlier you've never lost
> > anything? did it never occur to you that you have, just that you
> > never admit it?
>
> I've lost plenty, just not on the playground. And I'm not going to
> lose to the likes of you and your ilk either.
>
> I wouldn't want to be a serious researcher in the crop-circle
> 'fields', because all they do is get ridiculed by mainstream media.
> Mainstream media hates serious research on the subject. That's
> why the Murdoch media introduced BowWow and Chalkey. The
> master hoaxers, your mentors. Do you have pictures of them in your
> living room or bedroom? Do you have any pictures of "the man behind
> the curtain", the instigator, the head snake, Mr. Jim Schnabel?
Nope. Pictures of thier circles though. So what?
> >
> > > but dollar to a
> > > do-nut, they claimed them all. They have web sites devoted to
> > > inspiring hoaxers on how to deceive sincere, serious researchers.
> >
> > I'm not defending that, but it *is* in a public place, said
> > researchers have
> > as much access to it as hoaxers, if anything it would work to the
> > researchers advantage, instead of one group of hoaxers knowing a
> > particlur trick and researchers having to figure it out, everyone
> > would know and no-one would be in the dark about it. Except you,
> > of course, because you never read hoaxer's books etc, as you said
> > above.
>
> Trick? Oh good. Now it's tricks. Yeah...pretty good trick those thin
> 1-3 stalk wide rings, and markings appearing in fields with no
> tramlines.
Yeah, maybe it is.
>And oil seed rape flattened with the little yellow flower
> still intact. Funny too, because those plants should have broken
> when bent more than a few degrees. They snap like celery. Pretty
> good trick to remove all the heads of wheat in a marking also, (there
> has been some with missing heads.
you tried squashing OSR? Tried it when it's pissing down? Spot the
difference? Not a complete success maybe, but better.
>Just like hoaxers heads are
> missing, at least what should be inside is missing).
Blah blah blah, Yakatee Smakatee. How many letters from Sir Clive Sinclair
personally asking you to join Mensa have you had?
> How about
> markings in snow, on ice to thin to walk on. They're explained by
> the "authorities" as caused by swamp gas. Now I have to discern
> if swamp gas can construct geometrical shapes, repeatedly.
> Perfect circles with rings? I'll have to think about it.
Don't know, bird shit for all I care. Flattened corn is my game.
>
> All I want is for someone, some hoaxing donkey to prove what the
> brotherhood of hoaxing jackasses claim. Their largest construction
> to date. Until then, knock it off with your stupid offer.
I knocked it off with my offer to you a long time ago, now I only gloat
about the evidence you turned down because you're afraid of what it would do
to your theory, I'm not offering it to you.
> Drop it
> already, and be assured in knowing that I am right.
You are right? Without evidence? Sounds about right.
> >
> > > Probably in their 'books' also. (Instructions for constructions of
> > > destructions.) Destruction in more ways than one.
> > >
> > > As you can guess, I'm pretty passionate about this stuff.
> >
> > To passionate to view objectively perhaps?
>
> Not really. I've been at this for a long time. I've weighed both sides
Weighed? Your scales were biased with pre-conception.
> and as I said to you before, reason and logic won out.
I would very much like to see your reasoning and logic abilities tested in
public.
> That means
> you hoaxing jackasses lost, hands down. Long before you ever
> made your first construction.
>
Really? That's why my circles are pronounced 'genuine'? Most of them at any
rate.
> There is nothing more for you to prove. Hoaxers own them all (in
> fiction). I'm here to prove they don't, in reality.
You keep saying proof without actually showing any. Gonna fix that any time
soon, or just rant some more? 'You gonna bark all day little doggy, or are
you gonna bite?' as Mr. Blonde put it.
>The world "knows"
> they are all hoaxes, so why do you bother with me?
You keep answering my questions with insults to avoid explaining yourself
for one thing.
>Am I a threat
> to the lie?
What lie? Try specifics, not vague 'they're coming to take me away, haha'
mumblings.
>The government, mainstream media, and organized
> religion all teach the hoax theory of crop-circles and UFOs. So if
> they are all accepted by the lethargic of the world as hoaxed,
> what's your problem with me? I'm just a lonely voice in the
> wilderness. (A very pissed off voice I might add.)
>
My problem with you is you don't seem to need any evidence to proove your
point, a very unique talent, except, of course, for politicians.
> How about that "security" tape taken outside the Minister of
> Defences' residence? Why the hell can't we get that, and make it
> public? That would be solid, indisputable evidence of lying, and
> deception by the mainstream media, all of their mouthpieces,
> and everyone of their hoaxing donkeys.
More likely he was buggering goats or something.
> The fact that the video exists
> at all, is proof enough for me
What, without seeing it? very perceptive.
> that the markings, which are clearly
> humanly impossible to duplicate,
Not clearly, no. There's the rub. You want to prove it, go right ahead.
> e real, that they appear,
Where does 'appearing'come from? What proof have you that they appear?
> they
> are not constructed by people. The "construct", of the "construction",
> of the "constructed" ones, is tell tale of, beware; "a liar was
> here".
>
> When 'serious' researchers asked the MoD if the public could
> view the tape, the response was, no way, uh uh. But 'we' will tell
> you; People didn't make it, it was an airborne event/element.
> Which to those who think like you, airborne means the wind.
Airborne means 'in the air', which logically rules out the air itself.
> The wind couldn't have constructed that marking. So now, what am
> I to believe? Who am I to believe? How do I discern that little
> episode in the ongoing saga? I think you know.
> >
> > >
> >
> > -Mid
>
> >
> Twonky....the middle finger of God ,,|,,
>
-Mid
MidNyte[UC]
Twonky <two...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:809n76$5kn$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > That was it exactly. Picture, date, location in a password
> > protected zipfile posted here a week before the formation
> > appeared, the password one week after. Since the zip was
> > kept by yourselves, there could be no tampering from us.
> > If it didn't prove we were responcible, it would prove we were
> > psychic :)
>
> construct, a week before you construct it? And then a week
> after you construct it, you're going to give everybody the
> password? So it has to be found and examined within a week
> for the 'serious' researchers to be properly "fooled". What if it
> isn't noticed? I think the unsuspecting victim of your dastardly
> deed will have to be "coached" into finding it.
OK, so we can just wait until someone makes a comment on whether or not it's
genuine. All the ones I've done to date were found in around 2-3 three days
with only one exception.
>
> How are we to know if different passwords won't unzip
> different files?
They will, it's true, but I'd have as much chance of finding another
password to produce the unlocking as you people. Given a 20 character
password that would be about 200 years on a pentium II 300.
> You may have a dozen markings drawn up
> in that secret zip file.
You can see the filenames, time, date, size etc of a file inside a passwod
protected zip, you just can't open the file or see any of the characters
inside.
> You have two weeks to construct any
> one of them. I wouldn't trust you at all.
Try it for yourself. I'll send you a brute force zip cracker if you like.
You can use my own, or you can use a faster one, my programming isn't that
good yet.
> I am wary of your
> enthusiasm to have somebody acquiesce. And of course
> you found a trusting soul. I've learned my lesson. "No more
> Mr Nice Guy."
Mr. Nice Guy? I'd hate to see Mr. Stubborn Rude Git. And besides, why should
someone not trust this system?, there's a whole world of resource to check
it out.
>
> Paul, You guys (serious researchers) have been beaten up so
> much by the mainstream media, why do you just grab for more
> from a braggart dope on a rope?
>
Because I can show things up in a different light, one you cannot possibly
imagine with your blinkers so firmly attached. Maybe we'll find nothing new,
but we'll know that there was nothing to be gained through trying, not just
arrogance.
> Will everything in the zip and the fields be time stamped?
> Will you state exact times? If you do, then I hope the weather
> changes for the worst at that time.
>
I've said before, we set a date and stick to it, weather is no obstacle, but
thankyou for the sentiment, I'll wrap up warm (& waterproof), so you needn't
worry.
> I've had some astounding psychic occurrences. I don't turn
> them on and off, they just seem to happen. Like the communion
> I have with the Greys. Do you think I could come up with such an
> extraordinary theory on my own?
Hmmm, these greys, do they sit on your shoulder and disappear when anyone
else is around? Do they tell you to burn things?
> I have help.
You need help.
> You could say; info
> from the horses mouth, my little Grey buddies. And not info from
> the horses ass, like you and your buddies "PIC" receive..
The only explanation known to science for talking to aliens/demons/whatever
is in the science of physciatry.
> >
> > > That would be acceptable to me!
> >
> > Done deal.
>
> Done deal? Not for me.
> All I have to say is;
That'll be the day. Cheap shot I know, but WTF, you've taken enough of them.
>Paul should demand
> it be pysically examined and not just an aerial shot, (if it could
> possibly be worthy of an aerial shot).
Of course he should, that's fine by me. And as for worthy, one of mine was
described in 97 as 'the most exquisite circle of the year', thankyou all the
same.
>And that can't happen unless
> he knows where it is. And if he knows where it is, then he knows
> it's a hoax.
Of course he knows, he's opened the zipfile and has picture, date, location.
He can have a grid reference if he wants it.
> So, he would have to be deceived in some way.
> The "coaching" into finding it? Well......you two boys have fun.
> And Paul, you be careful of that snake.
>
Ssssss
> Also, I would have that zip file decompiled.
>
> When you're done playing with your zip files, shake and bake me
> an 800-900 footer, in a field with no tramlines, thin 1-3 stalk wide
> rings, standing center, in real time.
Like I said before, name your design, We'll seriously try for it.
> >
> > >
> > > I keep meaning to subscribe :) Message board sounds like a good
> > > idea.
> > >
> > I'll see what I can get setup.
> > >
> > > I'l do it properly soon :) just that there's 100 things to doa
> > > night, and only time for 10 ATM :)
> >
> > Sounds good, I'm definatly up for that, I think my partner in
> > crime (PIC from now) will be too. I'm as interested in the
> > anomalies as anyone else, just that I have a different view on
> > why they're there :)
>
> I know why they're here. To tell us who, what, and why we are
> here. How would you like to see recordings of earths history?
> Our 'view' is totally original and unique. Explains our missing link.
> The markings are the signature, not the art, of the artist of all
> that you see. Now that's real art, and artist.
And that would be God, or Aliens, or what? (Serious question, not taking the
piss)
> > >
> > > Would you care to share some thoughts?
> > >
> >
> > I didn't mean anything specific, just that I think they are more
> > likely a byproduct of hoaxing. Either the the method or the
> > disruption to the field.
>
> Right, disruption, and destruction of the plants in hoaxed
> constructions. Pole holes, broken and crushed plants, scraping
> on the stalks....etc...etc....etc.....a real mess.
Pole holes? you actually been anywhere near a crop circle since 1990?
As for breaking, cruching & scraping, there's a lot less of that than you
think if you do it right.
> >
> > I've heard (not conclusively though) that the tops of the crop can
> > create quite an electrostatic field, maybe the lack of said static
> > field in the formation could be behind it? But anyway, nothing
> > specific.
>
> Well I mean specific. And to the point. Perfectly clear and
> coherent.
Like your answers? Clear? yes. Specific? yes... but insults and no attempt
at an answer.
I'll give you something specific when I've seen the anomalies first hand,
and no, I've never noticed any anomalies when creating the circles.
> >
> > -Mid
>
> >
> Twonky.....the middle finger of God~ ,,|,, ~Are you ready world?
>
-Mid
MidNyte[UC]
do with Wallace's tendancy to go to the top of a hill in a wheeled
contraption of some kind every five minutes, then suddenly, accidently and
ever-so unexpectedly rolling down to the bottom of said hill at high speed
and screaming?
MidNyte[UC]
> > > Tsk tsk....chatty little girls....
> > >
> > > They're not little marks at all. Maybe the ones you construct are
> > > little marks in the fields, but they're not all your
> > > constructions, so
> > > they're not all little marks in a field. They go from little
> > > (human
> > > messy constructed) marks to (humanly impossible to construct)
> > > huge marks. I like those, you can stick yours.
> >
> > Prove mathematically/physically/whatever that they are impossible.
>
> The size and complexity. Reason and common sense.
Not give me your opinion, I already know it. I said prove it.
> >
> > Go on, you do the proof. Lack of opposing evidence does not
> > constitute proof. You have not proven to me that you are not an
> > alien, that doesn't mean I have proof that you are.
>
> How can I be an alien? Aliens don't exist in lethargic majority
> opinion.
>
That's what is known as an analogy. When faced with one you are supposed to
address the underlying issue, but perhaps I can make it simple. The above
translates to 'You prove that circles are not hoaxed', with the additional
reminder that 'lack of opposing evidence does not
constitute proof'. You think you could possibly manage to answer a question
before I get too old to hoax?
> A refusal of the opposing side to confirm claims is evidence
> that constitutes proof; all are not hoaxed.
Ask a lawyer to verify that to you.
> >
> > >
> > > Anyway....little green men....hmmmmm....
> > > That's not what I mean at all. It might be what you mean, but not
> > > me.
> > > It goes much deeper than little green men. But I suppose little
> > > green
> > > men is as deep as your little green brain will allow you to go.
> > > Wait until you know the truth. You'll just shit!
> >
> > Why don't you astonish me with the truth? and as for little green
> > men, how
> > come you believers think that making them little and grey instead of
> > little and green makes a shit of difference?
>
> It does make a difference, not that you would notice. Astonish you.
> How about the human race being genetically engineered, by the
> little Greys.
Prove it.
> > They're a hell of a lot smarter than you.
And when you've proved their existance you can go on to verify that
statement, until then, kindly refrain from comparing my intelligence to
non-existant creatures. Either that, or I can compare you to Noddy, take
your pick.
> >
> > > And you'll know why
> > > you have been duped into thinking you are doing a wonderful thing
> > > for God and country.
> >
> > I'm not religeous (again because it's just the same as beliveing in
> > aliens who visit us, it's the need to believe), and I'm not
> > particularly proud of my country either.
>
> Common mis-perception. Aliens aren't visiting us. They've been here
> for a long long time. Since the beginning you could say.
Same thing, they visit us, they are here watching, we are the aliens, it's
all the same. Prove any of it.
>
> I'm not religious either. And I hate the government, the mainstream
> media, and organized religion. The powers and principalities.
> And you hoaxing dopes on ropes too. I would like to snap your neck.
Charmed I'm sure. I think I'm in love.
> >
> > You dopes on ropes are nothing but a bunch of
> > > goddamned clowns. That's all you dicks pushing sticks are, is
> > > mainstream media dupes. The jesters, in the courts of the powers
> > > and principalities.
> > >
> > Yeah, but I've fooled you before.
>
> "....fooled me before"? You mean deceived don't you?
Yes, fooled = decieved. Your point?
> When? Do I know you?
You as in you the public. Care to give me a run-down of 97's circle and your
opinion to whether each is hoaxed or not? I'll let you know how many times
in that year alone.
Know me?, I don't think so, unless you're who I think you are of course, but
don't expect me to let on until I am sure.
> That's what jesters do. Entertain people by being the fools for the
> court. I hope I don't know you. I know your spirit though.
You have provided me with some grand entertainment too, thanks. I'm getting
tired of it now though, I'm more interested in the anomalies.
> >
> > > Dance your little circle dance my little hoaxing circle jerkers,
> > > you pathetic clowns. You are their roller rolling, planking
> > > wanking,
> > > pole holing jackasses. Good job. You make perfect assholes of
> > > yourselves trying to buffalo rational people into believing humans
> > > constructed all of them.
> >
> > The majority of opinion appears to be with us due a distinct lack of
> > evidence from your side. How about you change that?
>
> The majority of opinion is with you, because the mainstream media
> helps you jackasses immensely. Without their help you would be a
> pile of poop.
Yeah, but your side has books out, people believe what they want to.
>The mainstream media ignores serious research.
As do you.
> That's why the majority opinion of the lethargic of the world is with
> you mainstream media dopes on ropes.
>
They can think for themselves, unfortunatly only half of them ever do, but
that should still be a 50-50 split, it's not though, is it?
> I gave you my "evidence", all you give me is claimed markings.
What evidence? 'ohh I don't think so missus'? Surely even you know the
difference between proof and opinion.
> No proof, just claims. And you parrot the mainstream crap.
Proof of mine. not proof of all admittedly, but proof of mine.
> >
> > > You think I'm the only one who feels this
> > > way? You asses can have some, but not all. We want some.
> >
> > No, Unfortunatly since the X-Files there are a lot more people who
> > 'believe'.
>
> I don't watch the X-files.
Bet you have the T-shirt though :)
> You do evidently.
Used to, when it had a story-line based on the beliefs of the paranormal,
before it became what it is now, just kept going because it has geek status.
> Has had a bad effect on
> you. Made you stupid. Just as TDC's "Mind Altering Programming"
> has altered your mind into sludge.
Yeah, I'm stupid. I don't think I can get away with not answering a question
by insult alone, but I'm the stupid one.
> >
> > >
> > > I think hoaxers talk so stupidly because they suffer from terminal
> > > dizzyness, and plank wank.
> > >
> > Very clever. Any chance you coming out from behind your insults?
>
> Here I am. Any chance of you coming out from behind your hoaxing
> dribble to prove the things you and your cronies spew? Construct for
> me the marking I desire. Yeah! Sure! The marking you desire is more
> like it.
Name it. That's the fourth time I've typed that. Name it, I'll see about it.
Name it, name it, name it, name it, name it, name it, name it, name it!!!
> >
> > > >
> > > > -Mid
> > > I can say what I say to you hoaxing dickheads, because you
> > > haven't proved you hoaxed them all. I call you and your sugardaddy
> > > mainstream media to a challenge, and you arses balk.
> >
> > *I* accepted, when you heard it you shit and turned away. You said
> > my circles weren't good enough, not even knowing which I had
> > claimed. You balked, it's here in public.
>
> And so are the ones you circle jerkers can't re-construct.
Name it.
>
> Oh goody, what a guy. Little messy crap markings. I bet a dog would
> go into your marking and take a dump. Dogs seem to shy away from
> genuine markings. Do you bring your doggy with you on your sojourning
> in the fields.
Some of my circles have been pronounced genuine, one has 'healed' an old
woman, one was 'the most exquisite circle of the year'. Don't say they're
crap, you don't even know which are mine.
> >
> > > Well balk
> > > you too. Because you can't and won't re-construct your largest
> > > claim to date, that makes me right, and ya'll be waaaaaaaaaaaaay
> > > wrong liars! Can't argue with reason and logic, it's as simple as
> > > that!
> > >
> > Can't argue with reason and logic when there's none present. Lack of
> > evidence from my side does not prove your side.
>
> It sure does. I point out a marking that is said to be a hoax, and you
> can't re-construct it,
I can't, no. The hoaxer who created can. I know it was him because I can do
the same as him, just not quite as well.
> because it is humanly impossible to construct
Prove it is humanly impossible to reconstruct, remembering of course that
just because you can't do something, doesn't mean no-one can.
> in the first place. Now you prove me wrong and construct it in front
> of your peers.
Name it.
> >
> > > You mendacious clowns won't get out there and do it, so keep your
> > > mouths shut about you bozos constructing them all, because it is
> > > now known...you didn't.
> >
> > now known? prove it.
>
> You won't re-construct certain markings that are considered hoaxes
> anyway. You suck as a hoaxer. Can't duplicate a hoax.
Me? I never even entered a single debate until this year.
> You refuse
> to undertake a reasonable request for proof on your part.
What do you think the zip file thing is all about? I will undertake to prove
that the circles I do next year are indeed done by me.
> >
> > > You just lied about it all these years.
> > > How come? You have been lying all this time? Really? I didn't know
> > > that. I'm devastated. Yeah! Sure!
> > >
> > Err, say again?
>
> Since 1996...right? Isn't that the time you received your donkey
> training? You guys remind me of the donkey that goes around
> and around in circles turning the water wheel. A whip at your
> backside, heehaw heeehaaww....
95, but close enough, the actual question was WTF was all that detached
rambling supposed to mean? restate the question please. Say again? Pardon?
eh? Non-comprendez, senior. One of those get through to you?
> >
> > >
> Twonky not donkey like hoaxing jackasses......YOU and PIC.
>
> Who made that? Mid claimed he did. Will he prove it? No.
> But he'll claim it. (And the jerk wants proof from me.)
>
He has no proof of 95-99, but he will have proof in 2000. Proof that you
have refused after demanding it. And yes, I do want proof from you. There is
no reason to believe in aliens being on/visiting earth, but you say they are
here. Prove it.
> Get a life, and leave the markings to me.
> >
Have a life thankyou, circles are only one interest. Leave the markings to
you? you said you tried one and were convinced then that the complex ones
were not humanly possible, I think you should leave it to someone who's good
at it.
-Mid
<distinct lack of ten lines of ego-wank>
PAN
> How about the human race being genetically engineered, by the
> little Greys. They're a hell of a lot smarter than you.
Not as smart as the AGM though...
www.sixstrings.freeserve.co.uk/agm/
Twonky
[....For politically correct morons *FOREWARNING* very naughty
language herein.....]
I have PMS...I've had an extremely bad day and am really pissed,
so I'm going to dump on you MidNyte ole boy...you hoaxing kinda
guy you...you...you.............MidNyte[fUCker] I'm not going to bed
until I'm finished. And even then, I wouldn't be finished.
MidNyte[UC] <midny...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:80ahdb$fv6$1...@nclient15-gui.server.virgin.net...
> > >
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > The size and complexity. Reason and common sense.
>
> Not give me your opinion, I already know it. I said prove it.
The size and complexity. Reason and common sense. Duhh..
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > How can I be an alien? Aliens don't exist in lethargic majority
> > opinion.
> >
> That's what is known as an analogy. When faced with one you are
> supposed to address the underlying issue, but perhaps I can make it
> simple. The above translates to 'You prove that circles are not
> hoaxed', with the additional reminder that 'lack of opposing
> evidence does not constitute proof'. You think you could possibly
> manage to answer a question before I get too old to hoax?
The size and complexity. Reason and common sense. Duhh..
Geeezzz, if you retire there won't be any more small
constructions.
>
> > A refusal of the opposing side to confirm claims is evidence
> > that constitutes proof; all are not hoaxed.
>
> Ask a lawyer to verify that to you.
I am a lawyer, judge, jury, and executioner. And you are guilty.
Sentence...execution by being flattened and swirled in the field
of your choice. The execution will be posted on the NewsGroup
in a secret passworded zip file. The password will be given a
week after the "flatten and swirl" dispatch. It will be your greatest
marking to date, personally signed with you. You will live in the
hearts and minds of all the worlds dopes on ropes, lovingly known
as; "Mid-idiot, the Zip File Hoaxer". Pip Pip for the Zip! May he rest
in his pieces.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> >
> > It does make a difference, not that you would notice. Astonish
> > you. How about the human race being genetically engineered, by
> > the little Greys.
>
> Prove it.
"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."
>
> > They're a hell of a lot smarter than you.
>
> And when you've proved their existance you can go on to verify that
> statement, until then, kindly refrain from comparing my intelligence
> to non-existant creatures. Either that, or I can compare you to
> Noddy, take your pick.
Non-existent. See you can say that, just like you can say all
markings are hoaxes, because the mainstream media says it.
You can be ignorant and blather with impunity, because
the mainstream media is behind you....sticking it to us by
sticking it up your ass.
ET is real. Look what they have you doing in the fields.
You're making an ass out of yourself. Copy cat copy cat.
They exist, for sure. We're just not told about it..mainstream media
again. Whatever the mainstream media says is gospel truth to
the Mid-idiots that believe everything they are told and shown by the
lying elites. Fuck them too.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> >
> > Common mis-perception. Aliens aren't visiting us. They've been
> > here for a long long time. Since the beginning you could say.
>
> Same thing, they visit us, they are here watching, we are the
> aliens, it's all the same. Prove any of it.
It's not all the same. They have a purpose in creation. They are
not just visitors. They know us, because they made us. They are on
a different plane than we are. Interdimentional, bending space, and
dilating time. ET doesn't come from other planets, they come from a
"dwelling place", a 1500 cubic mile dwelling place. The place
in which time is dilated.
> >
> > I'm not religious either. And I hate the government, the
> > mainstream media, and organized religion. The powers and
> > principalities. And you hoaxing dopes on ropes too. I would like
> > to snap your neck.
>
> Charmed I'm sure. I think I'm in love.
Hey...hoaxers made me the monster I am today. It's your fault.
Are you propositioning me?
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > "....fooled me before"? You mean deceived don't you?
>
> Yes, fooled = decieved. Your point?
You are underhanded, and all the rest of the syns..
>
> > When? Do I know you?
>
> You as in you the public. Care to give me a run-down of 97's circle
> and your opinion to whether each is hoaxed or not? I'll let you
> know how many times in that year alone.
Fuck off will ya? How many times? Hundreds? Thousands?
You're just a fucking genius artist you goddamned piece of shit.
I hope the fuck you get struck by lightning in the fields.
Squashed and swirled would truly be nice.
Just re-construct the fucking Sri Yantra and the three arm Julia,
and shut the fuck up.
If you have no intentions of doing such, stop fucking replying to me.
I've had it with your dumb ass plans and claims and zips. Fuck off
circle jerker.
>
> Know me?, I don't think so, unless you're who I think you are of
> course, but don't expect me to let on until I am sure.
Yeah...you sound like that asshole Schnabel. A real hoaxers hoaxer.
The dumb ass Schnabel was beaten at his own game.
>
> > That's what jesters do. Entertain people by being the fools for
> > the court. I hope I don't know you. I know your spirit though.
>
> You have provided me with some grand entertainment too, thanks. I'm
> getting tired of it now though, I'm more interested in the
> anomalies.
How can they be anomalies when everybody knows how they're done?
Also, the entire world knows, who "does" them. Nothing unusual about
them.......You're just a bunch of goddamned artistic dopes on ropes
who do/throw your artistic bullshit shit all over the fucking world.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > The majority of opinion is with you, because the mainstream media
> > helps you jackasses immensely. Without their help you would be a
> > pile of poop.
>
> Yeah, but your side has books out, people believe what they want to.
Bet your ass. But some of us believe the right things.
>
> >The mainstream media ignores serious research.
>
> As do you.
No I don't you ass. You ignore it you fucking twirp. You and the
fucking lying mainstream media. Fuck you and them too...again.
>
> > That's why the majority opinion of the lethargic of the world is
> > with you mainstream media dopes on ropes.
> >
> They can think for themselves, unfortunatly only half of them ever
> do, but that should still be a 50-50 split, it's not though, is it?
They can't think for themselves. The poor bastards are nothing but TV
hypnotised zombies. It's more like 98% believe your shit, and the
shit of the mainstream media.
>
> > I gave you my "evidence", all you give me is claimed markings.
>
> What evidence? 'ohh I don't think so missus'? Surely even you know
> the difference between proof and opinion.
It's not an opinion. It's evidence that can be seen. I told you,
I don't march in the parade of the parachuting dummy brigade.
The fucking goddamned US air force put forth that explanation.
Well....fuck them too.
>
> > No proof, just claims. And you parrot the mainstream crap.
>
> Proof of mine. not proof of all admittedly, but proof of mine.
Okay proof of yours. Congratulations, you win a prize. A gold
plated plank for your golden wank. There is more than "just yours".
Those are the ones I'm interested in. The ones you admittedly can't
re-construct. That's up to some elusive hoaxing donkey who
constructed it. Oh yeah....good fucking proof you have they're all
hoaxed.
> > >
> >
> > I don't watch the X-files.
>
> Bet you have the T-shirt though :)
I have lots of T-shirts. No TV-shirts though.
>
> > You do evidently.
>
> Used to, when it had a story-line based on the beliefs of the
> paranormal, before it became what it is now, just kept going
> because it has geek status.
Don't make excuses. I understand why you're so stupid. You must
watch a lot of the TDC crop-circle shows. Duhhhh...I can do dat.
>
> > Has had a bad effect on
> > you. Made you stupid. Just as TDC's "Mind Altering Programming"
> > has altered your mind into sludge.
>
> Yeah, I'm stupid. I don't think I can get away with not answering a
> question by insult alone, but I'm the stupid one.
We agree on something. You are the stupid one.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > Here I am. Any chance of you coming out from behind your hoaxing
> > dribble to prove the things you and your cronies spew? Construct
> > for me the marking I desire. Yeah! Sure! The marking you desire is
> > more like it.
>
> Name it. That's the fourth time I've typed that. Name it, I'll see
> about it.
> Name it, name it, name it, name it, name it, name it, name it, name
> it!!!
The Sri Yantra, the three arm Julia, the Basket, the 800 footer this
year in Wiltshire, and any other construction over six hundred feet.
The marking that appeared in the West midlands. Small, but well
into a field with no tramlines, (it looks like). The one that appeared
i
n Bishop Cannings in oil seed rape, no pole hole for the ring. You
can't just construct it, you have to duplicate the physical effects
on, and in the crops also.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > And so are the ones you circle jerkers can't re-construct.
>
> Name it.
The Sri Yantra, The Sri Yantra, The Sri Yantra, The Sri Yantra,
The Sri Yantra, The Sri Yantra, The Sri Yantra, The Sri Yantra.
And any marking on ice, to thin to walk on. Go ahead miracle
worker, try that one, and I hope you fucking drown.
> >
> > Oh goody, what a guy. Little messy crap markings. I bet a dog
> > would
> > go into your marking and take a dump. Dogs seem to shy away from
> > genuine markings. Do you bring your doggy with you on your
> > sojourning in the fields.
>
> Some of my circles have been pronounced genuine, one has 'healed' an
> old woman, one was 'the most exquisite circle of the year'. Don't
> say they're crap, you don't even know which are mine.
Does that give you an oogly feeling?
You're pretty fucking good for a baby hoaxer. Healed an old lady.
How nice of you. Shouldn't you hold a press conference and tell
the world of the powers you possess.
I know the ones you are incapable of re-constructing, by your own
admission, are not yours. Nobody claims them, so they're mine.
That's all I want from you anyway. Thank you. You gave me my gift
back. Good to use in the (near) future; "Hoaxer admits he cannot
re-construct markings done by other hoaxers." Would the real
hoaxers please stand up?
Full time job? Lots of planning through the off season? Good for you.
Can I see you in your baseball cap sighting device, you fucking pork
brain.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > It sure does. I point out a marking that is said to be a hoax, and
> > you can't re-construct it,
>
> I can't, no. The hoaxer who created can. I know it was him because I
> can do the same as him, just not quite as well.
Well then, they're not all hoaxes. Only yours are.
Don't give me; if I can't do it, my brother can bullshit.
I want you hoaxing assholes to prove you constructed them all.
And there is only one way to do that, the Twonky way. Either
that or: Fuck you, Fuck you, Fuck you, Fuck you, Fuck you,
Fuck you, Fuck you, Fuck you, Fuck you, Fuck you, Fuck you.
>
>
> > because it is humanly impossible to construct
>
> Prove it is humanly impossible to reconstruct, remembering of course
> that just because you can't do something, doesn't mean no-one can.
I have some bad news for you. No one can. Nobody claims the
ones you can't construct, so as I said; I'll take them.
>
> > in the first place. Now you prove me wrong and construct it in
> > front of your peers.
>
> Name it.
I already have. The Sri Yantra. Nothing less. If two boys dug it out
with a garden cultivator, then you can re-construct one in a field. If
you can find a field big enough. Same size as the one in Oregon.
Are going to let two little boys put you to shame in the hoaxing
community. They make you look like a fool. Go ahead smart ass,
just do it. Oh yeah, they dug it out in an afternoon.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > You won't re-construct certain markings that are considered hoaxes
> > anyway. You suck as a hoaxer. Can't duplicate a hoax.
>
> Me? I never even entered a single debate until this year.
And already you are a hoaxer extraordinaire. Going to cover the
world with your putrid artistry. Eat shit and die. You're nothing
but a dying mammal anyway. Fucking goofballs. All of you.
>
> > You refuse
> > to undertake a reasonable request for proof on your part.
>
> What do you think the zip file thing is all about? I will undertake
> to prove that the circles I do next year are indeed done by me.
The zip file thing is so you don't have to do it in real time. In
front of everybody. Like hiding under a rock.
> > >
> >
> > Since 1996...right? Isn't that the time you received your donkey
> > training? You guys remind me of the donkey that goes around
> > and around in circles turning the water wheel. A whip at your
> > backside, heehaw heeehaaww....
>
> 95, but close enough, the actual question was WTF was all that
> detached rambling supposed to mean? restate the question please.
> Say again?
> Pardon?
> eh? Non-comprendez, senior. One of those get through to you?
Huh? What? Scuse me? Again please? Can't hear you! It was a slap
in your fucking face, but you are obviously to fucking stupid to see
it. Okay...dickhead?
>
> > >
> > > >
> > Twonky not donkey like hoaxing jackasses......YOU and PIC.
> >
> > Who made that? Mid claimed he did. Will he prove it? No.
> > But he'll claim it. (And the jerk wants proof from me.)
> >
> He has no proof of 95-99, but he will have proof in 2000. Proof that
> you have refused after demanding it. And yes, I do want proof from
> you. There is no reason to believe in aliens being on/visiting
> earth, but you say they are here. Prove it.
I told you, I don't march in your parade, the parade of the
parachuting dummy brigade. So I don't believe everything I see
and hear a hoax. I can discern what I see and hear. I know when
I'm being lied to, and I know when I'm being told the truth. And
you lie.
>
> > Get a life, and leave the markings to me.
> >
> Have a life thankyou, circles are only one interest. Leave the
> markings to you? you said you tried one and were convinced then
> that the complex ones were not humanly possible, I think you
> should leave it to someonewho's good at it.
Well, where the fuck is he? You're no good at it, so fuck off. Stop
responding to me. For one, you bore the shit out of me, and two,
you're nothing but a fucking lying deceiving prick. You and
all your brethren in deception. That's your fucking life, to lie and
deceive with impuinity. Why don't you zip that file up your ass.
>
> -Mid
Hid................in a zip file.
>
> <distinct lack of ten lines of ego-wank>
Remeber...the golden plank for your ego-wank.
>
Twonky, who is hoping I was obscene enough to get rid of the
Mid-idiot.
I am the middle finger of God ,,|,, In your fucking face.
It's a new day, a new age, the dawning of the age of Aquarius.
Are you fucking ready world? Kick ass time.
> Twonky for PRES. motherfuckers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lets surprise the shit out of the elite. Write me in.
two...@mindspring.com
Hey Murdoch...watch out for that thing there...over there...no..no,
the other side....ooops.
It's a good fucking thing I don't have any power on this planet!
I might watch Sightings. Or the FUX news network. Or the
X-files, Yeah! Sure! Fuck you too, Murdoch! (revised)
Be well, safe, and wary ~the world is full of (elites) treachery.
(-_-) <Twonky symbol to Grey aliens, our little buddies.
We think alike.
BHRATAR SUASTI BHRATAR SUASTIKA
Paul Whitehead
<two...@mindspring.com> writes
What did your detractor say to deserve such a civilised response from
you?
Dr~
Paul Whitehead
leresearch.com> writes
>In article <8075q4$o0$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net>, Twonky
><URL:mailto:two...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Hi Cathy Smiles. Is that Paul V's domain?
>
>Hehe! I actually host quite a few domains. :-)
>One of the benefits of working for a major ISP ;-)
>
>> That's the only way I'll ever believe them. Why don't the hoaxing donkeys
>> ask their TV sugardaddies to fund it? The hoaxers could have a press
>> release saying they intend to make real jackasses out of themselves, (as if
>> they haven't already). Their bubble is burst.
>
>I'd like to know how much the New Zealand hoax cost to perpetrate. Not only
>did they fly the hoaxers out there but they had to airlift all the equipment
>and cranes etc to a remote part of New Zealand to ensure that researchers
>didn't get a chance to inspect the formation on the ground. Even then,
>according to the timelapse sequence I have on video it took around six hours
>to construct.
>
>> Hoaxers and the mainstream media will never "come together" with serious
>> on the subject. I never read one, but dollar to a do-nut, they claimed them
>> all. They have web sites devoted to inspiring hoaxers on how to deceive
>> for constructions of destructions.) Destruction in more ways than one.
>
>think most serious scientists and people with open minds will be able to sort
>through the rubbish and come to their own conclusions. Some of the hoaxers
>claims are laughable (Doug and Dave creating grapeshot circles via pogo
>sticks for instance) and people will see them for who they are.
>
>
>don't need convincing otherwise) but what irritates me is when hoaxers peddle
>misinformation and lies in order to deceive ordinary people who might be
>interested in finding out more about the subject from an open-minded
>perspective.
You mean you is not irritated by the Anti Grey Militia and its Companion
Brethren In Arms (CBIA), Team Satan?
D~
Twonky
> > Tsk tsk....chatty little girls....
> >
> > They're not little marks at all. Maybe the ones you construct are
> > little marks in the fields, but they're not all your
> > constructions, so they're not all little marks in a field. They go
> > from little (human messy constructed) marks to (humanly impossible
> > to construct) huge marks. I like those, you can stick yours.
>
> down, you belittle the human race so much, sure, I know we don't
> live in a perfect world but what is a perfect world, everyones idea
> of a perfect world would probably be different anyway, but as
> mentioned earlier, if we can go to the moon, send probes to Mars,
> Jupiter, Saturn, Youranus!, Neptune etc through the advent of
> mathematics and physics then a crop circle, no matter how fucking
> big it is, is bugger all in comparison. But then you probably don't
> even believe there is a moon anyway, it's probably a big conspiracy
> and it's made of cheese.
I believe the moon is a balloon. Where do they tie the string?
Let me say the same thing to you as I say to Mid. Just have your
super human beings re-construct the humanly impossible to
re-construct constructions. They did it in the first place, so in the
second place, they should do it again. Not an unreasonable
demand at all. A public demonstration.
We actually went to the moon...maybe. We actually sent a probe
to mars, we saw and see all that stuff you're talking about. Just like
we see videos of UFOs. But we have never seen a hoaxer do what
he claims. If NASAHOLE just claimed we went to the moon, or
claimed we sent all those probes. Or if I just claimed there are
UFOs, you wouldn't believe them, or me....would you?
Geeezzz...that goddamned reason and logic, just no escaping
them.
>
Twonky...in the light of the God who bends the light.
And......the middle finger of the God who bends the light ,,|,,
>
Twonky
Paul Whitehead <weste...@western-pr.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bvz9iGAS...@western-pr.demon.co.uk...
>>
>
<<<SNIP>>>
> >
> >
> I see you is in good form today, twonks. I was gettin' worried 'bout
> ya!
>
> What did your detractor say to deserve such a civilised response
> from you?
It is a civilized response. As civilized as the dunderhead deserves.
He wants to do a "zip file hoax." Why don't any of the hoaxing
jackasses ever re-construct their crap-circle constructions in public?
Geeeesh, they always want to hide under a rock, and claim they
construct them from there. Well......as you can see doc., I'm not
buying it.
>
> Dr~
>
Twonky....who feels much more relaxed today.....so far.
PAN
>
> [....For politically correct morons *FOREWARNING* very naughty
> language herein.....]
Ah, like a cornered wild animal, Twonky rears up and out come the claws, but
to any avail I wonder...
Twonky
Paul Vigay <pvi...@cropcircleresearch.com> wrote in message
news:ant09194...@Liberator.nom...
> In article <8075q4$o0$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net>, Twonky
> <URL:mailto:two...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > Hi Cathy Smiles. Is that Paul V's domain?
>
> Hehe! I actually host quite a few domains. :-)
> One of the benefits of working for a major ISP ;-)
Could I subscribe to one? Any in the U.S.S.A. (United Socialist States
of America?)
>
> > That's the only way I'll ever believe them. Why don't the hoaxing
> > donkeysask their TV sugardaddies to fund it? The hoaxers could
> > have a press release saying they intend to make real jackasses out
> > of themselves, (as if they haven't already). Their bubble is
> > burst.
>
> I'd like to know how much the New Zealand hoax cost to perpetrate.
> Not only did they fly the hoaxers out there but they had to airlift
> all the equipment and cranes etc to a remote part of New Zealand
> to ensure that researchers didn't get a chance to inspect the
> formation on the ground.
> Even then, according to the timelapse sequence I have on video it
> took around six hours to construct.
They must have spent millions through the years. This crop-circle
stuff must be pretty important, judging from the asinine, hurried way,
they went about poo pooing the markings. It seems as though they
had to get this stuff out of the public's mind in a hurry, no matter
how dumb the explanation would be.
(Hi, I'm Dave Bower and I'm Doug Chorley. We are the two men
who made all the crop-markings.) WHAT! NO WAY! If they let
those two clowns get away with saying that, I knew it would be
the beginning of the end. And it was. But not anymore.
It didn't take six hours, it actually only took forty-five minutes,
minus commercials, for the New Zealand crap-marking.
Yup, the "duped dopes on ropes" violated their own rules.
How stupid can they be? Very.....very....very stupid! With help from
NBC....to look even more stupid.
Six hours for a 300 footer? Then how can they claim all of the
markings? That's why I'm so adamant on calling out the dopes on
ropes to prove what they claim. All that New Zealand marking proved
is, they couldn't have possibly constructed all of the markings.
BIG mistake by NBC...and NBC's dupes. The duped dopes on ropes.
>
> > Hoaxers and the mainstream media will never "come together" with
> > serious reaearchers, never. Hoaxers have sliced their own throats.
> > They wrote books on the subject. I never read one, but dollar to a
> > do-nut, they claimed them all. They have web sites devoted to
> > inspiring hoaxers on how to deceive sincere, serious researchers.
> > Probably in their 'books' also. (Instructions for constructions of
> > destructions.) Destruction in more ways than one.
>
> A lot of their debunking attempts are pretty lane and ignorant
> though, so I think most serious scientists and people with open
> minds will be able to sort through the rubbish and come to their
> own conclusions. Some of the hoaxers claims are laughable (Doug
> and Dave creating grapeshot circles via pogo sticks for instance)
> and people will see them for who they are.
Pogo sticks? Yeah I heard about that poop.
Wouldn't the pogo sticks just sink into the soil? Pogo sticks are
made for using on hard surfaces like cement, hot top, not on soft
soil. BowWow and Chalkey really get away with saying very
incredibly dumb ass things. My God, how can they get away with it?
Oh yeah, mainstream media is on their side.
B&C were being interviewed about a marking they constructed.
When asked "How did you do that?", about the grapeshots in the
marking, the two clowns answered; "we jumped". No pogo sticks,
just a jump between the tramlines, from a standing position!!?? And
a jump back. (20' of distance, with an arc of 11'.) Nobody called
them on that beauty of a lie. Nobody! It went totally unanswered,
and accepted by those who Murdoch knew would accept it.
His comatose following.
So.....all the markings up to 1991 B&C, were created without garden
rollers, staging, and none of the "modern day dopes on ropes" croppy
toys. That's what makes B&C the Masters of deception. With plenty
of (ongoing) help from the mainstream media.
Boy...the new and improved hoaxing donkeys sure carry a lot of
construction equipment into the fields. The Master Clowns, BowWow
and Chalkey only used, a board, a "piece" of string, and an amazing
bit of modern technology; the baseball cap sighting device.
Technical terminology: "Ringed Cap Device", ala Tvvitchb.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....What a bunch of idiots.
And those who endorse them are....well....just plain stupid.
>
> > As you can guess, I'm pretty passionate about this stuff.
>
> Indeed, as am I - not so much for the genuine circles (I know that
> myself and don't need convincing otherwise) but what irritates me
> is when hoaxers peddle misinformation and lies in order to deceive
> ordinary people who might be interested in finding out more about
> the subject from an open-minded perspective.
Genuine circles? That's the problem. Skeptics can say with impunity;
there are no genuine circles. And the mainstream media backs up
that claim. That was the whole idea of introducing B&C. A slow,
methodical showing, over many years, that all markings are hoaxed,
and now that goal is reached. The dopes on ropes need not appply
anymore, because they own all the markings. End of story, for the
lethargic. Which was the plan by Murdoch, because he knows people
who access his media are non-thinking mush brains. And what he tells
them will appease them into not having to think, just watch, listen
and believe what the lying media mogul Rupert Murdoch tells you.
And they do! Oh yeah...and TDC, TLC, NOVA, A&E, CBS, NBC, ABC,
Sightings...and all mainstream print media....etc..
Sad.....sad....truly sad indeed.
Things would have been a lot different in this world if they had told
the truth. The truth will, "will out" anyway, whether they like it or
not. But because of their initial lying and deception, it's going to
be real tough on them. It will destroy them as they destroyed
whatever, and whoever got in their way, for all of these years.
Bye bye..mainstream media, governments, and organized religion.
Your time for being dispatched is fast approaching. Liars all!
Reason and logic, there is just no escaping them.
HEY JIM, GOD IS WATCHING YOU!
>
> --
> _/_/_/ _/ Paul Vigay
> _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ Director of Operations,
> _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ The Independent Research Centre
> for
> _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Unexplained Phenomena
> (IRCUP).
> _/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/ Editor & Publisher of "Enigma"
> research journal
> Enigma Homepage: http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/Enigma/
>
>
Twonky.......the middle finger of God~ ,,|,, ~In your face human
race! It's time to pay the piper.
Be well, safe, and wary ~the world is full of (elites) treachery.
Hey Murdoch...watch out for that thing there...over there...no..no,
the other side....ooops.
(-_-) <Twonky symbol to Grey aliens, our little buddies.
We think alike. It's a new age. The dawning of the age
of Aquarius. Are you ready world? You better be!
BHRATAR SUASTI BHRATAR SUASTIKA
wand...@my-deja.com
In article <801on7$kof$2...@nclient13-gui.server.virgin.net>,
"MidNyte[UC]" <midny...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> That was my precise point in 'discussion' with twonky, I can
reproduce my
> own designs, just not designs that are more complex.
>
So which designs have you produced then?
>
> I will speak to my partner who I think will agree, I myself would
like to.
> What is your opinion on the password protected zipfile idea, BTW?
> (irrespective of the live-reproduction debate) would it be sufficient
proof
> for you as it is, or would there need to be a change in details?
>
A passworded ZIP file seems quite a good idea.
> >
> > > Weather no problem, but how many complex formations in oilseed
rape have
> > > you ever seen?......
> >
> > Quite a few actually. Check out my International Crop Circle
database at
> > http://www.interalpha.net/customer/pvigay/CCDataBase.html
> >
> Will do, but is there any statistical analysis of the complexity of
circles
> and the difficulty of 'working' in whichever particular crop it's in?
Maybe
> I could start one.
Oilseed rape can be very difficult to work with, especially when it is
mature. Its messy too, especially when surveying formations. Young
oilseed rape is quite pliable though. There are some reasonably complex
oilseed rape formations but they tend to be simpler than formations in
cereal crops.
> >
> > One such formation was the one below Hackpen Hill, if anyone would
like to
> > claim it.
>
> Not me :)
Shame, I would like to know who could have made a formation like that!
Wanderman.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
MidNyte[UC]
<HUGE SNIP>
Right then. These not neccessarily in the correct order.
stop responding? I will, unless of course you insult me. If you insult me or
try to get away with posting your arguement thinking I will not defend
myself. I will defend myself, if you want me to stop, do not taunt. Other
than that, I wont respond to you again. I expect that will happen sometime
into next century.
The Sri Yantra? OK, it's named, I'll look into it.
'Stands to reason, dunnit' is *not* proof, it is opinion.
I am not Schanbel.
I believe you accidently missed the bit about asking a lawyer to verify
certain logic. Either that or you're avoiding the point I made. Would you
like to answer it?
"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."??? So you're telling me
that single cell creatures evolved into fishy things into amphibians into
small mammals into ape like thingy's into what is very nearly a human, then
stopped, but luckily aliens came along who just so happened to look like the
next step in the evolutionary chain and 'made' us, making us look like them.
Is that it?
'They exist, for sure'? Show me proof (or even just realistic reasoning).
'a 1500 cubic mile dwelling place'? Tell me more, that's very precise for
something that's not exactly an established fact.
Pole hole? you have to be kidding. Anyone who can't think of a better(less
obvious) way to get a circle than using a pole at the centre would have
trouble thinking of anything better to construct than a simple soletary
circle, IMHO.
The evidence I ignore, what is that? UFO sightings? what?
Zip file not real-time? Like I said before, how could a hoaxer finish a
circle next night? you can't cover the half you've already done. There's 4-8
hours of 'safe' hoaxing time, no more.
You never did respond to the painter analogy other than with insult.
Thankyou for the golden plank, I'll treasure it.
And I was wrong about your signature, It was more like 20 lines of ego-wank.
---
Looking forward to your 'er, shit, how do answer that?, I know, I'll just
spout abuse and hope no-one notices I don't know the answers'. Astonish me,
answer me. I answer you, you try it. And none of this 'I don't march' crap,
that's not an answer either, it's avoidance tactics.
-Mid
Twonky
Hmmm.....Dear all. Nice personal heading. He has something to
say to the world. Sounds serious.
> Here's a snippet from Lucy Pringle's book 'Crop Circles: the
> greatest mystery of modern times'....
> 'A friend, well into her 80's and suffering from severe and painful
> osteoporosis, had long begged me to take her into a formation
> so that she could experience the 'energies' for herself. In June
> 1997 the Pastry Cutter formation appeared at East Meon, Hampshire
> near where she lived. Early, on an overcast, sultry morning Diana
> and I walked slowly into the formation. There was an overwhelming
> sense of awe and peace, just as though we had entered a cathedral
> or other sacred place, which silenced even the normally talkative
> Diana! By 8am I had dropped Diana home again, and a couple of
> hours later she rang me in great excitement - she was totally free
> of pain! What's more, she is still pain-free over a year on.'
> Damn shame I don't gather proof of circles I 'visit at zero-hours
> from creation', if you get my drift... still, next year.
Burning the mid-night oil, are ye?
Oh...you don't have proof? Too bad. I thought you might have had
some. So, you are just claiming it? Figures. And now you're
threatening us with "next year".....instead? Maybe there won't be
any markings next year. That means you would actually have to
go out and construct them.
Yeah, I get your drift, it's drifting this way, and it looks and
smells like shit. Claim, claim, claim , claim, claim...really
stinks. Hoaxers shit from their mouth, waste caused by a
rotting brain...PHEW!
>
> Be sure to post here exactly how much you believe these
> circles are not the work of hoaxers, I'll be collecting. It'll make
> for an interesting summery at the end of the year.
Oh I will post here alright and tell you exactly what I believe.
For one thing, I believe they are not all constructed by people.
For another, I don't believe every video, picture, and eyewitness
reports of UFOs is a hoax, hallucination, delusion...etc....etc....
etc...etc..
I saw a dumbass crop-circle machine.....unbelievable what you
dopes on ropes come up with. Talk about making money from
the markings......hypocrites! If BowWow and Chalkey did such
an exquisite job with a board, string, and baseball cap sighting
device, then why the hell do you dopes on ropes need a machine?
The two mendacious clowns constructed beautiful markings with
their tools. Tools of their own design. Geniuses, absolute geniuses.
> PS, Paul Vigay: Re your views on hoaxing, you were right about one
> thing, but it's just another case of too many experts, not enough
> investigation. Quite a good parallel all round really.
Geezz Paul V. He sounds as if he is going to try and rope you in
with deceptive intent. I wouldn't trust him.
Not enough investigation!!?? What the hell are you talking about?
Everytime the mainstream media does a crop-circle hoax show,
they give the serious researchers two minutes. Ask Paul V,
about his interviews on TDC, aka The Deception Channel.
The interview with Colin Andrews lasted hours, and they gave
him two friggin minutes....if that much. So don't give me, "not
enough investigation," that's bull. It's there, but the mainstream
media ignores it. They intentionally ignore it. Why would they
do that? I know why, because I'm right, and they can't handle that.
It's a vast conspiracy against us.
>
Twonky....in the light, and the middle finger, of the God
who bends the light....> ,,|,,
Only a pompous ass, once he saw it, would claim he could
re-construct the Sri Yantra. Nobody will ever match what
those two little boys did. Sorry BIG boys. But you guys are
puffed up with such deceitful pride, why don't you give it a try?
Publicly, and in real time.....of course. Yeah! Sure!
Dear all
Get ready to be lit up.
A preist in Mexico City was asked his opinion of the
ongoing UFO flap down there. His reply; The God of hosts!
My reply to his....BINGO!
See, it's the God of hosts.....stupid.
MidNyte[UC]
Anyone ever get the feeling of Deja Vu? What was that twonky, your 'greatest
hits'? All of the above can be found in your previous 'replies', so why
rehash it? All of it except of course the 'crop circle machine? All I can
say to that is WTF?????
MidNyte[UC]
can't defende against these allegations?
MidNyte[UC]
> In article <80fd6v$f6b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
<URL:mailto:wand...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> > So which designs have you produced then?
>
Predictable?
>
> > Oilseed rape can be very difficult to work with, especially when it is
> > mature. Its messy too, especially when surveying formations. Young
oilseed
> > rape is quite pliable though. There are some reasonably complex oilseed
> > rape formations but they tend to be simpler than formations in cereal
> > crops.
>
bending
> in MATURE (ie. 1/4 thick stems) Oil Seed Rape with NO damage or cracks to
the
> stalks. Whether hoaxed or not, I'd like to see that reproduced! :-)
>
> > Shame, I would like to know who could have made a formation like that!
>
> formations - so I don't personally know why they bother admitting to
'any'.
> --
I will, I am just working on PIC who is not so convinced. Besides, none of
them are proovable, we never thought we'd have to :)
-Mid
Volcane
> Wot no answer? You've posted since this was written. Am I to assume you
> can't defende against these allegations?
>
>
Mid, mate the likes of Twonky and Paul V never answer specifics. If you do
manage to engage in a meaningful debate (like you've been trying) you get
nothing other than generic answers back. If you do back them into a corner
don't be surprised not to get an answer at all.
I came to this group many years ago looking for answers to the crop-circle
phenomenon. I was intigued by it and wanted to learn more. I saw Vigay at
a conference and was most disappointed with his theories as clearly they
were based more on wishful thinking than real science. I took Vigay on with
his claims regarding his rf measurements (a subject which I am an expert in)
in this newsgroup. He would not answer specifics and would ignore the more
challenging questions completely. This was the very same guy who was
introduced at the conference as an expert in the field and using computers
to research the phenomenon. The one truth is that you put garbage into a
computer you get garbage out.
I am totally convinced its clever and artistic people that create the
patterns.
It must be a crack to find pictures of one of your creations on the Internet
as an actual verified absolutely no question generated by aliens
crop-circle. If that's not fun enough waiting for it to be named must be a
bigger crease-up, Yi Santra for fuck's sake!!
All power to ya!!
Volcane
The Vet for the Insane
wand...@my-deja.com
Is it Hampshire, Wiltshire, Avebury area or what?
Wanderman
Volcane
> In article <80k57d$9nj$1...@nclient11-gui.server.virgin.net>, Volcane
> <URL:mailto:Hidd...@protect.the.guilty> wrote:
>
> > I came to this group many years ago looking for answers to the
crop-circle
> > phenomenon. I was intigued by it and wanted to learn more. I saw Vigay
at
> > a conference and was most disappointed with his theories as clearly they
> > were based more on wishful thinking than real science. I took Vigay on
> > with his claims regarding his rf measurements (a subject which I am an
> > expert in) in this newsgroup. He would not answer specifics and would
> > ignore the more challenging questions completely. This was the very
same
> > guy who was introduced at the conference as an expert in the field and
> > using computers to research the phenomenon. The one truth is that you
put
> > garbage into a computer you get garbage out.
>
the
> sand and spreading disinformation. I've given specifics a number of times
on
> the exact serial numbers/model numbers etc of all the equipment I use.
I've
> also published results and shown exact graphs of measurements at
conferences
> so I presume you are just trying to muddy the waters along with the rest
of
> the hoaxers!
> --
Paul-
Your measurements show absolutely nothing. That device you use is an rf
sniffer and are generally use for locating localised rf noise on PCBs. They
are broadband devices and do not measure specific frequencies. You have to
take measurements made with them with a pinch of salt. They do allow
circuit designers to locate which chip is emitting, maybe. The trouble with
these devices are that it depends so much on the way they are held and
operated as to what they pick-up. You can pass these devices over the same
rf source and get very different results, fact!.
I'm no hoaxer, just someone who was very interested in the subject at the
beginning. As I conducted my own research on the subject in more detail I
found very serious flaws in data collection and just generally poor
scientific methodology amongst the so called experts. So you have to ask
who is actually doing the hoaxing?
Vol
Twonky
> snip
>
> >
> > Come on will ya, everyone believes in something. Like you believe
> > in yourself, and the mainstream media. Oh almighty hoaxing
> > jackass.
> > >
>
> Insult instead of answer = insecurity. Look it up if you don't
> believe me.
Believe you? Please stop.
>
> > > > > >
>
> snip
>
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> Why real-time? If you're syaing it would take longer than one night,
> do you think people wouldn't notice a half-finished circle left in
> the daylight to be finished the next night?
Of course they would. They can't do the humanly impossible, in the
time they claim.
>
<<<SNIP>>>.
> >
>
> AFAIK, four of my circles have been authenticated unanimously,
> others are in dispute. Maybe I couldn't reconstruct the one you
> want, but that doesn't mean no-one could. I can't do magic,
> but I don't believe Paul Daniels is an alien.
That's right, Paul Daniels isn't an alien, so he couldn't construct
them either. If you or he are claiming the humanly to construct
markings, then prove it. Re-construction in public.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > What is so doomsday about the reality of extraterrestrials. It may
> > be doomsday for you, and organized religion, and mainstream media,
> > and governments, but not for me.
>
> Sure, it would be arrogant to believe earth is the only planet with
> life in the almost infinite universe, but coming here to 'squish
> corn'?
> And the bit about 'warning us subtly, without causing panic' is just
> simple 'I've made the UFO's are coming lie work, now, what can
> I use as a believable motive?' tactics as used in any playground.
You, all by yourself put forth the UFO lie? Are you Jim Schnabel?
That goon with the light in the balloon. Deceive and destroy.
You're all done pal.
Christ Jesus...they are not here just to squish corn. You are here to
do that. "They" are the real artists. The markings are their
signatures.
>
> > Not quite a billboard street-preacher, more like a NewsGroup
> > groupy. Here to straighten you guys out. Have to make you realize
> > we are not all sitting with mouth wide open ready to be spoon fed
> > your bullshit.
>
> From whence the bullshit springs is a matter of opinion.
Springs from you....in my opinion.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > Just voodoo dolls, and pins. So what. What are you implying?
> > I can't make a few dollars off the markings? Why not?
>
> No, no, go for it. Just don't be expecting me to have horrible
> stomach pains when you jab the doll of me.
Head pains dear boy....head pains. And excruciating pain in your
hoaxing feet, legs, hands, and arms.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> Explain how making a circle that fools the 'experts' doesn't lend
> credence to the theory that all circles are hoaxed? It certainly
> doesn't prove it
> outright, but it lends credence... unless of course you are choising
> your evidence again.
Who are the experts you're fooling? Everybody's a friggin expert.
Sight unseen, I suppose. Investigation by 2d pic?
>
> > The only thing that would lend
> > credence is, if you could re-construct the largest claim to date.
> > Not one of your zip file constructions.
> > Some of them are unhoaxable. Humanly impossible to achieve.
>
> Not so. If I had a lifetime of practice, I could not paint like the
> masters, that doesn't mean the masters are painted by aliens.
> Just you couldn't do it & I can't do it, doesn't mean nobody can.
Gee...that's too bad. I could, with a lifetime of practice.
Ii is humanly impossible to do, when you're talking the markings
in the fields versus the drawings on paper. You can draw or paint
anything, but that doesn't mean you can construct what you put
on paper or canvas. Transferring it to reality, the canvas of grain,
is a different story. It's not a few swipes of a pen, or strokes of a
brush. With your "philosophy" anything you can put on paper,
you can construct.
Let me see you bring your artistry to life. Have you looked at the
Sri Yantra? How do you like it? Niiiiiiiiiice job huh? That has to be
extraterrestrial in origin. It just appeared one night. On guarded
land, inaccessible to the public. That's your true test re-construct
that. Line for line, and size. The baseball cap sighting device ought
to get a workout.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > Real time only though. Then we'll see who makes lying and
> > deception enjoyable. I would really enjoy watching you
> > re-construct the marking
> > I choose. In front of a live audience. Huffing and puffing your
> > way to infamy.
>
> Yeah, I'm sure you would. How much would you enjoy a challenge
> that you wouldn't win before you started? Like I said, I'll
> re-create mine, that's all i can offer to anyone.
No thank you. Unless you do it for the world to see.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > > People can offer me kaka, I choose whether to beleive it or not.
> >
> > Exactly my point. I don't believe your kaka. And I'm not a
> > hypocrite like you and Ms Clinton, aka the butt of butter.
> >
>
> Fine, you don't have to believe, just as long as you don't go around
> saying I've never offered any proof of what I say.
You haven't. You want to prove it from under your rock. Slither
into the light, you snake.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> >
> > Yes it does....absolutely. If you can't construct them, then they
> > can't either. It doesn't take a genius to flatten wheat...with a
> > plank.
> >
>
> Bollocks. "I can't do magic, so Paul Daniels is obviously an alien".
> That's an exact parallel of what you are saying, so, you agree with
> that, or you want to back down?
No I'm not saying he is an alien. I am saying he is a liar if he
doesn't prove it, in public, in real time. That's all.
>
<<<SNIP>>>.
>
> > Okay then, I don't want to talk to you anymore. I need real dopes
> > on ropes. Masters of the 600-900 footers. Miracle workers who put
> > constructions well into fields with no tramlines, and make thin
> > 1-3 stalk wide rings. Thinner than a humans foot/feet.
>
> Fine. Be sure to tell everyone here next year which circles you
> think are hoaxed and which are 'genuine'. My 'pathetic useless'
> zipfiles will be here waiting to make an arse of you.
You already have made an ass out of me, haven't you? With the
Sri Yantra, and the three arm Julia, and that 800 footer?
Hell of a job. And me thinking they're extraterrestrial in origin.
Why do you even bother with me if I say such stupid things.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > No because two or three hoaxers can't do an extraordinarily
> > complex construction. What with the weaving of layers, swirled
> > in differing directions, bent, not broken. Very time consuming.
> > How do they do it? I'm sure you'll tell me.
>
> two or three? Why the limit, is there an International Hoaxing
> Commission I was previously unaware of? As for construction
> effects, they are a product
> of the common stomping method, and yes, I *will* prove that next
> year.
Yeah it's called Team Satan. They have a "towering command
center" in London somewhere. Just go to their site. They'll tell
you all about their "network".
Genetic changes? Blown nodes? You use a microwave oven? Bent
not broken stalks?
Like the Boston Red Sox....wait until next year. Is that a threat or
a promise?
Two or three. That's their doing not mine. It's always been that way.
No changing the rules of the game. Two or three, in four hours, in
pitch dark.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > I'm ignoring your "evidence" because it doesn't address the issue
> > of size and complexity. I can roll around in a field also. But I
> > choose not too. I keep my art where it belongs.
>
> Complexity maybe, but you do not even know which designs I am
> claiming. Size, maybe there are 20 people in my team, how do
> you know? you've written
> us of before you've even asked. I hope you are not in any kind of
> research career.
Yup, research in melding scripture and science in a Deistic tone.
I don't need you asses screwing it up. So screw. Tell your boss
to stick it.
20 people? That many? A small army? What is this, war? YES! It is.
And I have the kingdom on my side. Just do it, or just shut up, and
stop claiming.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> >
> > Plenty. One is enough I should think. Just like one Sri Yantra.
>
> Don't know. Honest answer (rather than lieing around evidence that
> doesn't fit my theory), but then, I don't know how Paul Daniels
> makes people 'disappear', but I don't expect Greys have anything to
> do with it.
Evidence that doesn't fit your theory? It's probably all the evidence
that fits mine. All I need is for the truth about ET be told. And
then, watch out. Yes, the Sri Yantra is enough. Why isn't the
mainstream media focused on that marking? Because two boys
"dug" it out? Well...it wasn't dug out of the hardpan, it was pressed
into it. So two boys didn't "dig" it out. All they dug out is the
stupidity that so many people harbor. people who will believe
what those boys, and you say.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > Go to Paul Vigay's site. There are a lot of sites where you can
> > see this stuff. I had to look for it all so now you can go fish.
> >
>
> And you can extrapolate 3D information from a photograph can
> you? very clever.
No I can't, and neither can investigators. At least the serious ones.
I can judge size and relative complexity from a 2d pic, especially
when there is an "investigative report" with the pic.
Such as; The grain was braided and weaved throughout the marking,
and many layers swirled in different directions. The stalks are not
broken and have blown nodes. And this mother is 800 feet long.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > No. I never lost. Others threw the tantrum, as you are doing now.
>
> I have answered every one of your accusations, hardly the temper
> tantrum of avoiding the questions with insults that I am getting in
> return. And you never lost? perhaps you should read the psychology
> behind believing you have never lost a single fight in your life.
> Seriously, look it up, I think you'll find it interesting.
Not in the schoolyard. I was very good in school. There were
bullies who probably grew up to be hoaxers.
>
> snip
> >
> > And I told you, I don't want it. It doesn't serve my purpose,
> > which is to expose the dopes on ropes for the dopes they are.
>
> Any evidence should be useful in serving your purpose. Any eveidence
> you have would interest me, whether i believe it or not.
Yeah...nobody will claim and re-construct the markings you can't
construct. So they are my proof of extraterrestrial involvement.
Just like the Sri Yantra. You have to be really stupid not to see it.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > Because the constructions you put forth can be constructed, or you
> > wouldn't offer it up. I want a claimed marking that is humanly
> > impossible to re-construct, in "true" time. And there are plenty.
> > It's just that the claiments won't oblige me.
>
> I don't think any marking is impossible to reproduce,, and you
> saying that because I can't do it or you can't do it won't change
> my belief that someone else can.
Bring him/them on...please. I want a live demo.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > No. I weighed the evidence both pro and con, and went with the
> > most reasonable. It's called discernment. You hoaxing jackasses
> > lost hands down. No contest.
>
> Most reasonable? explain the reasoning that leads you to think that
> nobody else can do anything that you can't do.
I can't spread my arms and fly. I can't stick my elbow in my ear.
I can't lick my own............reasoning tells me, nobody else can
either. You can stick the board up your butt though.
The marking is to damn large and complex. It would take weeks
to construct.....okay? A "construction" company did a survey and
came up with that. Also it would cost thousands of dollars.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > Yeah...I noticed the improvement this year. Wait until next year
> > and see what you're going to claim.
>
> Certainly, zipfiles at the ready. If you don't want them, ignore
> them, other people round here welcome something real.
Zip files can be manipulated whether you have immediate control
or remote. As I said; you could have dozens of markings in one
zip file. Just give out the right password to unzip the marking of
your choice. It's called deception, not fooling somebody, but
deceiving somebody. You fool a friend with a whooppee cushion.
You don't deceive him to destroy his integrity. Which is your goal.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > It was quaint. Friggin or otherwise. I do need a break from the
> > crap that comes from people like you.
> > I rest my case also, on your shoulders. Prove to me that people
> > construct all markings or I will just go on going on. And I am
> > perfectly justified in my volition using common sense.
>
> OK, how's this?: I (with partner) can construct a circle of X
> complexity. Since I am self-taught and with little practice it is
> safe
> to assume that another group can construct a circle that is more
> complex than mine. If my circle is half as complex as the best i
> have seen, then i can be certain beyond reasonable doubt that
> the most complex is also humanly created,
> albiet beyond my means.
Why is it safe to assume another group can make it. No one has
come forward. So they can't "make it". You can't use assumption
as evidence. I don't. I don't assume there are UFOs. I know there
are UFOs and ET.
Who is personally going to "look" at your circle. A hands on display.
Or is it only a photo op for you.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> >
> > Your offer, but no proof in your offer.
> >
>
> Either it prooves I hoaxed it or it prooves I'm psychic, take your
> pick.
Psycho is more like it. You don't have to prove you hoax your own.
I'm interested in the ones you can't hoax. Don't go to any trouble.
If you can't do it, then don't go claiming your brother can do it
either. Unless you can produce him.
>
> > My proof...........
> > Videos, films, and stills from years ago and up to Mexico City,
> > ongoing since 1991. STS48 shuttle video, it is not space ice.
> > You see, I don't believe every single UFO video, film, picture,
> > eyewitness reports are all hoaxes, balloons, space ice,
> > delusions, flares, Venus, swamp gas, headlights, reflections,
> > balloons, blimps, stars, natural phenomena. If they are, then
> > you better get video taped evidence out of our courts. Because
> > any video can be hoaxed. Just as the Rodney King, video taped
> > beating, could be a hoax. If I were one of those cops convicted by
> > the video tape, I would demand a new trial on the grounds of a
> > possible hoax.
> >
>
> And those have what to do with circles?
Extraterrestrials. Aren't you excited? The most profound thing to
happen since the creation of mankind. Time for re-think, nevermind
re-construction, because we'll know who the liars are.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > Yeah, you guys carry a lot of construction equipment into the
> > fields.
>
> Me personally (and partner), 2 stompers, 1 50 metre wire, nothing
> more.
Nothing more? Has to be magic. No way you're doing the Julia.
>
> > What about markings well into fields without tramlines? Nobody
> > seems to want to address that issue. And the thin rings, 1-3
> > stalks wide.
> >
> Dont' know, I'd like to explain it as much as the next person. Maybe
> you could help find out rather than just sit back on your alien
> conspiracy?
It's not an alien conspiracy, it's a government conspiracy. They stand
to lose the most. The rings are done with the same energy they use
to make the markings. They draw their sketch, copy and paste...to the
field. Rings and all. They have their sketches drawn up also.
>
> > BowWow and Chalkey claimed they jumped to make a grapeshot.
> > That would be 20 feet in distance with an arc of 11 feet, from a
> > standing, stationary position, and then, jumped back.
> > Nobody in the mainstream media called them on that little beauty.
>
> same again, your opinion?
It's not my opinion. It actually happened, they claimed they jumped.
They actually said that on international TV. You accept their
explanation I presume?
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > They "prove it" by claiming them all That's why the media ignores
> > the markings now, because they helped the 'dicks on sticks' to own
> > them all, in the eyes of the mindless lethargic that is. But a
> > frugal, enquiring, discerning mind like I possess, wants to know
> > the truth.
>
> Please do not use the words frugal, deiscerning or enquiring when
> reffering to someone who will refuse evidence that does not fit
> their own theories, whether it be youself or someone else.
Why? You do. You said it earlier...only if it fits your theory. It's
a normal thing to do. Use research that fits ones theory. I do.
The puzzle is going together real well. It would be better if you
jokers would stop mixing up the pieces.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> >
> > They do suck. Just keep on believing what you believe, I will be
> > much better off, and so will you.
>
> Deal. Just don't be saying you've explored all avenues if you refuse
> evidence.
I don't refuse evidence. I use the evidence that disproves the hoaxing
"theory". and that's all it is, is a theory. Just like mine, but mine
makes sense.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > > I don't see any differnece between someone who talks to the dead
> > > and someone who thinks circles in corn are not made by people
> > > with planks.
> >
> > My point exactly.
>
> Did you miss the 'not'?
Yes, I did....NOT!
My point is, she is a hypocrite and I am not. She talks to the dead,
but imp-lies I am nuts because I believe her guilt in WhiteWater just
because I believe in UFOs. So don't listen to us crackpots. It's
going to be glorious when the shit hits the fan, and splashes in her
face.
>
> > She is a hypocrite, and I am not.
> > Made with planks. How time consuming would that be for an 800
> > foot construction. Weaving, braiding, different layers swirled in
> > differing directions. Ooooo...lots of back breaking work. At
> > night,
> > no lights......mmmmmm....let me see the dopes on ropes
> > re-construct them. Real time, not zip file time.
>
> Construction - Incidental, no effort required
> Light - no problem, eyes adjust after approx 5/10 minutes
> Work - Well, weird hobby, but WTF, keeps us fit.
> Real-time - More people = same man-hours in less actual hours
>
> any more?
Yeah, how about rain? Hills where you can't see each other?
You must really think people are stupid. You are an insulting
SOB. It took fifteen people all night in the netherlands to make
a 600 footer. The English dopes on ropes do the same thing in
four hours with only two or three dopes on ropes. So they claim.
Step forward please.
>
> > >
> > > Both unsubstantiated, and both to the contrary of scientific
> > > knowledge.
> >
> > And so isn't your claim that all the crop markings are made with
> > planks.
>
> Yes.
Some are made with pure energy. Energy that could split this
planet in two. It's a good thing I don't have control over it.
>
> > Christ Jesus....what do think I am? Do you think I'm
> > as stupid as you, and would believe as you? Forget it. You're on
> > the losing side.
>
> I think that 90% of the public would dis-agree. True the public are
> mostly jaskasses, but still, what can we do?
Tell them the truth.
>
> > My claims aren't substantiated because those who
> > have the power to substantiate them just ignore the evidence that
> > does substantiate them.
>
> And that would be who? Greys, MIB's, T42?
No...the mainstream media, government, and organized religion.
>
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > Grey friends, Grey.
>
> My apologies, there is no need for racism in something as
> important as fantasy.
Fantasy? That's great. Can't wait to see your face. There are
going to be a lot of hurt feelings....but fark'em, they have their
chance to accept the inevitable.
>
> > I accept you dopes on ropes can construct some.
>
> Some? which? and why not all? where's the line? define it.
The Sri Yantra. Have you seen it yet? Just re-construct that in a
field. Or in a couple of fields.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> >
> > You are afraid of "being caught out". I'll plan it. You play by
> > the rules and re-construct it. Not yours....mine.
>
> Seeing as you're ao insistant, name your circle, I'll see about
> practicing
> in 2000, maybe by 2001 I could manage it. seriously, name one, I'll
> work on it.
The Sri Yantra, the three arm Julia. The 800 footer in Wiltshire.
That standing center ring, in mature, celery snapping stage, of
oil seed rape.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > Well this is one person you're not deceiving. I've got your lying
> > number. I think you are a real ass for doing what you do.
> > You should be a politician. They all lie with impunity also.
> > You and those like you, are going to get it. Get ready for your
> > roof jump....splat.
>
> I say what I say from personal experience, witnessed by others,
> something you can cannot claim with your conspiracy theory. I do
> not lie, I offer my opinion. Roof jump? nope, you're stuck with my
> spanner in your works for a few years yet.
All hoaxers lie. That's what makes you lying hoaxing donkeys.
A few years? You ain't got a few years.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> >
> > What proof are you offering? Nothing but more deception. Bring it
> > out in the open. Put it on the table for all to see.
>
> Open? posted here a week in advance of the formation. what's hidden
> about that.
I don't want a zip file hoaxer, hoaxing from under his rock. Slither
into the light. I'll lift that rock for you. That's my job. Expose the
liars and deceivers.
>
> > You guys are like
> > snakes. Hide under a rock and come out at night to slither around
> > in grain fields. Get a life will you? Doesn't your wife wonder
> > where you disappear to?
>
> Have a life thankyou, circles are not the be-all and end-all of my
> existance. My wife knows where i go too, thanks for asking.
Doesn't she worry about you? Is she privy to your prowess, or
do you deceive her too?
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > Yes, I can prove different
>
> You can proove?, go on.
With the stuff the mainstream media doesn't tell us about.
Just because they don't report something doesn't mean it
isn't happening, and visa versa. They lie to keep the status quo.
And to protect their hides and hiding.
>
> > ,with the stuff the mainstream media
> > doesn't tell us about. Just because they don't report something
> > doesn't mean it isn't happening, and visa versa.
>
> Wasn't that my point? Perhaps you should take five minutes out to
> reconstruct your belief system?
They report all hoaxes. They don't tell us anything about the serious
research. The stuff that makes one stand up and take notice.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> >
> > Well aren't you just the subtle little deceiver, congratulations.
> > Was it really your construction, or are you just claiming it? Do
> > you have a secret zip file proving it?
>
> Nope, didn't think of it till the other day, plus proving it was
> never much of a point until now. Next year though.
Wait until next year. Okay. I'm in no hurry. After all it's been over
ten-years of the "circus of wheat".
>
> > Geeezzzz...you dopes on ropes are
> > really trying. Reason and logic is your downfall. (For me anyway.)
>
> Excuse me? I answer your accusations with reasona nd logic, you
> ignore said logic and turn to insult.
What logic. That you want to hoax a marking secretly, rather than out
in the open? What is so illogical about wanting to see you bozos prove
your claim, for all the markings. Small and humungous, simple and
complex floor lay. You do the small, now all I need is someone to
construct the large.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> >
> > No, I'm not stupid enough to go out in a field of grain to squash
> > out messy designs in fields by stomping, breaking and
> > squashing plants.
>
> you said earlier you had created a circle, now you say you didn't?
> or are you saying you have a method other than the stomper?
I never said I constructed a marking. I would never do anything so
stupid.
>
> > Talk to my partner? With a walkie talkie I guess. But the
> > transmission could be picked up by anyone with a high speed
> > scanner. Ohoh..caught.
>
> I don't think you have tried it. If you had you'd know you need no
> communication other than voice, it's quite out there at 2am you know
:)
How? When you're a couple of hundred feet away from the other dope
on a rope? Do you have cans you secure to the ends of the rope.
Do you use "phone on a string?" A canaphone?
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > Yeah, the single arm Julia by stonehenge, "witnessed" by a pilot.
> > Flew to his destination and it wasn't there, flew from his
> > destination, forty-five minutes later, and there it was. Want to
> > hear
> > something silly? I beleive him. It stands to reason the markings
> > would just appear, and are not constructed. Do you think hoaxers
> > actually constructed that marking in forty-five minutes, in broad
> > daylight?
> >
> No I don't, I think they made it the night before and the pilot was
> mistaken or is lying. Stands to reason? what reason? justify that
> statement.
Right, mistaken or lying. Of course. Well I don't think either of
those. He is a pilot who has flown that route many times.
He knows "the lay of the land". If I believe he is telling the
truth, then I choose to use his "witnessing", and am certainly right
in saying the markings just appear. Prove they don't. I have a pilot
who says they do. And other eyewitnesses to other markings.
The mainstream media keeps waaaaaaaaaaay away from them.
You won't see them on TDC, The Deception Channel's crop
circle hoaxing shows. .
>
> > Okay....you re-construct it, in forty-five minutes.
>
> If you can prove it was done in 45 minutes sure. And no, lone
> testimony doesn't count, after all, you don't accept my lone
> testimony, why should i excpet yours?
It's not mine, it's a pilots, an eyewitness, to an extraordinary
event. Right in line with the characteristics of the markings.
I think the pilot was telling the truth. Again, I choose to believe
him.
>
> >
> > The only way you dopes on ropes can construct a marking in
> > forty-five
> > minutes is on the TV, for NBC, TDC, A&E, TLC, NOVA, CNN....etc..,
> > minus commercials. All liberal media of course.
>
> AFAIK, none of them claimed to be that quick.
They sure look like it...on the TV...minus commercials.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > They're not coming for me, they're already here. I'm coming for
> > you and the likes of you though.
> >
> In your spaceship? no chance, I'd see the strobe before you got
> here.
I don't have a spaceship. Is there such a thing? Aren't they all
hoaxes, hallucinations. I'll come after you in my 85 Honda LX.
No strobes, just loose blinking headlights. Will you buy me a new
car when you become a famous hoaxer?
>
> Oh, and spare us all the bandwidth of downloading your monster
> ego-masterbating signature next time please, real men only need one
> line. :)
Maybe I'm not a real man. I have a lot to say.
And I'll post whatever signature I want.
I'm not going to spare the bandwidth, nor the 1-3 stalk width
of the rings. I want to see you construct some of those, with a
standing center.
>
> -Mid.
>
Twonky...who is the light, and the middle finger of the God who
bends the light. ,,|,,
Bending light? Sounds like science to me.
If you want to see things change, then change the way you see
things.
Ignore the truth, and perpetuate the lie.
>
Twonky
> Snippety snip snip
Snippety doo daa snippety ay, are you gonna make a marking
today? Plenty of darkness coming your way, snippety to you,
snippety they.
The crop circle machine. You don't know about it? Neither did
I, until I stumbled upon it. Now you can get directly there from here.
Go to the meta search engine "Ask Jeeves". Type in; Where can I
find a crop circle hoaxing machine?" And it will come up in Excite,
first of 8 matches. Looks kind of cumbersome. You dopes on ropes
actually use someting like that? For all the markings? Bower and
Chorley must be turning over in their graves. The markings really
haven't improved over what BowWow and Chalkey constructed.
>
Twonky....who knows hoaxers suck, lie, and deceive.
HEY JIM, GOD IS WATCHING YOU! ,,|,, Just for you Jimmy.
Twonky
PAN
found very serious flaws in data collection and just generally poor
scientific methodology amongst the so called experts. So you have to ask
who is actually doing the hoaxing?
Now that is an interesting spin on the subject, I wonder if I can make any
money out of exposing the experts as the hoaxers...mmm...maybe a book is in
the pipeline...Hoaxed Hoaxes and the Hoaxing Hoaxers - the history of Hoaxed
Hoaxes and the Hoaxing Hoaxers.
Twonky
> In article <80ivu4$j87$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>, Twonky
> <URL:mailto:two...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > Not enough investigation!!?? What the hell are you talking about?
> > Everytime the mainstream media does a crop-circle hoax show,
> > they give the serious researchers two minutes. Ask Paul V,
> > about his interviews on TDC, aka The Deception Channel.
> > The interview with Colin Andrews lasted hours, and they gave
> > him two friggin minutes....if that much. So don't give me, "not
> > enough investigation," that's bull. It's there, but the mainstream
> > media ignores it. They intentionally ignore it. Why would they
> > do that? I know why, because I'm right, and they can't handle
> > that. It's a vast conspiracy against us.
>
> interviewed) is that they take what you say out of context and then
> re-edit it in order to try to discredit you. Therefore I word my
> answers to questions very tightly, and go straight onto the
> next point, being careful not to allow any leeway for later editing
> or manipulation.
No matter how careful you are, the snake will deceive you. I've
seen the "finshed interviews" with serious researchers, and
the interview, and the interviewers.......suck!
They want nothing to do with you. Nothing to do with serious
research. It's their patsies they were interested in. The hoaxing,
joking, duped dopes on ropes, who would unwittingly make
themselves out as fools, dancing jesters, for God and country.
(Right Mr Schnabel? You believe in satan...correct?)
Boy...were you guys taken in. You are nothing but; duped, circle
jerking plank wanks.
Do you notice the mainstream media are not investing in "Crop
Circle Hoaxing Shows" anymore? They reached their goal. To take
the markings out of the public's eyes, mind, and spirit, to keep them
stupid. Yup....goal acheived. And now one has to deal with the
residual crap. Messy, but pretty easy to clean up. Seeing as their
sugar daddy mainstream media has left them high and dry.
Left them, to their own devices.....a crop-circle hoaxing machine???
>
> Of course, if the media only want to work to their own agenda by
> cutting out of context, this makes for a very short end result.
> Most interviews I've done for TV or radio are generally at least
> 20-30 minutes long, but usually cut much shorter. It's only the
> genuinely open-minded and unbiased stations which will
> broadcast longer interviews.
Thanks Paul. I hope Mid-Idiot reads your posts. You aren't
going to oblige him in his dumb idea, are you? I would keep
as far away as possible from him. He's poison.
>
Twonky....in the light, and the middle finger, of the God who
bends the light. The God who hears and sees in secret....
Bending light? Sounds like science to me.
Middle finger? Only when our Father is pissed. And boy, is
He ever. That's why He sent ,,|,, to you asses. To expose
the liar.
HEY JIM.......GOD IS WATCHING YOU! ,,|,,
He wants to see you, and Rob Irving re-construct the three
arm Julia, in public, in real time, adhereing to your own rules.
The rules you violated while in the bosom of mainstream
media. They are, no more concerned with you. You served
your purpose, and now they abandoned you. I told you so...
I'm just getting started with you. Now it's the beginning of
the end for the likes of you, and Mr Mid, the baby (Zip File)
hoaxer. Pip pip for the Zip!
,,|,, ,,|,, ,,|,, ,,|,, ,,|,, ,,|,, ,,|,, ,,|,, ,,|,, ,,|,, ,,|,,
Twonky
>
> > > Are you implying that you are a serious researcher? I sincerely
> > > hope not.
> >
> > Not at all. I follow and use results of serious research.
> > Are 'you' implying that you are a serious researcher? I sincerely
> > hope not.
> > >
> Nope, merely interested.
Yeah! Sure! Interested in serious research?
>
> > > > Hoaxers have sliced their own throats.
> > > > They wrote books on the subject. I never read one,
> > >
> > > Well lordy rest-a my case. Maybe within those pages is the
> > > answer you never conceived, something that would just click into
> > > place and change your mind.
> >
> > The dopes on ropes have no surprises for me, but I have for them.
> > They got their book contracts as a benefit working/jerking for the
> > mainstream media. They write lies
>
> You said you'd never read the books, how can you justify 'knowing'
> that?
Because I see how the mainstream media handles them. The
direction, and guidance the dopes on ropes receive from the
mainstream media. Who do you think paid for that trip to New
Zealand?
>
> > , serious researchers write truth.
> > I found that out a long time ago....before there were any hoaxers,
> > famous or otherwise.
> > >
> > > You'll never be a serious researcher with a blinkered attitude
> > > like
> > > that. Than again, did you not say earlier you've never lost
> > > anything? did it never occur to you that you have, just that you
> > > never admit it?
> >
> > I've lost plenty, just not on the playground. And I'm not going to
> > lose to the likes of you and your ilk either.
> >
> > I wouldn't want to be a serious researcher in the crop-circle
> > 'fields', because all they do is get ridiculed by mainstream
> > media.
> > Mainstream media hates serious research on the subject. That's
> > why the Murdoch media introduced BowWow and Chalkey. The
> > master hoaxers, your mentors. Do you have pictures of them in your
> > living room or bedroom? Do you have any pictures of "the man
> > behind
> > the curtain", the instigator, the head snake, Mr. Jim Schnabel?
>
> Nope. Pictures of thier circles though. So what?
2d pictures? No hands on investigation? Stick'em.
>
> > >
> > > > but dollar to a
> > > > do-nut, they claimed them all. They have web sites devoted to
> > > > inspiring hoaxers on how to deceive sincere, serious
> > > > researchers.
> > >
> > > I'm not defending that, but it *is* in a public place, said
> > > researchers have
> > > as much access to it as hoaxers, if anything it would work to
> > > the
> > > researchers advantage, instead of one group of hoaxers knowing a
> > > particlur trick and researchers having to figure it out,
> > > everyone
> > > would know and no-one would be in the dark about it. Except you,
> > > of course, because you never read hoaxer's books etc, as you
> > > said above.
> >
> > Trick? Oh good. Now it's tricks. Yeah...pretty good trick those
> > thin
> > 1-3 stalk wide rings, and markings appearing in fields with no
> > tramlines.
>
> Yeah, maybe it is.
You believe in magic? Okay then, here goes a pin in your eye.
>
> > And oil seed rape flattened with the little yellow flower
> > still intact. Funny too, because those plants should have broken
> > when bent more than a few degrees. They snap like celery. Pretty
> > good trick to remove all the heads of wheat in a marking also,
> > (there has been some with missing heads.
>
> you tried squashing OSR? Tried it when it's pissing down? Spot the
> difference? Not a complete success maybe, but better.
Better than butter? Will you stop trying to sell yourself. You sound
like a whore.
>
> >Just like hoaxers heads are
> > missing, at least what should be inside is missing).
>
> Blah blah blah, Yakatee Smakatee. How many letters from Sir Clive
> Sinclair personally asking you to join Mensa have you had?
I passed the Mensa exam that qualified me to take the entrance
exam. But just qualifying is good enough for me. And you?
Got a letter from the New England Conservatory of Music, that
contained an application for entry. I was pre-approved. And you?
>
> > How about
> > markings in snow, on ice to thin to walk on. They're explained by
> > the "authorities" as caused by swamp gas. Now I have to discern
> > if swamp gas can construct geometrical shapes, repeatedly.
> > Perfect circles with rings? I'll have to think about it.
>
> Don't know, bird shit for all I care. Flattened corn is my game.
Right...bird shit, for a bird turd mind. Oh...don't think about it.
You may come down with a migraine.
>
> >
> > All I want is for someone, some hoaxing donkey to prove what the
> > brotherhood of hoaxing jackasses claim. Their largest construction
> > to date. Until then, knock it off with your stupid offer.
>
> I knocked it off with my offer to you a long time ago, now I only
> gloat
> about the evidence you turned down because you're afraid of what it
> would do
> to your theory, I'm not offering it to you.
And to you also. I don't make up my evidence. It's there,
if you want to find it. I looked at everything you're offering.
Before you ever offered it.
>
> > Drop it
> > already, and be assured in knowing that I am right.
>
> You are right? Without evidence? Sounds about right.
Well...you should get some evidence. I have plenty.
>
> > >
> > > > Probably in their 'books' also. (Instructions for
> > > > constructions of
> > > > destructions.) Destruction in more ways than one.
> > > >
> > > > As you can guess, I'm pretty passionate about this stuff.
> > >
> > > To passionate to view objectively perhaps?
> >
> > Not really. I've been at this for a long time. I've weighed both
> > sides
>
> Weighed? Your scales were biased with pre-conception.
No they're not. I've been looking at this stuff for years. You're
a late comer. A baby hoaxer, who thinks he's an adult hoaxer.
Going to give us...what for!
>
> > and as I said to you before, reason and logic won out.
>
> I would very much like to see your reasoning and logic abilities
> tested in public.
Well then, get out there in public and re-construct the Sri Yantra.
>
> > That means
> > you hoaxing jackasses lost, hands down. Long before you ever
> > made your first construction.
> >
> Really? That's why my circles are pronounced 'genuine'? Most of them
> at any rate.
By who? And how? 2d pictures? Don't get so bloated with pride.
>
> > There is nothing more for you to prove. Hoaxers own them all (in
> > fiction). I'm here to prove they don't, in reality.
>
> You keep saying proof without actually showing any. Gonna fix
> that any time soon, or just rant some more? 'You gonna bark all
> day little doggy, or are you gonna bite?' as Mr. Blonde put it.
Just look at research on UFOs and crop markings. Look at the
stuff the mainstream media won't show and tell you.
>
> >The world "knows"
> > they are all hoaxes, so why do you bother with me?
>
> You keep answering my questions with insults to avoid explaining
> yourself for one thing.
You are evasive, not me. I bring up points that are never addressed.
Whatever you can't do, your (non-existent) brother can do. That
crap doesn't wash with me.
>
> >Am I a threat
> > to the lie?
>
> What lie? Try specifics, not vague 'they're coming to take me away,
> haha' mumblings.
The lie you are tryiing to pull. The lie the mainstream media pulls,
that every piece of evidence for the existence of UFOs is
non-existent. All crop-markings are hoaxes. Those lies.
>
> >The government, mainstream media, and organized
> > religion all teach the hoax theory of crop-circles and UFOs. So if
> > they are all accepted by the lethargic of the world as hoaxed,
> > what's your problem with me? I'm just a lonely voice in the
> > wilderness. (A very pissed off voice I might add.)
> >
> My problem with you is you don't seem to need any evidence to proove
> your
> point, a very unique talent, except, of course, for politicians.
I have all the evidence I need. You are to dense to have any
evidence. And you want everyone to be the same way.
>
> > How about that "security" tape taken outside the Minister of
> > Defences' residence? Why the hell can't we get that, and make it
> > public? That would be solid, indisputable evidence of lying, and
> > deception by the mainstream media, all of their mouthpieces,
> > and everyone of their hoaxing donkeys.
>
> More likely he was buggering goats or something.
It's a fact, the tape exists. Now live with that. And you say
I answer with insults. FAR Q 2.
>
> > The fact that the video exists
> > at all, is proof enough for me
>
> What, without seeing it? very perceptive.
It exists, and they won't let the public see it. Why not?
Because it would kill people like you, and vindicate me.
The farking tape exists. The event happened, and you're not
going to change it. You can't change history you pompous
ass.
>
> > that the markings, which are clearly
> > humanly impossible to duplicate,
>
> Not clearly, no. There's the rub. You want to prove it, go right
> ahead.
Clearly...very clear. You're the one who claims. You do it.
Get out there and re-construct the Sri Yantra.
>
> > e real, that they appear,
>
> Where does 'appearing'come from? What proof have you that they
> appear?
There are eye witnesses who have seen them appear. And how
about that pilot? There are videos of lights floating through the
grain.
>
> > they
> > are not constructed by people. The "construct", of the
> > "construction",
> > of the "constructed" ones, is tell tale of, beware; "a liar was
> > here".
>
> >
> > When 'serious' researchers asked the MoD if the public could
> > view the tape, the response was, no way, uh uh. But 'we' will tell
> > you; People didn't make it, it was an airborne event/element.
> > Which to those who think like you, airborne means the wind.
>
> Airborne means 'in the air', which logically rules out the air
> itself.
The wind is in the air.
So you admit, just as the MoD did, something extraordinary is
on that tape. Let us see it..you bunch of asses.
They won't show it to the public, and that doesn't make you
suspicious? Boy you are a dope on a rope. I wish you were
hanging from it. You just might in the near future.
>
> > The wind couldn't have constructed that marking. So now, what am
> > I to believe? Who am I to believe? How do I discern that little
> > episode in the ongoing saga? I think you know.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > -Mid
> >
> > >
> > Twonky....the middle finger of God ,,|,,
> >
>
> -Mid
>
Twonky.....in the light, and the middle finger, of the
God who bends the light. ,,|,,
HEY JIM.....GOD IS WATCHING YOU. ,,|,,
You too Mid-Idiot ,,|,,
townes de wombat
You and Twonks could write it together. Question is though what would happen if
the book ended up being exposed as a hoax ? The hoaxing hoaxed history of hoaxed
hoaxes and hoaxed hoaxing hoaxers ?
==========================================
High Wombat and Spiritual Advisor - AGM
1522 in the Legion of the Damned.
A proud republican and a disgusted Australian.
============================================================
Point my arse to the window,
Wide the shutters fling,
Cos I'm gonna fart the chorus,
When they play God save the King. (Jon Hepworth)
============================================================
Twonky
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> In article <7vj7e2$i17$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>, Twonky
> <two...@mindspring.com> writes
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> 1. NEWSHAWK, 10/31/99 1:14:27 PM Pacific Standard Time: Esoteric,
> ultra-classified technology such as "positron-ray" and particle beam
> systems are known to be active in this area: at Montauk Point /
> Brookhaven Labs, at Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod as well as on
> Block Island. Control over and access to these highly-advanced
> weapons systems does not necessarily remain with one group,
> but has been known to shift and change hands at times.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> So, twonks, what does it mean?
Listen to this. In the late 70s early 80s I had a C.B. (citizens band
radio). It had forty channels, but I could have it "fixed" to receive
"illegal" side band channels. To have this done, I brought the radio
to a shop in New Hampshire of wihch its owner was known to be an
avid HAM radio geek, and would "break the law" for me.
It was a "store front shop" loaded with radio equipment. I gave him
the radio, and we started talking. To make a long story short, during
the course of our, casual conversation, he told me that he, and some
others, heard the (private?) transmissions of the current shuttle
launch. He said the subject back and forth, shuttle to planet earth,
was about particle beam weaponry.
That could mean the "streak" coming from the shuttle STS48 isn't
a retro blast, as Oberg claims. One reason for it not being a
retro blast is there is no change in the shuttles attitude. It could
be the technology that was being developed back then. Particle
beam weaponry. As was suggested by a physicist, who is not
just an author, but a physicist. He doesn't believe the "space ice"
poop either.
Just like in 1988 the device for screwing with the jet
stream/weather. That "they" would never build.
STS48...using particle beam weaponry to try and shoot down
the little Greys transportation machines? Watch that video and
see what mockery the greys made of our "new" technology.
Watch how they break our laws of physics. It is not space ice
Mr. BozOberg!
And how stupid they make all the skeptics look. See above.
>
> A cock-up? Sabotage? Subterfuge? A means to financial
> extraction?
Playing God. They have this technology and look what they do
with it, try to blow our littles buddies out of the sky. No wonder
they won't tell us about UFOs, and the truth about crop circles.
They try to kill those who make the markings appear.
Way to go little guys. You made them look like the asses they
are. Also when they chase your lights. Reminds me of my
kitty.
>
> Dr Paul
Hey Dr P, I'm seeing those anomalous chemcontrails in movies,
commercials, any public photographs lately. More and more,
showing those spooky contrails.
I was watching a movie made in England, I think it was the
Avengers. There they were. That's not the only one I've seen
them in.
Mainstream media, please ask them, What are they doing up
there? Yeah! Sure!
>
Twonky.....in the light, and the middle finger, of God ,,|,,
It's a new age, the dawning of the age of Aquarius.
Are you ready world?
Vote for Twonky in Y2k. Lets take care of the kookasses!
Just write me in two...@mindspring.com
HEY JIM.....GOD IS WATCHING YOU! ,,|,,
It's the God of hosts....stupid! ,,|,,
Paul Whitehead
<townes42...@hotmail.com> writes
>On Sun, 14 Nov 1999 16:01:12 -0000, "PAN" <p...@earth.com> wrote:
>
>>As I conducted my own research on the subject in more detail I
>>found very serious flaws in data collection and just generally poor
>>scientific methodology amongst the so called experts. So you have to ask
>>who is actually doing the hoaxing?
>>
>>Now that is an interesting spin on the subject, I wonder if I can make any
>>money out of exposing the experts as the hoaxers...mmm...maybe a book is in
>>the pipeline...Hoaxed Hoaxes and the Hoaxing Hoaxers - the history of Hoaxed
>>Hoaxes and the Hoaxing Hoaxers.
>>
>>
>You and Twonks could write it together. Question is though what would happen if
>the book ended up being exposed as a hoax ? The hoaxing hoaxed history of hoaxed
>hoaxes and hoaxed hoaxing hoaxers ?
If they did write it together, even that hoax would be a hoax.
Dr P
Twonky
,,|,, Wot no answer? You've posted since this was written.
,,|,, Am I to assume you
,,|,, can't defende against these allegations?
You ass(sume) whatever you want.
Yeah...you'll get an answer. It's just that I have a life, and so
many posts to reply to, I'm finding I don't have enough time for
the trivial posts such as yours.
I actually have a job I have to go to. I can't stay on the NG 24/7,
as you do. I'll answer it....don't worry your little hoaxing brain.
I've downloaded your brilliant rejoinder and will get to it when
I'm good and goddamned ready. Which will be about 2am,
tomorrow morning.
When I'm hurried, I make spelling errors...like you do all the time.
You should slow down.
>
Twonky...who has duties and obligations and can't play
with hoaxing dopes on ropes all day long. ,,|,,
Twonky...in the light, and the middle finger, of God! ,,|,,
HEY JIM......GOD IS WATCHING YOU! ,,|,,
It's the God of hosts...stupid! ,,|,,
Volcane
> Erm, nope. Not the device I use. It's designed for detecting RF emissions
> from radio transmitters and bugging devices - not for localised PCB
emissions
> from ICs or electronic components.
>
> I use the device to see if anything anomalous occurs on the meter. It's a
> rough way to detect if anything 'interesting' is in the vicinity. If I get
a
> reading that warrants further investigation I have a hi-gain electronic
> receiver which I can actually tune into the 'exact' frequency to see if
> anything is being actually transmitted at specific frequencies. It's
> effectively a computer controlled digital radio scanner - comes in handy
to
> eavesdrop on local transmitters such as nearby helicopters, planes, CB
> radios, walky-talkies etc as well. :-)
>
You've upgraded then. LOL
> > I'm no hoaxer, just someone who was very interested in the subject at
the
> > beginning. As I conducted my own research on the subject in more detail
I
> > found very serious flaws in data collection and just generally poor
> > scientific methodology amongst the so called experts. So you have to
ask
> > who is actually doing the hoaxing?
>
> So how would you explain a generic background RF signal of say 200MHz on
the
> display, suddenly jumping 100% or 200% to say, 500MHz when you enter a
> formation, only to drop again when you emerge the other side. Sure you can
> get fluctuating readings in different areas and under different
atmospheric
> conditions but to get a sudden, sharp jump in the display requires further
> measuring in my view.
>
Its clear to me and anyother EMC expert from you answer above you haven't
got a 'kin clue as to what you are measuring. Its my firm belief that the
device you are using is ill suited to the type of measurement or more
properly the investigation you are trying to conduct.
You need to look at a wide band view of the electromagnetic environment. We
generally make measurement from 150kHz - 2 GHz. I would suggest that you
look to do the same as going lower and any higher will be very expensive.
Do not use a spectrum analyser, they are not designed for this type of
measurement. They can be susceptible to IF overload which can result in
spurious measurements but more worryingly you won't even know its happening.
You need a RF Test Receiver to make the measurements, these devices have a
travelling notch filter (which generally have a definable BW) which prevents
input overload. You can get a similar system to bold onto a spectrum
analyser called a pre-selector but by the time you've bought that as well as
the SA you could have got yourself a Receiver.
You will then need suitable antennae, such as a Bilog (30 MHz - 1 GHz) and
software to control the TR and also to normalise the measurement data to
remove the effects of cable attenuation and antenna factors. It will not be
cheap.
There is only one way to make rf measurements and that's methodically. It
cannot be done with hand held devices as the body and the relative positions
of the antenna to body and antenna to ground will perturb your results to
make them entirely unreliable. Its very difficult to make reliable
measurements in a controlled labratory environment and its an order of
magnitude more difficult in the field or for that matter in a field!
> If there is a serious flaw, then by all means point it out and I'll bear
it
> in mind next year when I do my measurements - in any case, we're hoping to
> put some of the Rockefeller money to good use by getting better and more
> sensitive equipment for next year.
> --
I've no idea how much Rockefeller dosh you have but rf measurements don't
come cheap, yuo're probably looking at £25-£30K to make quality
measurements. Its not surprising you are seeing bizzare results as you
don't appear to have any control over the way you make them. Were you
moving when you were making the measurements? Was the device always
positioned at the same height above ground? Was the device held exactly the
distance away from you? How was the device configured, to look for the max
peak frequenct? And finally do you have any pictures as proof that could be
sent in a passworded Zip file for verification to me?
Volcane
MidNyte[UC]
Volcane <Hidd...@protect.the.guilty> wrote in message
news:80k57d$9nj$1...@nclient11-gui.server.virgin.net...
>
> MidNyte[UC] <midny...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:80jo96$g56$1...@nclient15-gui.server.virgin.net...
> > can't defende against these allegations?
> >
> >
>
do
> manage to engage in a meaningful debate (like you've been trying) you get
> nothing other than generic answers back. If you do back them into a
corner
> don't be surprised not to get an answer at all.
>
this.
> I came to this group many years ago looking for answers to the crop-circle
> phenomenon. I was intigued by it and wanted to learn more. I saw Vigay
at
> a conference and was most disappointed with his theories as clearly they
> were based more on wishful thinking than real science. I took Vigay on
with
> his claims regarding his rf measurements (a subject which I am an expert
in)
> in this newsgroup. He would not answer specifics and would ignore the
more
> challenging questions completely. This was the very same guy who was
> introduced at the conference as an expert in the field and using computers
> to research the phenomenon. The one truth is that you put garbage into a
> computer you get garbage out.
>
I'll hear him out though, I want to get to the bottom of the anomolies :)
Have you ever witnessed any of these RF anomolies for yourself?
> I am totally convinced its clever and artistic people that create the
> patterns.
>
> It must be a crack to find pictures of one of your creations on the
Internet
> as an actual verified absolutely no question generated by aliens
> crop-circle. If that's not fun enough waiting for it to be named must be
a
> bigger crease-up, Yi Santra for fuck's sake!!
>
Heh, some of the names, bah! :) Sri Yantra/Yi Santra/whatever was a known
pattern though.
MidNyte[UC]
> specific
> > > formations - so I don't personally know why they bother admitting to
> > 'any'.
> > > --
> >
> > I will, I am just working on PIC who is not so convinced. Besides,
> none of
> > them are proovable, we never thought we'd have to :)
> >
> > -Mid
> Ok then, lets keep it generic. Can you tell us the area you operate in.
> Is it Hampshire, Wiltshire, Avebury area or what?
>
> Wanderman
Ok, Hampshire every one. We're not worthy of Wiltshire yet :)
And the pastry cutter was one of ours, as you could tell from the posting of
the snippet of Lucy Pringle's book I posted earlier.
-Mid
MidNyte[UC]
> The crop circle machine. You don't know about it? Neither did
> I, until I stumbled upon it. Now you can get directly there from here.
>
> Go to the meta search engine "Ask Jeeves". Type in; Where can I
> find a crop circle hoaxing machine?" And it will come up in Excite,
> first of 8 matches. Looks kind of cumbersome. You dopes on ropes
> actually use someting like that? For all the markings? Bower and
> Chorley must be turning over in their graves. The markings really
> haven't improved over what BowWow and Chalkey constructed.
>
> >
> Twonky....who knows hoaxers suck, lie, and deceive.
>
>
This one?
http://www.dolomite.ndirect.co.uk/weirdwilts/cerealodyssey/hoaxmach.html
This is what I expect from you twonks, you know damn well some readers won't
know what that is. For those readers who don't know, it's what farmers tow
around the field after the combine harvester to get the straw that's left
into one line for a bailer to turn into bails. The upright bits fold down.
Sorry to spoil your fun, Twonks.
-Mid
MidNyte[UC]
> > Not enough investigation!!?? What the hell are you talking about?
Twonks: something completely different actually, go re-read :)
>
> The problem with the media (and something I'm very wary of when I'm
> interviewed) is that they take what you say out of context and then
re-edit
> it in order to try to discredit you. Therefore I word my answers to
questions
> very tightly, and go straight onto the next point, being careful not to
allow
> any leeway for later editing or manipulation.
>
> Of course, if the media only want to work to their own agenda by cutting
out
> of context, this makes for a very short end result. Most interviews I've
done
> for TV or radio are generally at least 20-30 minutes long, but usually cut
> much shorter. It's only the genuinely open-minded and unbiased stations
which
> will broadcast longer interviews.
>
Paul: just a suggestion, but how about putting a full explanation of
whatever you're talking about at the time on your site, with a great big
prominent link to it. Then try and get 'as it says in more details on my
site' or similar into every answer? maybe worth a go.
-Mid
MidNyte[UC]
Volc: Would you be prepared to lend a hand come next summer? or at least
give advice and look over any results and give your opinion?
Paul: Not that I'm trying to take over or anything :)
-Mid
MidNyte[UC]
> ,,|,, Am I to assume you
> ,,|,, can't defende against these allegations?
>
> You ass(sume) whatever you want.
>
> Yeah...you'll get an answer. It's just that I have a life, and so
> many posts to reply to, I'm finding I don't have enough time for
> the trivial posts such as yours.
>
> I actually have a job I have to go to. I can't stay on the NG 24/7,
> as you do. I'll answer it....don't worry your little hoaxing brain.
>
> I've downloaded your brilliant rejoinder and will get to it when
> I'm good and goddamned ready. Which will be about 2am,
> tomorrow morning.
Ok, no worries.
>
> When I'm hurried, I make spelling errors...like you do all the time.
> You should slow down.
>
And that makes me wrong? or was it just a passing cheap shot? has to be one
or the other to be present doesn't it?
MidNyte[UC]
Twonky <two...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:80mqve$n28$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> Paul Vigay <pvi...@cropcircleresearch.com> wrote in message
> news:ant14011...@Liberator.nom...
> > In article <80ivu4$j87$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>, Twonky
> > <URL:mailto:two...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > > they give the serious researchers two minutes. Ask Paul V,
> > > about his interviews on TDC, aka The Deception Channel.
> > > The interview with Colin Andrews lasted hours, and they gave
> > > him two friggin minutes....if that much. So don't give me, "not
> > > enough investigation," that's bull. It's there, but the mainstream
> > > media ignores it. They intentionally ignore it. Why would they
> > > do that? I know why, because I'm right, and they can't handle
> > > that. It's a vast conspiracy against us.
> >
> > interviewed) is that they take what you say out of context and then
> > re-edit it in order to try to discredit you. Therefore I word my
> > answers to questions very tightly, and go straight onto the
> > next point, being careful not to allow any leeway for later editing
> > or manipulation.
>
> seen the "finshed interviews" with serious researchers, and
> the interview, and the interviewers.......suck!
>
> They want nothing to do with you. Nothing to do with serious
> research. It's their patsies they were interested in. The hoaxing,
> joking, duped dopes on ropes, who would unwittingly make
> themselves out as fools, dancing jesters, for God and country.
> (Right Mr Schnabel? You believe in satan...correct?)
>
> Boy...were you guys taken in. You are nothing but; duped, circle
> jerking plank wanks.
>
> Do you notice the mainstream media are not investing in "Crop
> Circle Hoaxing Shows" anymore? They reached their goal. To take
> the markings out of the public's eyes, mind, and spirit, to keep them
> stupid. Yup....goal acheived. And now one has to deal with the
> residual crap. Messy, but pretty easy to clean up. Seeing as their
> sugar daddy mainstream media has left them high and dry.
> Left them, to their own devices.....a crop-circle hoaxing machine???
> >
> > cutting out of context, this makes for a very short end result.
> > Most interviews I've done for TV or radio are generally at least
> > 20-30 minutes long, but usually cut much shorter. It's only the
> > genuinely open-minded and unbiased stations which will
> > broadcast longer interviews.
>
> going to oblige him in his dumb idea, are you? I would keep
> as far away as possible from him. He's poison.
Poison as in maybe we'll get lucky and find some connection between the
anomolies and the hoaxing methods? Poison as in that would help kill off
your alien theory? or poison as in defending my theories and ideas with
other than insult?
>
> >
> Twonky....in the light, and the middle finger, of the God who
> bends the light. The God who hears and sees in secret....
> Bending light? Sounds like science to me.
>
> Middle finger? Only when our Father is pissed. And boy, is
> He ever. That's why He sent ,,|,, to you asses. To expose
> the liar.
>
> HEY JIM.......GOD IS WATCHING YOU! ,,|,,
>
> He wants to see you, and Rob Irving re-construct the three
> arm Julia, in public, in real time, adhereing to your own rules.
> The rules you violated while in the bosom of mainstream
> media. They are, no more concerned with you. You served
> your purpose, and now they abandoned you. I told you so...
> I'm just getting started with you. Now it's the beginning of
> the end for the likes of you, and Mr Mid, the baby (Zip File)
> hoaxer. Pip pip for the Zip!
>
-Mid. Yes, Mid the baby zipfile hoaxer, none of my baby zipfiles are
genuine.
MidNyte[UC]
>
> MidNyte[UC] <midny...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:805dan$l3l$1...@nclient15-gui.server.virgin.net...
> > snip
> >
> > >
> > > Come on will ya, everyone believes in something. Like you believe
> > > in yourself, and the mainstream media. Oh almighty hoaxing
> > > jackass.
> > > >
> >
> > Insult instead of answer = insecurity. Look it up if you don't
> > believe me.
>
> Believe you? Please stop.
I'll take that as meaning you did look it up and are now trying to pretend
you weren't caught out shall I?
> >
> > > > > > >
> >
> > snip
> >
> >
> <<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > Why real-time? If you're syaing it would take longer than one night,
> > do you think people wouldn't notice a half-finished circle left in
> > the daylight to be finished the next night?
>
> Of course they would. They can't do the humanly impossible, in the
> time they claim.
That's my point, why do you insist it has to be real time if you can only
ever have one night (4-8 hours) to complete it? You've got your maximum time
taken right there, the only reason I see for a real time requirement is to
show it's not done over a week or so, but you've just confirmed that there's
no need for hoaxer's to prove that, they have 8 hours max.
> >
> <<<SNIP>>>.
> > >
> >
> > AFAIK, four of my circles have been authenticated unanimously,
> > others are in dispute. Maybe I couldn't reconstruct the one you
> > want, but that doesn't mean no-one could. I can't do magic,
> > but I don't believe Paul Daniels is an alien.
>
> That's right, Paul Daniels isn't an alien, so he couldn't construct
> them either. If you or he are claiming the humanly to construct
> markings, then prove it. Re-construction in public.
That's an analogy of what you are saying. You say 'I can't do it, no other
humans can, must be aliens'. Person in analogy says 'i can't do magic, no
other humans can, paul danials can though, so he's an alien.'
> >
> <<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > > What is so doomsday about the reality of extraterrestrials. It may
> > > be doomsday for you, and organized religion, and mainstream media,
> > > and governments, but not for me.
> >
> > Sure, it would be arrogant to believe earth is the only planet with
> > life in the almost infinite universe, but coming here to 'squish
> > corn'?
> > And the bit about 'warning us subtly, without causing panic' is just
> > simple 'I've made the UFO's are coming lie work, now, what can
> > I use as a believable motive?' tactics as used in any playground.
>
> You, all by yourself put forth the UFO lie? Are you Jim Schnabel?
> That goon with the light in the balloon. Deceive and destroy.
> You're all done pal.
That's not what I said. I'm saying that the reason most commonly given (in
my experience, not neccessarily statistically) for aliens etc making crop
circles is 'a subtle way of letting us know they're here, so we don't
panic'. My point is that sounds to me more like someone has come up with the
idea of aliens coming and doing circles, then needing a reason and coming up
with that as the best they could do. And no, I'm not Jim, for the third
time.
>
> Christ Jesus...they are not here just to squish corn. You are here to
> do that. "They" are the real artists. The markings are their
> signatures.
Explain that, I thought that you thought aliens made crop circles, the
aliens that are here. What I'm asking for is a bit of detail of your
beliefs. You drop bits in here and there, but you don't explain.
> >
> > > Not quite a billboard street-preacher, more like a NewsGroup
> > > groupy. Here to straighten you guys out. Have to make you realize
> > > we are not all sitting with mouth wide open ready to be spoon fed
> > > your bullshit.
> >
> > From whence the bullshit springs is a matter of opinion.
>
> Springs from you....in my opinion.
I think everyone reading knows your opinion, mine too.
> >
> <<<SNIP>>>
> > >
> > > Just voodoo dolls, and pins. So what. What are you implying?
> > > I can't make a few dollars off the markings? Why not?
> >
> > No, no, go for it. Just don't be expecting me to have horrible
> > stomach pains when you jab the doll of me.
>
> Head pains dear boy....head pains. And excruciating pain in your
> hoaxing feet, legs, hands, and arms.
Charmed I'm sure.
> >
> <<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > Explain how making a circle that fools the 'experts' doesn't lend
> > credence to the theory that all circles are hoaxed? It certainly
> > doesn't prove it
> > outright, but it lends credence... unless of course you are choising
> > your evidence again.
>
> Who are the experts you're fooling? Everybody's a friggin expert.
> Sight unseen, I suppose. Investigation by 2d pic?
How about each one of the sites that were linked to by the connector had at
least one circle of ours there with no indication that they thought it was a
hoax, and four of them that actually said 'unhoaxable' or 'genuine', or
compared them to a known hoax to demonstate the differences. Some of ours
were said to have a high proportion of bent stalks, when I know damn well
they didn't. Those experts. And why exactly do you suppose that people
wouldn't have investigated our circles on the ground? They do to most
eventually.
> >
> > > The only thing that would lend
> > > credence is, if you could re-construct the largest claim to date.
> > > Not one of your zip file constructions.
> > > Some of them are unhoaxable. Humanly impossible to achieve.
> >
> > Not so. If I had a lifetime of practice, I could not paint like the
> > masters, that doesn't mean the masters are painted by aliens.
> > Just you couldn't do it & I can't do it, doesn't mean nobody can.
>
> Gee...that's too bad. I could, with a lifetime of practice.
Really? I think the critics would see your work in a slightly less generous
light.
>
> Ii is humanly impossible to do, when you're talking the markings
> in the fields versus the drawings on paper. You can draw or paint
> anything, but that doesn't mean you can construct what you put
> on paper or canvas. Transferring it to reality, the canvas of grain,
> is a different story. It's not a few swipes of a pen, or strokes of a
> brush.
I agree, but that's not the point of the analogy. The point was that there
are techniques in painting that you do not know, there are effects that can
be seen on canvas that you have no idea how to create. For examples
dry-brushing, a technique where paint is applied to the brush then wiped
(not washed) off, leaving tiny traces of pain. When brushed over a canvas
the traces of paint very gently highlight only the raised edges of paint or
canvas. If you see that effect without knowing how it's done, you couldn't
reproduce the effect yourself. That's my point, the techniques available to
hoaxers are not limited to what *you* can think of.
> With your "philosophy" anything you can put on paper,
> you can construct.
>
See above.
> Let me see you bring your artistry to life. Have you looked at the
> Sri Yantra? How do you like it? Niiiiiiiiiice job huh?
Yes, it was.
> That has to be
> extraterrestrial in origin.
Has to be? So far I ahve failed to prove to you that all circles are hoaxed,
so if you can prove to me that wasn't hoaxed, you win. And I mean prove it,
not spout 'It can't be done by humans, cause I don't think so'. And if
you're going to argue that that's exactly what proves it, re-read the
drybrush bit again first.
> It just appeared one night. On guarded
> land, inaccessible to the public.
Was it on miliatry land then? Maybe it's not just the public who like their
jokes. I've seen pictures only though, maybe you can point me to an online
description?
> That's your true test re-construct
> that. Line for line, and size. The baseball cap sighting device ought
> to get a workout.
Line for line and size etc sounds a bit beyond my league. But then the four
minute mile used to be considered impossible, you never know. Baseball cap
sighting devices will keep you going towards the same point BTW, but won't
keep you in a straight line. You just end up drifting sideways as you walk,
all the time facing the same point. simple logic should've told them that.
> >
> <<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > > Real time only though. Then we'll see who makes lying and
> > > deception enjoyable. I would really enjoy watching you
> > > re-construct the marking
> > > I choose. In front of a live audience. Huffing and puffing your
> > > way to infamy.
> >
> > Yeah, I'm sure you would. How much would you enjoy a challenge
> > that you wouldn't win before you started? Like I said, I'll
> > re-create mine, that's all i can offer to anyone.
>
> No thank you. Unless you do it for the world to see.
IF I agreed to it, you'd only find another excuse. you seem to like the
security in knowing I don't particularly want to 'perform' in public.
> >
> <<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > > > People can offer me kaka, I choose whether to beleive it or not.
> > >
> > > Exactly my point. I don't believe your kaka. And I'm not a
> > > hypocrite like you and Ms Clinton, aka the butt of butter.
> > >
> >
> > Fine, you don't have to believe, just as long as you don't go around
> > saying I've never offered any proof of what I say.
>
> You haven't. You want to prove it from under your rock. Slither
> into the light, you snake.
Doesn't matter where it's proved from, it's still proved.
> >
> <<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > >
> > > Yes it does....absolutely. If you can't construct them, then they
> > > can't either. It doesn't take a genius to flatten wheat...with a
> > > plank.
> > >
> >
> > Bollocks. "I can't do magic, so Paul Daniels is obviously an alien".
> > That's an exact parallel of what you are saying, so, you agree with
> > that, or you want to back down?
>
> No I'm not saying he is an alien. I am saying he is a liar if he
> doesn't prove it, in public, in real time. That's all.
He's a liar if he doesn't prove he's a magician? If he doesn't show you how
his tricks are done, then they really are magic? is that it? if not,
rephrase, cause that's what it says above.
> >
> <<<SNIP>>>.
> >
> > > Okay then, I don't want to talk to you anymore. I need real dopes
> > > on ropes. Masters of the 600-900 footers. Miracle workers who put
> > > constructions well into fields with no tramlines, and make thin
> > > 1-3 stalk wide rings. Thinner than a humans foot/feet.
> >
> > Fine. Be sure to tell everyone here next year which circles you
> > think are hoaxed and which are 'genuine'. My 'pathetic useless'
> > zipfiles will be here waiting to make an arse of you.
>
> You already have made an ass out of me, haven't you? With the
> Sri Yantra, and the three arm Julia, and that 800 footer?
Not me personally, but yeah.
> Hell of a job. And me thinking they're extraterrestrial in origin.
> Why do you even bother with me if I say such stupid things.
Because I won't just disappear without defending myself from your bullying
tactics. Stop name calling, agree to disagree and I'll not bother you in
this thread again.
> >
> <<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > > No because two or three hoaxers can't do an extraordinarily
> > > complex construction. What with the weaving of layers, swirled
> > > in differing directions, bent, not broken. Very time consuming.
> > > How do they do it? I'm sure you'll tell me.
> >
> > two or three? Why the limit, is there an International Hoaxing
> > Commission I was previously unaware of? As for construction
> > effects, they are a product
> > of the common stomping method, and yes, I *will* prove that next
> > year.
>
> Yeah it's called Team Satan. They have a "towering command
> center" in London somewhere. Just go to their site. They'll tell
> you all about their "network".
>
Team satan are just a couple of guys who did a few circles, then realised it
was easier to sit back and claim others, same as D & D. Read the wording,
they make too much out of being there all the time, classic
over-compensation, IMHO.
> Genetic changes?
> Blown nodes? You use a microwave oven? Bent
> not broken stalks?
Never seen any of that. Doesn't stop people saying my circles have them
though. Makes me wonder about the other reports that I've read.
>
> Like the Boston Red Sox....wait until next year. Is that a threat or
> a promise?
>
Both. Promise to the scientific, and threat to your lack of proof of aliens.
> Two or three. That's their doing not mine. It's always been that way.
> No changing the rules of the game. Two or three, in four hours, in
> pitch dark.
How do you know that? Robin Allen took eight. I've been in a team of 14,
admittedly half of them were useless and the circle was crap, but then they
were only supposed to be watching. Most circles are not 800 footers, but you
insist that the number of people required for other circles is all that is
allowed for an 800 footer? Why? You hedging your bets?
> >
> <<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > > I'm ignoring your "evidence" because it doesn't address the issue
> > > of size and complexity. I can roll around in a field also. But I
> > > choose not too. I keep my art where it belongs.
> >
> > Complexity maybe, but you do not even know which designs I am
> > claiming. Size, maybe there are 20 people in my team, how do
> > you know? you've written
> > us of before you've even asked. I hope you are not in any kind of
> > research career.
>
> Yup, research in melding scripture and science in a Deistic tone.
> I don't need you asses screwing it up. So screw. Tell your boss
> to stick it.
>
> 20 people? That many? A small army? What is this, war? YES! It is.
> And I have the kingdom on my side. Just do it, or just shut up, and
> stop claiming.
I hate to spoil your fun, but it's the middle of winter. Come summer, I will
do it, I've said that before.
> >
> <<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > >
> > > Plenty. One is enough I should think. Just like one Sri Yantra.
> >
> > Don't know. Honest answer (rather than lieing around evidence that
> > doesn't fit my theory), but then, I don't know how Paul Daniels
> > makes people 'disappear', but I don't expect Greys have anything to
> > do with it.
>
> Evidence that doesn't fit your theory? It's probably all the evidence
> that fits mine. All I need is for the truth about ET be told.
Which is? I've asked several times. What is the truth, explain it, and how
you can justify believing it.
> And
> then, watch out. Yes, the Sri Yantra is enough. Why isn't the
> mainstream media focused on that marking? Because two boys
> "dug" it out? Well...it wasn't dug out of the hardpan, it was pressed
> into it. So two boys didn't "dig" it out. All they dug out is the
> stupidity that so many people harbor. people who will believe
> what those boys, and you say.
I don't see you proving it wasn't people yet.
> >
> <<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > > Go to Paul Vigay's site. There are a lot of sites where you can
> > > see this stuff. I had to look for it all so now you can go fish.
> > >
> >
> > And you can extrapolate 3D information from a photograph can
> > you? very clever.
>
> No I can't, and neither can investigators. At least the serious ones.
> I can judge size and relative complexity from a 2d pic, especially
> when there is an "investigative report" with the pic.
> Such as; The grain was braided and weaved throughout the marking,
> and many layers swirled in different directions. The stalks are not
> broken and have blown nodes. And this mother is 800 feet long.
Yeah, but they say that about mine too.
> >
> <<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > > No. I never lost. Others threw the tantrum, as you are doing now.
> >
> > I have answered every one of your accusations, hardly the temper
> > tantrum of avoiding the questions with insults that I am getting in
> > return. And you never lost? perhaps you should read the psychology
> > behind believing you have never lost a single fight in your life.
> > Seriously, look it up, I think you'll find it interesting.
>
> Not in the schoolyard. I was very good in school. There were
> bullies who probably grew up to be hoaxers.
Bullies? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't constant insult instead of
answering specifics a trademark of bullying? 'Why do you hate me, bully? do
you have a hard time at home?', 'No, now shut up' - Thwak. And did you
actually look it up yet?
> >
> > snip
> > >
> > > And I told you, I don't want it. It doesn't serve my purpose,
> > > which is to expose the dopes on ropes for the dopes they are.
> >
> > Any evidence should be useful in serving your purpose. Any eveidence
> > you have would interest me, whether i believe it or not.
>
> Yeah...nobody will claim and re-construct the markings you can't
> construct. So they are my proof of extraterrestrial involvement.
So nobody claiming it makes it extra-terrestrail? Graffiti is your greys as
well then?
>
> Just like the Sri Yantra. You have to be really stupid not to see it.
Stupid is shouting about how your theory is correct without even trying to
prove it. Prove people didn't do the SY. Prove it was aliens. Even just a
plausible reason why they would and plausible method how they could would be
fine.
> >
> <<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > > Because the constructions you put forth can be constructed, or you
> > > wouldn't offer it up. I want a claimed marking that is humanly
> > > impossible to re-construct, in "true" time. And there are plenty.
> > > It's just that the claiments won't oblige me.
> >
> > I don't think any marking is impossible to reproduce,, and you
> > saying that because I can't do it or you can't do it won't change
> > my belief that someone else can.
>
> Bring him/them on...please. I want a live demo.
Sure. And you get your little friends to come prove to me that they do one
while we're there.
> >
> <<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > > No. I weighed the evidence both pro and con, and went with the
> > > most reasonable. It's called discernment. You hoaxing jackasses
> > > lost hands down. No contest.
> >
> > Most reasonable? explain the reasoning that leads you to think that
> > nobody else can do anything that you can't do.
>
> I can't spread my arms and fly.
The power needed to lift us would require chest muscle six feet across.
Scientific claculation.
> I can't stick my elbow in my ear.
Dislocate your shoulder and you can, It's only six inches further than you
can reach anyhow. Scientific proof.
> I can't lick my own............reasoning tells me, nobody else can
Anyone else could lick your arse, it's just they don't want to back someone
without proof :)
But seriously, you ever seen 'freaks' (for want of a better word) skipping
over their own arms? I have. I'm pretty sure they could reach. Not
universally achievable, but possible.
Any more for any more?
> either. You can stick the board up your butt though.
> The marking is to damn large and complex. It would take weeks
> to construct.....okay? A "construction" company did a survey and
> came up with that. Also it would cost thousands of dollars.
So? A webdesign company told me it would cost me £5000 to get a 20 page site
up and running, I wrote it myself in my spare time over a weekend, but then,
I wasn't out to milk people with money to burn.
> >
> <<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > > Yeah...I noticed the improvement this year. Wait until next year
> > > and see what you're going to claim.
> >
> > Certainly, zipfiles at the ready. If you don't want them, ignore
> > them, other people round here welcome something real.
>
> Zip files can be manipulated whether you have immediate control
> or remote.
Nope. If it's on your hard drive, how do i tamper with it?
> As I said; you could have dozens of markings in one
> zip file.
If there was you'd see them. you can see all the files inside a passworded
zip, their names, their sizes etc, you just can't take them out. If there
were twenty pictures you'd see twenty files. When i tried to con you, you'd
say 'hey, what about these other 19?'. I'm talking one picture, one text
file. Picture is a diagram much like John Sayer's examples, text file with
Date and location
> Just give out the right password to unzip the marking of
> your choice.
So if the password I give you unzips everything in there, you're theories
fucked, right? I'll do that then.
> It's called deception, not fooling somebody, but
> deceiving somebody. You fool a friend with a whooppee cushion.
It's a matter of description. In my eyes, fool=decieve, whoopee
cushion=larking about. When I said fooled, I never meant to imply 'fool' as
you see it, I meant 'decieve' as you see it.
> You don't deceive him to destroy his integrity. Which is your goal.
Yes. You (and others) say it's aliens, I say it's not. If I do a marking and
you say it's unhoaxble, I have proved a point. Maybe not the entire
phenomenon, but a part of it.
> >
> <<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > > It was quaint. Friggin or otherwise. I do need a break from the
> > > crap that comes from people like you.
> > > I rest my case also, on your shoulders. Prove to me that people
> > > construct all markings or I will just go on going on. And I am
> > > perfectly justified in my volition using common sense.
> >
> > OK, how's this?: I (with partner) can construct a circle of X
> > complexity. Since I am self-taught and with little practice it is
> > safe
> > to assume that another group can construct a circle that is more
> > complex than mine. If my circle is half as complex as the best i
> > have seen, then i can be certain beyond reasonable doubt that
> > the most complex is also humanly created,
> > albiet beyond my means.
>
> Why is it safe to assume another group can make it. No one has
> come forward.
Cause if i can run a mile in 4:01, I would be niave to think that no-one
could do better.
> So they can't "make it". You can't use assumption
> as evidence. I don't.
You say that since you can't make it, no-one else can. That's assumption.
>I don't assume there are UFOs. I know there
> are UFOs and ET.
>
How? Prove it. At the very least, if you can't prove your reasoning at least
explain it, I've asked several times.
> Who is personally going to "look" at your circle. A hands on display.
> Or is it only a photo op for you.
Most circles are examined on the ground by the experts if not the public are
they not?
> >
> <<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > >
> > > Your offer, but no proof in your offer.
> > >
> >
> > Either it prooves I hoaxed it or it prooves I'm psychic, take your
> > pick.
>
> Psycho is more like it. You don't have to prove you hoax your own.
> I'm interested in the ones you can't hoax. Don't go to any trouble.
> If you can't do it, then don't go claiming your brother can do it
> either. Unless you can produce him.
I will, at the same time you produce your little grey friend. I think my job
will be easier by a factor. :)
> >
> > > My proof...........
> > > Videos, films, and stills from years ago and up to Mexico City,
> > > ongoing since 1991. STS48 shuttle video, it is not space ice.
> > > You see, I don't believe every single UFO video, film, picture,
> > > eyewitness reports are all hoaxes, balloons, space ice,
> > > delusions, flares, Venus, swamp gas, headlights, reflections,
> > > balloons, blimps, stars, natural phenomena. If they are, then
> > > you better get video taped evidence out of our courts. Because
> > > any video can be hoaxed. Just as the Rodney King, video taped
> > > beating, could be a hoax. If I were one of those cops convicted by
> > > the video tape, I would demand a new trial on the grounds of a
> > > possible hoax.
> > >
> >
> > And those have what to do with circles?
>
> Extraterrestrials. Aren't you excited? The most profound thing to
> happen since the creation of mankind. Time for re-think, nevermind
> re-construction, because we'll know who the liars are.
repeat: And those have what to do with circles?
> >
> <<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > > Yeah, you guys carry a lot of construction equipment into the
> > > fields.
> >
> > Me personally (and partner), 2 stompers, 1 50 metre wire, nothing
> > more.
>
> Nothing more? Has to be magic. No way you're doing the Julia.
Why not? It's all circles on three spirals. I can draw it on paper with a
compass, why not in corn with a great bug compass?
> >
> > > What about markings well into fields without tramlines? Nobody
> > > seems to want to address that issue. And the thin rings, 1-3
> > > stalks wide.
> > >
> > Dont' know, I'd like to explain it as much as the next person. Maybe
> > you could help find out rather than just sit back on your alien
> > conspiracy?
>
> It's not an alien conspiracy, it's a government conspiracy. They stand
> to lose the most. The rings are done with the same energy they use
> to make the markings. They draw their sketch, copy and paste...to the
> field. Rings and all. They have their sketches drawn up also.
Like I keep asking, what's the reasoning behind this belief? I take it
you're not just making it all up, so where did you read it/find out/get
abducted/get shown/guess/have a vision/whatever? No piss-take intended, just
tell me why you think all this, maybe you'll convince me. If you don't want
to defend it, don't spout it.
> >
> > > BowWow and Chalkey claimed they jumped to make a grapeshot.
> > > That would be 20 feet in distance with an arc of 11 feet, from a
> > > standing, stationary position, and then, jumped back.
> > > Nobody in the mainstream media called them on that little beauty.
> >
> > same again, your opinion?
>
> It's not my opinion. It actually happened, they claimed they jumped.
> They actually said that on international TV. You accept their
> explanation I presume?
See earlier in this post, I think they and every other 'famous' hoaxers just
did a couple and then sat back on all the others that were around, too busy
with TV too get dirty in the fields. There's always fresh blood though.
> >
> <<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > > They "prove it" by claiming them all That's why the media ignores
> > > the markings now, because they helped the 'dicks on sticks' to own
> > > them all, in the eyes of the mindless lethargic that is. But a
> > > frugal, enquiring, discerning mind like I possess, wants to know
> > > the truth.
> >
> > Please do not use the words frugal, deiscerning or enquiring when
> > reffering to someone who will refuse evidence that does not fit
> > their own theories, whether it be youself or someone else.
>
> Why? You do. You said it earlier...only if it fits your theory. It's
> a normal thing to do. Use research that fits ones theory. I do.
>
But I don't discard evidence if it doesn't fit my theory, I'll keep it under
the 'now how the hell do I explain that' part of my filing. You throw your
back with insults.
> The puzzle is going together real well. It would be better if you
> jokers would stop mixing up the pieces.
Tell me how it fits. Explain the parts, then explain how they fit. Along the
lines of Reg Presley's theories? Seriously, I'd like to know what your
theory is that you won't explain. You can even forget about proof for a
while, just get the theroy out, I'd like to hear it.
> >
> <<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > >
> > > They do suck. Just keep on believing what you believe, I will be
> > > much better off, and so will you.
> >
> > Deal. Just don't be saying you've explored all avenues if you refuse
> > evidence.
>
> I don't refuse evidence. I use the evidence that disproves the hoaxing
> "theory". and that's all it is, is a theory. Just like mine, but mine
> makes sense.
Still haven't heard it though, I've heard 'it's aliens', but not 'it's
aliens because.....'
And you refused evidence. So I don't offer you circles that are 800ft or
incredibly complex, but maybe they still have other properties you associate
with genuineness in them, how do you know if you just turn them away without
looking? That is refusing evidence.
> >
> <<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > > > I don't see any differnece between someone who talks to the dead
> > > > and someone who thinks circles in corn are not made by people
> > > > with planks.
> > >
> > > My point exactly.
> >
> > Did you miss the 'not'?
>
> Yes, I did....NOT!
> My point is, she is a hypocrite and I am not. She talks to the dead,
> but imp-lies I am nuts because I believe her guilt in WhiteWater just
> because I believe in UFOs. So don't listen to us crackpots. It's
> going to be glorious when the shit hits the fan, and splashes in her
> face.
Oh, I see. Fine, she's a hypocrite. Circles anyone? or shall we go find Lord
Lucan now?
> >
> > > She is a hypocrite, and I am not.
> > > Made with planks. How time consuming would that be for an 800
> > > foot construction. Weaving, braiding, different layers swirled in
> > > differing directions. Ooooo...lots of back breaking work. At
> > > night,
> > > no lights......mmmmmm....let me see the dopes on ropes
> > > re-construct them. Real time, not zip file time.
> >
> > Construction - Incidental, no effort required
> > Light - no problem, eyes adjust after approx 5/10 minutes
> > Work - Well, weird hobby, but WTF, keeps us fit.
> > Real-time - More people = same man-hours in less actual hours
> >
> > any more?
>
> Yeah, how about rain?
No problem. Mud on stalks is washed off before morning, footprints are
filled/leveled by mud and I personally have no problem with being soaked to
the skin.
> Hills where you can't see each other?
A big tall stick with the rope at the top. :) Not likely, but possible. I
don't know, I've never done one on hill that steep. I'll try and find one in
2000 just for you, i have 6 months to find a way that works.
> You must really think people are stupid.
Some poeple yes. Mainly those who spout 'Aliens!' without backing it up with
even theory.
> You are an insulting
> SOB.
Insulting in my beliefs? I don't agree with you when you won't even try to
convince me with a theory, and that insults you? Or you mean actual insults?
if anyone could be bothered to count your insults to mine, I think you'd be
the sonofabitch.
> It took fifteen people all night in the netherlands to make
> a 600 footer.
Maybe they were just crap? Maybe they'd never done it before? Maybe 15 isn't
enough?
> The English dopes on ropes do the same thing in
> four hours with only two or three dopes on ropes. So they claim.
To be honest, I don't belive it either. More people were there, methinks.
> Step forward please.
They're there, right in line behind your greys.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Both unsubstantiated, and both to the contrary of scientific
> > > > knowledge.
> > >
> > > And so isn't your claim that all the crop markings are made with
> > > planks.
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Some are made with pure energy. Energy that could split this
> planet in two. It's a good thing I don't have control over it.
Again, explain please, just a theory is fine for now, you can prove it at
your convenience.
> >
> > > Christ Jesus....what do think I am? Do you think I'm
> > > as stupid as you, and would believe as you? Forget it. You're on
> > > the losing side.
> >
> > I think that 90% of the public would dis-agree. True the public are
> > mostly jaskasses, but still, what can we do?
>
> Tell them the truth.
Which is? (All of it....)
> >
> > > My claims aren't substantiated because those who
> > > have the power to substantiate them just ignore the evidence that
> > > does substantiate them.
> >
> > And that would be who? Greys, MIB's, T42?
>
> No...the mainstream media, government, and organized religion.
Getting somewhere. Tell me more.
> >
> >
> <<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > > Grey friends, Grey.
> >
> > My apologies, there is no need for racism in something as
> > important as fantasy.
>
> Fantasy? That's great. Can't wait to see your face. There are
> going to be a lot of hurt feelings....but fark'em, they have their
> chance to accept the inevitable.
Neither can I wait to see my face, but I guess I'll be waiting a long time.
2012 isn't it that supposed to be significant? Funny how 9-9-99 passed and
we're still here, 11-11-99 passed and we're still here, but people still
*know* that we're all gonner's come 2012. And funny how you can never lose,
because they're always 'on their way, they're still coming', you think?
> >
> > > I accept you dopes on ropes can construct some.
> >
> > Some? which? and why not all? where's the line? define it.
>
> The Sri Yantra. Have you seen it yet? Just re-construct that in a
> field. Or in a couple of fields.
I asked for a line. If you're saying the line is at the Sri Yantra, then
you're saying that the Julia, Hackpen and others are hoaxed. If you're not
saying that, stop avoiding the god-damned question. Draw the line.
As for the Sri Yantra, I'll be looking into it, like I said last post.
> >
> <<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > >
> > > You are afraid of "being caught out". I'll plan it. You play by
> > > the rules and re-construct it. Not yours....mine.
> >
> > Seeing as you're ao insistant, name your circle, I'll see about
> > practicing
> > in 2000, maybe by 2001 I could manage it. seriously, name one, I'll
> > work on it.
>
> The Sri Yantra, the three arm Julia. The 800 footer in Wiltshire.
> That standing center ring, in mature, celery snapping stage, of
> oil seed rape.
I believe this was covered in another post.
> >
> <<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > > Well this is one person you're not deceiving. I've got your lying
> > > number. I think you are a real ass for doing what you do.
> > > You should be a politician. They all lie with impunity also.
> > > You and those like you, are going to get it. Get ready for your
> > > roof jump....splat.
> >
> > I say what I say from personal experience, witnessed by others,
> > something you can cannot claim with your conspiracy theory. I do
> > not lie, I offer my opinion. Roof jump? nope, you're stuck with my
> > spanner in your works for a few years yet.
>
> All hoaxers lie. That's what makes you lying hoaxing donkeys.
> A few years? You ain't got a few years.
How long have I got? and until what? and what reasoning is behind that?
> you offering? Nothing but more deception. Bring it
> > > out in the open. Put it on the table for all to see.
> >
> > Open? posted here a week in advance of the formation. what's hidden
> > about that.
>
> I don't want a zip file hoaxer, hoaxing from under his rock. Slither
> into the light. I'll lift that rock for you. That's my job. Expose the
> liars and deceivers.
The question was: 'posted here a week in advance of the formation. what's
hidden
about that.?', any chance you could answer, or are you agreeing with me that
it is in the open. You cannot just ignore questions with me, I will point
them out. I answer all of yours.
> >
> > > You guys are like
> > > snakes. Hide under a rock and come out at night to slither around
> > > in grain fields. Get a life will you? Doesn't your wife wonder
> > > where you disappear to?
> >
> > Have a life thankyou, circles are not the be-all and end-all of my
> > existance. My wife knows where i go too, thanks for asking.
>
> Doesn't she worry about you? Is she privy to your prowess, or
> do you deceive her too?
No, she knows. Do you insult your wife when she asks you reasonable
questions about things you can't back up?
> >
> <<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > > Yes, I can prove different
> >
> > You can proove?, go on.
>
> With the stuff the mainstream media doesn't tell us about.
> Just because they don't report something doesn't mean it
> isn't happening, and visa versa. They lie to keep the status quo.
> And to protect their hides and hiding.
Ok, I can accept that, if you can explain to me: What is it that they are
not showing us? and how do you know? and why do they not show us? who
enforces it? explain the consiparacy.
> >
> > > ,with the stuff the mainstream media
> > > doesn't tell us about. Just because they don't report something
> > > doesn't mean it isn't happening, and visa versa.
> >
> > Wasn't that my point? Perhaps you should take five minutes out to
> > reconstruct your belief system?
>
> They report all hoaxes. They don't tell us anything about the serious
> research. The stuff that makes one stand up and take notice.
Like what? It can't be that memorable if 90% of the population is in the
dark, surely?
> >
> <<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > >
> > > Well aren't you just the subtle little deceiver, congratulations.
> > > Was it really your construction, or are you just claiming it? Do
> > > you have a secret zip file proving it?
> >
> > Nope, didn't think of it till the other day, plus proving it was
> > never much of a point until now. Next year though.
>
> Wait until next year. Okay. I'm in no hurry. After all it's been over
> ten-years of the "circus of wheat".
Good.
> >
> > > Geeezzzz...you dopes on ropes are
> > > really trying. Reason and logic is your downfall. (For me anyway.)
> >
> > Excuse me? I answer your accusations with reasona nd logic, you
> > ignore said logic and turn to insult.
>
> What logic. That you want to hoax a marking secretly, rather than out
> in the open?
What's wrong with that? Proof is proof. A painting is painted whether you
see it happening or not, if you have the sketch in advance, kept away from
the artist (albiet in a form you can read until afterwards), you know that
the painting was planned. Logic.
> What is so illogical about wanting to see you bozos prove
> your claim, for all the markings.
Nothing. That's not what I say is illogical, that's what I say is
irrelevant. A hoax is a hoax whether i proove it with a zip file or in field
with you and several farmers running after me with a shotgun.
> Small and humungous, simple and
> complex floor lay. You do the small, now all I need is someone to
> construct the large.
Fine. And all I need is your little grey friends doing it instead.
> >
> <<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > >
> > > No, I'm not stupid enough to go out in a field of grain to squash
> > > out messy designs in fields by stomping, breaking and
> > > squashing plants.
> >
> > you said earlier you had created a circle, now you say you didn't?
> > or are you saying you have a method other than the stomper?
>
> I never said I constructed a marking. I would never do anything so
> stupid.
You said, 'not all of them are yours, some of them are mine'. Or did you
mean you claim them for your theory? if so why let me believe they were your
own creation? You like hoaxing too, I guess.
> >
> > > Talk to my partner? With a walkie talkie I guess. But the
> > > transmission could be picked up by anyone with a high speed
> > > scanner. Ohoh..caught.
> >
> > I don't think you have tried it. If you had you'd know you need no
> > communication other than voice, it's quite out there at 2am you know
> :)
>
> How? When you're a couple of hundred feet away from the other dope
> on a rope? Do you have cans you secure to the ends of the rope.
> Do you use "phone on a string?" A canaphone?
Yes, try it. past midnight, no cars near, just talk at normal daytime
volume, you can hear that just over 100 metres away, I know, I measure it
with our radius rope. And anyhow, we've used walkie talkies too, never been
caught so that's that one blown. Maybe it's because we didn't tell each
other our OS grid reference every 2 minutes just to make sure we both knew?
> >
> <<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > > Yeah, the single arm Julia by stonehenge, "witnessed" by a pilot.
> > > Flew to his destination and it wasn't there, flew from his
> > > destination, forty-five minutes later, and there it was. Want to
> > > hear
> > > something silly? I beleive him. It stands to reason the markings
> > > would just appear, and are not constructed. Do you think hoaxers
> > > actually constructed that marking in forty-five minutes, in broad
> > > daylight?
> > >
> > No I don't, I think they made it the night before and the pilot was
> > mistaken or is lying. Stands to reason? what reason? justify that
> > statement.
>
> Right, mistaken or lying. Of course. Well I don't think either of
> those.
Fine, but I do.
> He is a pilot who has flown that route many times.
> He knows "the lay of the land". If I believe he is telling the
> truth, then I choose to use his "witnessing",
You have a witness who says it just appeared, you also have a witness who
says he created it, but you choose to believe one over the other. I say
they're both lying.
> and am certainly right
> in saying the markings just appear. Prove they don't.
You yourself say 'they would've taken hours for people to create', so I say
'they did take hours for people to create'. More feasable in the eyes of
science thatn aliens I'm afraid, the onus is in you to prove your side.
> I have a pilot
> who says they do. And other eyewitnesses to other markings.
> The mainstream media keeps waaaaaaaaaaay away from them.
The mainstream media stay waaaaaaaaaaay away from people who say they're
jesus too.
> You won't see them on TDC, The Deception Channel's crop
> circle hoaxing shows.
Last one I saw had balls-of-light-eye-witnesses on it.
> >
> > > Okay....you re-construct it, in forty-five minutes.
> >
> > If you can prove it was done in 45 minutes sure. And no, lone
> > testimony doesn't count, after all, you don't accept my lone
> > testimony, why should i excpet yours?
>
> It's not mine, it's a pilots, an eyewitness, to an extraordinary
> event. Right in line with the characteristics of the markings.
Which are? Are you backing Colin Andrews' infamous 'i get the felling that
all this was just laid down in one fell swoop, all at the same time' bit?
Not exactly conclusive is it?
> I think the pilot was telling the truth. Again, I choose to believe
> him.
And I choose not, so why are you right but not me?
> >
> > >
> > > The only way you dopes on ropes can construct a marking in
> > > forty-five
> > > minutes is on the TV, for NBC, TDC, A&E, TLC, NOVA, CNN....etc..,
> > > minus commercials. All liberal media of course.
> >
> > AFAIK, none of them claimed to be that quick.
>
> They sure look like it...on the TV...minus commercials.
Yeah, it's called editing. Cutting out repetative bits doesn't consitiute
deception, none of them said it was real time, they just said 'look what
they're doing'.
> >
> <<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > > They're not coming for me, they're already here. I'm coming for
> > > you and the likes of you though.
> > >
> > In your spaceship? no chance, I'd see the strobe before you got
> > here.
>
> I don't have a spaceship. Is there such a thing? Aren't they all
> hoaxes, hallucinations. I'll come after you in my 85 Honda LX.
> No strobes, just loose blinking headlights.
Headlights, there's the rub. You can see them for about 2 miles, and at
sixty miles per hour (about the fastest you can go in a country lane) that
gives two minutes to hide. That's a hell of a long time.
> Will you buy me a new
> car when you become a famous hoaxer?
Maybe. If you act real nice
> >
> > Oh, and spare us all the bandwidth of downloading your monster
> > ego-masterbating signature next time please, real men only need one
> > line. :)
>
> Maybe I'm not a real man.
Maybe. Maybe that's why you only acknowledge questions you can answer.
>I have a lot to say.
I noticed, but not on the things I ask you to explain, like the reasoning
behind your theories.
> And I'll post whatever signature I want.
Fair enough.
> I'm not going to spare the bandwidth, nor the 1-3 stalk width
> of the rings. I want to see you construct some of those, with a
> standing center.
Ok, will do.
> >
> > -Mid.
> >
> Twonky...who is the light, and the middle finger of the God who
> bends the light. ,,|,,
> Bending light? Sounds like science to me.
>
> If you want to see things change, then change the way you see
> things.
>
> Ignore the truth, and perpetuate the lie.
> >
-Mid.
Rob Irving
Howdy. I happened by your following story...
>I asked Rob Irving if he would like to re-visit the Silbury Hill Koch fractal
>to explain some anomalies I had detected about half an hour before I bumped
>into him at The Barge. He tactfully declined my offer, which is a shame
>because he might have been able to offer some mundane explanation that I (and
>several others who witnessed the readings) had missed.
My tactful decline was the suggestion that you write a report of these
'anomalies'
for a sensible magazine, such as New Scientist. Or perhaps ask a knowledgable
scientist or journalist to do it for you.
I have no idea of the 'normal' state of the stuff you were measuring, therefore
I've
even less idea of what would constitute an anomaly. At least I admit it.
Rob
MidNyte[UC]
>
> MidNyte[UC] <midny...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:80adab$ep4$1...@nclient15-gui.server.virgin.net...
> >
> > > > Are you implying that you are a serious researcher? I sincerely
> > > > hope not.
> > >
> > > Not at all. I follow and use results of serious research.
> > > Are 'you' implying that you are a serious researcher? I sincerely
> > > hope not.
> > > >
> > Nope, merely interested.
>
> Yeah! Sure! Interested in serious research?
Yes. I won't discount bits that don't fit my theory, like these RF
anomalies, I will try and understand them, as I have offered to do with
Paul.
> >
> > > > > Hoaxers have sliced their own throats.
> > > > > They wrote books on the subject. I never read one,
> > > >
> > > > Well lordy rest-a my case. Maybe within those pages is the
> > > > answer you never conceived, something that would just click into
> > > > place and change your mind.
> > >
> > > The dopes on ropes have no surprises for me, but I have for them.
> > > They got their book contracts as a benefit working/jerking for the
> > > mainstream media. They write lies
> >
> > You said you'd never read the books, how can you justify 'knowing'
> > that?
>
> Because I see how the mainstream media handles them. The
> direction, and guidance the dopes on ropes receive from the
> mainstream media. Who do you think paid for that trip to New
> Zealand?
Well obviously. That doesn't answer how you know whether or not here is
something inside a hoaxers book that would make sense of something about
circles that you could previously only put down to aliens, without reading
the damn thing. You say you are a serious researcher, yet you won't
investigate one particular theory because it offends you. That's not
scientific research, that's pre-conception.
> >
> > > , serious researchers write truth.
> > > I found that out a long time ago....before there were any hoaxers,
> > > famous or otherwise.
> > > >
> > > > You'll never be a serious researcher with a blinkered attitude
> > > > like
> > > > that. Than again, did you not say earlier you've never lost
> > > > anything? did it never occur to you that you have, just that you
> > > > never admit it?
> > >
> > > I've lost plenty, just not on the playground. And I'm not going to
> > > lose to the likes of you and your ilk either.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't want to be a serious researcher in the crop-circle
> > > 'fields', because all they do is get ridiculed by mainstream
> > > media.
> > > Mainstream media hates serious research on the subject. That's
> > > why the Murdoch media introduced BowWow and Chalkey. The
> > > master hoaxers, your mentors. Do you have pictures of them in your
> > > living room or bedroom? Do you have any pictures of "the man
> > > behind
> > > the curtain", the instigator, the head snake, Mr. Jim Schnabel?
> >
> > Nope. Pictures of thier circles though. So what?
>
> 2d pictures? No hands on investigation? Stick'em.
You didn't ask me if I'd been to them, and yes, I have.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > but dollar to a
> > > > > do-nut, they claimed them all. They have web sites devoted to
> > > > > inspiring hoaxers on how to deceive sincere, serious
> > > > > researchers.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not defending that, but it *is* in a public place, said
> > > > researchers have
> > > > as much access to it as hoaxers, if anything it would work to
> > > > the
> > > > researchers advantage, instead of one group of hoaxers knowing a
> > > > particlur trick and researchers having to figure it out,
> > > > everyone
> > > > would know and no-one would be in the dark about it. Except you,
> > > > of course, because you never read hoaxer's books etc, as you
> > > > said above.
> > >
> > > Trick? Oh good. Now it's tricks. Yeah...pretty good trick those
> > > thin
> > > 1-3 stalk wide rings, and markings appearing in fields with no
> > > tramlines.
> >
> > Yeah, maybe it is.
>
> You believe in magic? Okay then, here goes a pin in your eye.
Funny, still have 20-20. Maybe you were wrong about magic?
> >
> > > And oil seed rape flattened with the little yellow flower
> > > still intact. Funny too, because those plants should have broken
> > > when bent more than a few degrees. They snap like celery. Pretty
> > > good trick to remove all the heads of wheat in a marking also,
> > > (there has been some with missing heads.
> >
> > you tried squashing OSR? Tried it when it's pissing down? Spot the
> > difference? Not a complete success maybe, but better.
>
> Better than butter? Will you stop trying to sell yourself. You sound
> like a whore.
Fine. OSR, I can't do very well, a few bent, but 90% broken, even in the
wet. There you go. Now you admit that you can't prove that aliens even
exist, nevermind make crop circles. If not, prove it.
> >
> > >Just like hoaxers heads are
> > > missing, at least what should be inside is missing).
> >
> > Blah blah blah, Yakatee Smakatee. How many letters from Sir Clive
> > Sinclair personally asking you to join Mensa have you had?
>
> I passed the Mensa exam that qualified me to take the entrance
> exam. But just qualifying is good enough for me. And you?
The one they run in the paper? the one no-one who has ever tried has failed?
or the 1 hour supervised entrance exam? And actually, I only did it to see
if I could, I never joined, that's why they sent the letter. I didn't see
the point in paying a yearly fee to talk to people. How's that for
qualifying is enough?
>
> Got a letter from the New England Conservatory of Music, that
> contained an application for entry. I was pre-approved. And you?
Not many music academies around that like my style of music, it's not very
technical. People we play to like it though.
> >
> > > How about
> > > markings in snow, on ice to thin to walk on. They're explained by
> > > the "authorities" as caused by swamp gas. Now I have to discern
> > > if swamp gas can construct geometrical shapes, repeatedly.
> > > Perfect circles with rings? I'll have to think about it.
> >
> > Don't know, bird shit for all I care. Flattened corn is my game.
>
> Right...bird shit, for a bird turd mind. Oh...don't think about it.
> You may come down with a migraine.
I won't think about it, like I said, I don't care. My interest is crops.
> >
> > >
> > > All I want is for someone, some hoaxing donkey to prove what the
> > > brotherhood of hoaxing jackasses claim. Their largest construction
> > > to date. Until then, knock it off with your stupid offer.
> >
> > I knocked it off with my offer to you a long time ago, now I only
> > gloat
> > about the evidence you turned down because you're afraid of what it
> > would do
> > to your theory, I'm not offering it to you.
>
> And to you also. I don't make up my evidence. It's there,
> if you want to find it. I looked at everything you're offering.
> Before you ever offered it.
You looked up sweet FA. I know this because you have no idea about the
technicalities of the password protected zip-file, like being able to see
what files it contains. Tell me what you looked up, and give me URLs to what
you expect me and others to accept, I'm sure you have various pages
bookmarked.
> >
> > > Drop it
> > > already, and be assured in knowing that I am right.
> >
> > You are right? Without evidence? Sounds about right.
>
> Well...you should get some evidence. I have plenty.
Show me. Just one piece. Or even the reasoning behind it.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Probably in their 'books' also. (Instructions for
> > > > > constructions of
> > > > > destructions.) Destruction in more ways than one.
> > > > >
> > > > > As you can guess, I'm pretty passionate about this stuff.
> > > >
> > > > To passionate to view objectively perhaps?
> > >
> > > Not really. I've been at this for a long time. I've weighed both
> > > sides
> >
> > Weighed? Your scales were biased with pre-conception.
>
> No they're not. I've been looking at this stuff for years. You're
> a late comer. A baby hoaxer, who thinks he's an adult hoaxer.
> Going to give us...what for!
I can give you what you fear the most, a reason to doubt your aliens.
> >
> > > and as I said to you before, reason and logic won out.
> >
> > I would very much like to see your reasoning and logic abilities
> > tested in public.
>
> Well then, get out there in public and re-construct the Sri Yantra.
Certainly, if I made it, I would.
> >
> > > That means
> > > you hoaxing jackasses lost, hands down. Long before you ever
> > > made your first construction.
> > >
> > Really? That's why my circles are pronounced 'genuine'? Most of them
> > at any rate.
>
> By who? And how? 2d pictures? Don't get so bloated with pride.
Every site linked to from the connector had at least one of our circles
there with no mention of being though of as a hoax. 4 said 'unhoaxable'
about one or another.
> >
> > > There is nothing more for you to prove. Hoaxers own them all (in
> > > fiction). I'm here to prove they don't, in reality.
> >
> > You keep saying proof without actually showing any. Gonna fix
> > that any time soon, or just rant some more? 'You gonna bark all
> > day little doggy, or are you gonna bite?' as Mr. Blonde put it.
>
> Just look at research on UFOs and crop markings. Look at the
> stuff the mainstream media won't show and tell you.
Where? URLs please, you can't expect me to be able to tell where you draw
your line between 'they took me away in a big silver ship' and 'iot's a
conspiracy'. I draw the line before any of it, you tell me what's on the
'truth' side of your line, I'll go read it.
> >
> > >The world "knows"
> > > they are all hoaxes, so why do you bother with me?
> >
> > You keep answering my questions with insults to avoid explaining
> > yourself for one thing.
>
> You are evasive, not me. I bring up points that are never addressed.
Name one point that's been evaded.
> Whatever you can't do, your (non-existent) brother can do. That
> crap doesn't wash with me.
And alien crap doesn't wash with me. Thing is, someone's abilities at
hoaxing outstripping yours is a lot more plausable than aliens making
circles. (And yes, I know you keep saying that it's not aliens making the
markings, it's something else, but if you won't explain it, I can't word it
right).
> >
> > >Am I a threat
> > > to the lie?
> >
> > What lie? Try specifics, not vague 'they're coming to take me away,
> > haha' mumblings.
>
> The lie you are tryiing to pull. The lie the mainstream media pulls,
> that every piece of evidence for the existence of UFOs is
> non-existent. All crop-markings are hoaxes. Those lies.
You're no threat to anything except the gullible and the paranoid. You are
organised religion without the manpower to carry it off. Show me evidence,
if you know it exists, show it to me.
> >
> > >The government, mainstream media, and organized
> > > religion all teach the hoax theory of crop-circles and UFOs. So if
> > > they are all accepted by the lethargic of the world as hoaxed,
> > > what's your problem with me? I'm just a lonely voice in the
> > > wilderness. (A very pissed off voice I might add.)
> > >
> > My problem with you is you don't seem to need any evidence to proove
> > your
> > point, a very unique talent, except, of course, for politicians.
>
> I have all the evidence I need.
No you don't, you just pretend to. That's why you won't show it, even though
I've asked a hundred times.
> You are to dense to have any
> evidence. And you want everyone to be the same way.
I want you to stop shouting about aliens until you can at least show me the
reasoning behind believing it. If not, you should get help.
> >
> > > How about that "security" tape taken outside the Minister of
> > > Defences' residence? Why the hell can't we get that, and make it
> > > public? That would be solid, indisputable evidence of lying, and
> > > deception by the mainstream media, all of their mouthpieces,
> > > and everyone of their hoaxing donkeys.
> >
> > More likely he was buggering goats or something.
>
> It's a fact, the tape exists. Now live with that.
Prove it.
> And you say
> I answer with insults. FAR Q 2.
Yes, you do. I dare you to count yours to mine. Besides, that wasn't an
insult to you, it was against the MOD personnel. Unless, of course, you are
one of them giving away confidential conspiracy details? Or maybe you are a
goat buggerer who thinks the insult was to be compared to a government
agent? (One more for your count, you'll need em compared to my count)
> >
> > > The fact that the video exists
> > > at all, is proof enough for me
> >
> > What, without seeing it? very perceptive.
>
> It exists, and they won't let the public see it.
How convenient.
> Why not?
> Because it would kill people like you, and vindicate me.
Fine, bring it on.
> The farking tape exists.
Proof please.
> The event happened, and you're not
> going to change it. You can't change history you pompous
> ass.
And you can't change the world, no matter how much you desire it and have
yuor little star-trek meeting with other conspiracy theorists.
> >
> > > that the markings, which are clearly
> > > humanly impossible to duplicate,
> >
> > Not clearly, no. There's the rub. You want to prove it, go right
> > ahead.
>
> Clearly...very clear. You're the one who claims. You do it.
> Get out there and re-construct the Sri Yantra.
You claim too, you prove it too. The people who did it will prve it right
after your aliens lay on their live demonstration.
> >
> > > e real, that they appear,
> >
> > Where does 'appearing'come from? What proof have you that they
> > appear?
>
> There are eye witnesses who have seen them appear. And how
> about that pilot?
How about that lone witness, give him around of applause. Maybe he missed
it, it was first light. Maybe he was fiddling with the instruments, maybe
he's a conspiracy theorist doing his cause a service, maybe he saw it in the
plane and thought he'd get a bit of attention by only 'noticing' it when he
was back down. If you won't accept the testimony of two or three people who
all at the same time give testimony that they created something, why should
anyone accept lone testimony?
> There are videos of lights floating through the
> grain.
Something I'd like to explain myself, just don't go saying it's unhoaxable,
it's not. Oliver's castle wasn't much more advanced than the tractor footage
I'm assuming you are reffering to, the only problem with the OC footage was
that the dumbasses didn't move the lights at the same rate as the camera
shook.
> >
> > > they
> > > are not constructed by people. The "construct", of the
> > > "construction",
> > > of the "constructed" ones, is tell tale of, beware; "a liar was
> > > here".
> >
> > >
> > > When 'serious' researchers asked the MoD if the public could
> > > view the tape, the response was, no way, uh uh. But 'we' will tell
> > > you; People didn't make it, it was an airborne event/element.
> > > Which to those who think like you, airborne means the wind.
> >
> > Airborne means 'in the air', which logically rules out the air
> > itself.
>
> The wind is in the air.
The wind *is* the air. A drop of water does not float, it is a part of the
water. Airborne means in the air, not a part of it. If you're saying that's
what the MoD said, 'airborne', it makes all the difference. Floating does
not mean water, airborne does not mean wind. Besides, are you diggin up
Meaden's theories on us or what?
> So you admit, just as the MoD did, something extraordinary is
> on that tape.
Do I fuck. When I've seen it I'll answer that. If I told you I had evidence
of my theory on a disk, but you couldn't see it because it 'freak you out',
but 'it does involve planks', you wouldn't take my word for it, so why
believe the conspiracy theory? Suits you, sir, that's why.
>Let us see it..you bunch of asses.
I'm not a bunch of asses, and I'd like to see it too, I'd like to know
what's on it rather than just assume I know because no-one will show me.
> They won't show it to the public, and that doesn't make you
> suspicious?
Yeah, suspicious of what kind of chemical weapons or such they're testing
and where, not what aliens they're hiding.
>Boy you are a dope on a rope. I wish you were
> hanging from it. You just might in the near future.
Really? How nice. All I wish for you is flowers and sunshine.
-Mid
MidNyte[UC]
> That could mean the "streak" coming from the shuttle STS48 isn't
> a retro blast, as Oberg claims. One reason for it not being a
> retro blast is there is no change in the shuttles attitude.
I'm not passing judgement either way, but if the blast was a 'retro' blast,
wouldn't that be to slow the shuttle, thereby causing it to start descending
or stop ascending? wouldn't that have nothing to do with the attitude, only
the altitude?
-Mid
Twonky
> > >
> > > That was it exactly. Picture, date, location in a password
> > > protected zipfile posted here a week before the formation
> > > appeared, the password one week after. Since the zip was
> > > kept by yourselves, there could be no tampering from us.
> > > If it didn't prove we were responcible, it would prove we were
> > > psychic :)
> >
> > So, you're going to post a file of a marking you are going to
> > construct, a week before you construct it? And then a week
> > after you construct it, you're going to give everybody the
> > password? So it has to be found and examined within a week
> > for the 'serious' researchers to be properly "fooled". What if it
> > isn't noticed? I think the unsuspecting victim of your dastardly
> > deed will have to be "coached" into finding it.
>
> OK, so we can just wait until someone makes a comment on whether or
> not it's genuine. All the ones I've done to date were found in
> around 2-3 three days with only one exception.
Okay....I'll wait.
And if nobody makes a comment. Or a comment like;
yewww...what a piece of crap! Then what? Will your feelings
be hurt? Will you (un)claim it?
Even blatant obvious hoaxes are posted, but just because they're
posted doesn't mean they are genuine. Any of those obvious
hoaxes yours?
>
> >
> > How are we to know if different passwords won't unzip
> > different files?
>
> They will, it's true, but I'd have as much chance of finding another
> password to produce the unlocking as you people. Given a 20
> character password that would be about 200 years on a pentium II
> 300.
Ha...that's what I have. I put in a new Intel ZX mother board that
goes to 600, but the chip prices are too high.
You would have an easy time with your zip, because you set the
password(s). And they don't have to be twenty-characters.
I tried encrypting and decrypting files and had one digit for a
password. I could have had twenty or more characters.
>
> > You may have a dozen markings drawn up
> > in that secret zip file.
>
> You can see the filenames, time, date, size etc of a file inside a
> passwod protected zip, you just can't open the file or see any of
> the characters inside.
All you can see in a zip file are file names, and not what is in
those files. Self expanding execute files contained within the
zip file can open many files. There is no safety from deception
in your offer. I don't go for it, you know that. Anybody who does
isn't thinking straight. Don't offer me zip hoax anymore...please.
Pretty please? With cherries on top?
Real time or no time.
>
> > You have two weeks to construct any
> > one of them. I wouldn't trust you at all.
>
> Try it for yourself. I'll send you a brute force zip cracker if you
> like.
Don't send me anything please. I don't want anything from you
except your downfall. Try what? Constructing a marking? No way.
>
> like. You can use my own, or you can use a faster one, my
> programming isn't that good yet.
Neither is mine. I did write a game in basic and machine language
on a Radio Shack CoCo 64K, 20 years ago. Turned out pretty
good too.
>
> > I am wary of your
> > enthusiasm to have somebody acquiesce. And of course
> > you found a trusting soul. I've learned my lesson. "No more
> > Mr Nice Guy."
>
> Mr. Nice Guy? I'd hate to see Mr. Stubborn Rude Git. And besides,
> why should someone not trust this system?, there's a whole world
> of resource to check it out.
I used to be a nice person until hoaxers came along and called me
stupid. And because you "dopes on ropes/wanks on planks/dicks on
sticks", are nothing but deceiving SOBs. You revel in deceiving
people. You get a sick perverted pleasure from it. Sort of like a
child molester must feel. Do you have orgasms over your
constructions?
> >
> > Paul, You guys (serious researchers) have been beaten up so
> > much by the mainstream media, why do you just grab for more
> > from a braggart dope on a rope?
> >
> Because I can show things up in a different light, one you cannot
> possibly imagine with your blinkers so firmly attached. Maybe we'll
> find nothing new, but we'll know that there was nothing to be gained
> through trying, not just arrogance.
Your light is about as bright as a flashlight bulb. One can see
alright, just can't see everything. Your light doesn't pierce the
darkness, it only lights the path you want everybody to walk.
Well....I'm not walking that path. I walk in a very different light,
and on a very different path.
>
> > Will everything in the zip and the fields be time stamped?
> > Will you state exact times? If you do, then I hope the weather
> > changes for the worst at that time.
> >
> I've said before, we set a date and stick to it, weather is no
> obstacle, but thankyou for the sentiment, I'll wrap up warm
> (& waterproof), so you needn't worry.
Geezzzz....even big, burly construction workers don't work in the
rain. Weather is no obstacle? What......a......guy. You're a real
wannabe hoaxer huh? You want your name in lights..don't you?
How about heavy wind, and a pelting sideways rain? Or maybe
during an earth quake. Neither rain, snow, sleet, nor hail will stop
a hoaxer from his deceptive trail.
Isn't it kind of hard to achieve your constant perfection when the
wind is blowing, and rain is whipping at your face, in pitch dark?
How can you concentrate in that situation? And with all those
bulky clothes? Don't you need freedom of movement for the fine
details of the construction?
My goodness, how many poor bastards have you convinced?
Do you honestly know what you sound like when reason and logic
are applied to what you claim? Pitiful.
>
> > I've had some astounding psychic occurrences. I don't turn
> > them on and off, they just seem to happen. Like the communion
> > I have with the Greys. Do you think I could come up with such an
> > extraordinary theory on my own?
>
> Hmmm, these greys, do they sit on your shoulder and disappear when
> anyone else is around? Do they tell you to burn things?
No...they don't sit on my shoulder. You're thinking of the little good
angel, and the little bad angel. The angels you have been brought up
to believe in. That way, a person can't be held responsible for what
is done. The devil on my shoulder made me do it. The other shoulder.
Nothing like that.....smart ass.
>
> > I have help.
>
> You need help.
You go out at zero hour, in all kinds of weather to squash wheat
with a plank for four hours or more. You have an obsession with zip
files...for some unexplained reason, and you have the balls to say;
I need help? I stay at home, or am in work at zero hour. "If you get
my drift."
I told you I have help. And the help isn't on my shoulder. That
would be a burden. Like you on my back. You are getting fat and
heavy. I'm going to drop you on your head. On purpose.
You have help now too. Who is that following you around affirming
everything you say?
>
> > You could say; info
> > from the horses mouth, my little Grey buddies. And not info from
> > the horses ass, like you and your buddies "PIC" receive..
>
> The only explanation known to science for talking to
> aliens/demons/whatever is in the science of physciatry.
So is habitual hoaxing, lying, and deception. "If you get my
drift." Tell your psychiatrist you go out in the middle of the night,
many times a week into grain fields, with a plank, string, and
baseball cap sighting device, and run around in circles for four or
more hours, and you want to commit yourself.
The church, organized religion, is already poised to portray
aliens as demons. Like Jim Schnabel does. They need help on that
account. Not me....
Another thing the Greys told me is; black holes are fusion reactors.
That way, their boss, (the God of hosts) can control the universe in
its expanding, or keep it a certain size. In that case creation could
literally be contained in a sphere. We would see the universe as
expanding, but in reality it is just perpetuating itself. The Greys
can't tell me which it is....not yet. Also, using fusion, the universe
is perpetual, never ending. Quite a playground...huh? What else
would you expect of the one who created it?
>
> > Done deal? Not for me.
> > All I have to say is;
>
> That'll be the day. Cheap shot I know, but WTF, you've taken
> enough of them.
At least I don't dish them out. But yours really hurt...OOOoooooo
Ooooooowwwwww oooooooo. You're making me cry, you meany.
I'm sorry...I forgot which cheap shot it was. I mean, you are so good
and plentiful at cheap shots....I think...maybe not, maybe I'm just...
claiming you are.
>
> > Paul should demand
> > it be pysically examined and not just an aerial shot, (if it could
> > possibly be worthy of an aerial shot).
>
> Of course he should, that's fine by me. And as for worthy, one of
> mine was described in 97 as 'the most exquisite circle of the year',
> thankyou all the same.
You are a pompus ass, aren't you? Guess what. I don't believe you.
One of mine also was recognized as the most exquisite of 88/89/90
/91/92/93/94/95/96/97/98/99/00. Nothing to claiming, thank you very
much. Where the fark is your zipper file for that ~oh so so ho~
deceptive piece of bull art.
Why don't you just claim the Sri Yantra? You don't have the balls to.
Even you know that would be going too far. Same with the three arm
Julia. All of you hoaxing donkeys claim to know who constructs those
markings, but that's not any good. I want a live, public, real time
re-construction.
>
> >And that can't happen unless
> > he knows where it is. And if he knows where it is, then he knows
> > it's a hoax.
>
> Of course he knows, he's opened the zipfile and has picture, date,
> location. He can have a grid reference if he wants it.
Okay...I think I understand what you are trying to do. No I don't.
And you know what else....I don't give a poop.
Just do an 800 foot construction in real time. Four hours.
>
> > So, he would have to be deceived in some way.
> > The "coaching" into finding it? Well......you two boys have fun.
> > And Paul, you be careful of that snake.
> >
> Ssssss
Ssssssstuuuuuuuuuupiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiiiiiiiity reigns in your
brains.
>
> > Also, I would have that zip file decompiled.
> >
> > When you're done playing with your zip files, shake and bake me
> > an 800-900 footer, in a field with no tramlines, thin 1-3 stalk
> > wide rings, standing center, in real time.
>
> Like I said before, name your design, We'll seriously try for it.
You'll seriously try for it? Just for me? Real time public
re-construction, I hope. If you can plan a zip file construction, then
you can plan a public demostration of the re-construction.
The Sri Yantra. And the three arm Julia, and the 1991 Barbury Castle
traingle. Put a construction smack in the middle of a field with no
tramlines. Re-construct your 800 footer in Wiltshire. Construct a
marking in mature oil seed rape with a 1-3 stalk wide ring, standing
center, and no pole hole.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > > Sounds good, I'm definatly up for that, I think my partner in
> > > crime (PIC from now) will be too. I'm as interested in the
> > > anomalies as anyone else, just that I have a different view on
> > > why they're there :)
> >
> > I know why they're here. To tell us who, what, and why we are
> > here. How would you like to see recordings of earths history?
> > Our 'view' is totally original and unique. Explains our missing
> > link.
> > The markings are the signature, not the art, of the artist of all
> > that you see. Now that's real art, and artist.
>
> And that would be God, or Aliens, or what? (Serious question, not
> taking the piss)
God AND aliens/angels....
It's the God of hosts....stupid. Aliens are His angels. Twelve
species. The Greys like us, feel pity for us. There are species
of aliens/angels who actually don't like us. Imagine that!
They love guys like you though, because you thwart the Greys
from helping us.
Do you believe angels have wings, and fly around like a bird,
playing harp music for all eternity? You do if you're a product
of organized religion. There is an analogy for my statement that
is true in our reality, for all religions.
Can you figure it out?
Once you do, you will see the truth. And if you already know the
truth, and have done what you do, knowingly and willingly,
well.......what do think should be done with those who have lied
and deceived, those who have withheld the key of knowledge for
2000 years, from those who are perishing? What do you feel is
justice?
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> >
> > Right, disruption, and destruction of the plants in hoaxed
> > constructions. Pole holes, broken and crushed plants, scraping
> > on the stalks....etc...etc....etc.....a real mess.
>
> Pole holes? you actually been anywhere near a crop circle since
> 1990?
I've never been near a crop-circle. But I know it is pretty tough to
make a perfect circle without a good steady center point. I'm not
so bold or arrogant enough to say I can draw a perfect circle free
hand, as you obviously do on your sketches, inches in diameter,
and in the fields, hundreds of feet in diameter. Right?
>
> As for breaking, cruching & scraping, there's a lot less of that
> than you think if you do it right.
Wait a minute. Some of the floor lays are absolutely flat, with no
breakage. You would need a garden roller filled with lead in order
to get the lay as flat. And maybe not even then. That would certainly
break a few stalks, if not all. Try it in mature oil seed rape. Watch
out for that delicate little flower. No crushing it. It must be like
you've done in all your other markings, no broken stalks, physical
alteration of the plants, layers upon layers woven and braided in
different directions.
How about a marking like the one that appeared with the stalks bent
half way down for the entire marking. Now there's a trick for you to
perform. Or re-construct the markings where all of the heads are
missing from the plants involved. That's also a good trick. There were
only a few throughout the years with those characteristics, but all it
takes is one. Just like one Sri Yantra is enough. One of each is
enough, I'm not greedy.
Oh yeah, there was a marking, in Canada I think, where a porcupine
was found flattened. I mean, it was really flat. Looked like it was
put into a 20 ton press. How did hoaxers do that? Did they actually
put it in a press and flatten it? KERCHUNK! No guts or anything,
just plain flat.
Those are (some of) the markings that prove they are not all hoaxed.
There was a time when none were hoaxed. That's when I was a nice
person.
How many do you construct every year? All of them? Most of them?
Some of them? One or two? Why don't you become a normal person
and knock it off?
> > >
> > > I've heard (not conclusively though) that the tops of the crop
> > > can create quite an electrostatic field, maybe the lack of said
> > > static field in the formation could be behind it? But anyway,
> > > nothing specific.
> >
> > Well I mean specific. And to the point. Perfectly clear and
> > coherent.
>
> Like your answers? Clear? yes. Specific? yes... but insults and no
> attempt at an answer.
I told you, the human race was made with genetic engineering by
extraterrestrials. How much more specific do you want?
It's a long story. If I had the time and money, I'd write a book.
Oh wait, the book is already written.....Nevermind!
I hope I don't get charged with plagiarism. Nahhh, I was told it
would be totally original and unique.
>
> I'll give you something specific when I've seen the anomalies first
> hand, and no, I've never noticed any anomalies when creating the
> circles.
Well, you won't get to see when you are flattened and
swirled while constructing your construction of destruction and
deception. I certainly hope your flattening and swirling would be in
your zip file.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> -Mid
>
Twonky...in the light, and middle finger, of God. ,,|,,
It's the God of hosts.....stupid! ,,|,,
HEY JIM....GOD IS WATCHING YOU! ,,|,,
You too Mid ,,|,,
Congratulations Mid, you made it to the lower level of Schnabel ,,|,,
Taking candy from a baby....hoaxer? Shame on me. ,,|,,
Paul Whitehead
leresearch.com> writes
>In article <80ivu4$j87$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>, Twonky
><URL:mailto:two...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Not enough investigation!!?? What the hell are you talking about?
>> Everytime the mainstream media does a crop-circle hoax show,
>> they give the serious researchers two minutes. Ask Paul V,
>> about his interviews on TDC, aka The Deception Channel.
>> The interview with Colin Andrews lasted hours, and they gave
>> him two friggin minutes....if that much. So don't give me, "not
>> enough investigation," that's bull. It's there, but the mainstream
>> media ignores it. They intentionally ignore it. Why would they
>> do that? I know why, because I'm right, and they can't handle that.
>>
>> It's a vast conspiracy against us.
>
>The problem with the media (and something I'm very wary of when I'm
>interviewed) is that they take what you say out of context and then re-edit
>it in order to try to discredit you.
oo, oo, paranoia, Paul!
Come on, old chap, take a break. OTOH, journalists may go for the punch
if they think the story is crap without a bit of life. But if the story
is crap, one must ask oneself...why? <in the case of crop circles, it
appears to be because they are hoaxed and yet some people persist in
saying they are not. There is then only one way for a journalist to take
the story>
<snip>
--
Paul Whitehead
PAN
> In article <80ogrd$qji$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, Twonky
> <URL:mailto:two...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> > Just like in 1988 the device for screwing with the jet
> > stream/weather. That "they" would never build.
>
> understand why the environmentalists haven't cottoned on to what's
happening
> and tried to investigate.
>
> > Playing God. They have this technology and look what they do with it,
try
> > to blow our littles buddies out of the sky. No wonder they won't tell us
> > about UFOs, and the truth about crop circles. They try to kill those who
> > make the markings appear.
>
upon
> Tesla technology, it's a huge ionospheric heater which can do untold
damage
> to the Earth, plus all kinds of covert military operations such as wiping
out
> global communications, focussing earthquakes on specific areas (hmmm!) and
> modifying the weather in order to attempt to control the gulf stream.
Turkey happens to be one of the most earthquake stricken areas in the world,
I think it is just possible that these are caused by tectonics rather than
some ray gun!
> It's also possible that HAARP testing took out the famed TWA-800 flight
from
> a few years back.
What? Lockerbie, don't be so ridiculous.
Paul Whitehead
writes
this being usenet, we must remember - that this ng is drifting deeper
into wacko waters again.
Mind you, a few pints of HARP lager with Ye Barge Head Banger Chasers
might send some teetotal pilots a bit off beam.
Dr~
Twonky
*FOREWARNING* naughty language herein.....]
(This was done in a hurry. Any grammatical errors are
daydisks fault. He says so.)
MidNyte[UC] <midny...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:80r0q6$afd$9...@nclient15-gui.server.virgin.net...
>
> Twonky <two...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:80mug1$82m$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > MidNyte[UC] <midny...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> > news:80adab$ep4$1...@nclient15-gui.server.virgin.net...
> > >
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > Because I see how the mainstream media handles them. The
> > direction, and guidance the dopes on ropes receive from the
> > mainstream media. Who do you think paid for that trip to New
> > Zealand?
>
> Well obviously. That doesn't answer how you know whether or not here
> is
> something inside a hoaxers book that would make sense of something
> about
> circles that you could previously only put down to aliens, without
> reading
> the damn thing. You say you are a serious researcher, yet you won't
> investigate one particular theory because it offends you. That's not
> scientific research, that's pre-conception.
You use what fits in with your research. Give me the same courtesy.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > > Nope. Pictures of thier circles though. So what?
> >
> > 2d pictures? No hands on investigation? Stick'em.
>
> You didn't ask me if I'd been to them, and yes, I have.
No shit...huh?
>
<<<SNIP>>>.
>
> > You believe in magic? Okay then, here goes a pin in your eye.
>
> Funny, still have 20-20. Maybe you were wrong about magic?
Takes time. You'll get that wire sighting device stuck in your eye.
>
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > Better than butter? Will you stop trying to sell yourself. You
> > sound
> > like a whore.
>
> Fine. OSR, I can't do very well, a few bent, but 90% broken, even in
> the
> wet. There you go. Now you admit that you can't prove that aliens
> even
> exist, nevermind make crop circles. If not, prove it.
You have to be soft headed. You are. Prove that you exist.
>
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > I passed the Mensa exam that qualified me to take the entrance
> > exam. But just qualifying is good enough for me. And you?
>
> The one they run in the paper? the one no-one who has ever tried has
> failed?
> or the 1 hour supervised entrance exam? And actually, I only did it
> to see
> if I could, I never joined, that's why they sent the letter. I
> didn't see
> the point in paying a yearly fee to talk to people. How's that for
> qualifying is enough?
So what. I don't care one way or another.
Sure you qualify. You are just a qualifying mother fucker in
everything you do. Especially at being a hoaxing jackass.
>
> >
> > Got a letter from the New England Conservatory of Music, that
> > contained an application for entry. I was pre-approved. And you?
>
> Not many music academies around that like my style of music, it's
> not very
> technical. People we play to like it though.
And what about the people you lie to. Like me. I hate everything
you do.
>
> > >
> >
> > Right...bird shit, for a bird turd mind. Oh...don't think about
> > it.
> > You may come down with a migraine.
>
> I won't think about it, like I said, I don't care. My interest is
> crops.
Your interest is crap.
> > >
>
<<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > And to you also. I don't make up my evidence. It's there,
> > if you want to find it. I looked at everything you're offering.
> > Before you ever offered it.
>
> You looked up sweet FA. I know this because you have no idea about
> the
> technicalities of the password protected zip-file, like being able
> to see
> what files it contains. Tell me what you looked up, and give me URLs
> to
> what
> you expect me and others to accept, I'm sure you have various pages
> bookmarked.
I'm on the net. I have all kinds of links bookmarks. Including
hoaxing donkey links. Are you going to but a crop-circl making
machine?
>
> > >
> > > > Drop it
> > > > already, and be assured in knowing that I am right.
> > >
> > > You are right? Without evidence? Sounds about right.
> >
> > Well...you should get some evidence. I have plenty.
>
> Show me. Just one piece. Or even the reasoning behind it.
(From another post.)
How about a marking like the one that appeared with the stalks bent
half way down for the entire marking. Now there's a trick for you to
perform. Or re-construct the markings where all of the heads are
missing from the plants involved. That's also a good trick. There were
only a few throughout the years with those characteristics, but all it
takes is one. Just like one Sri Yantra is enough. One of each is
enough, I'm not greedy.
Oh yeah, there was a marking, in Canada I think, where a porcupine
was found flattened. I mean, it was really flat. Looked like it was
put into a 20 ton press. How did hoaxers do that? Did they actually
put it in a press and flatten it? KERCHUNK! No guts or anything,
just plain flat.
Those are (some of) the markings that prove they are not all hoaxed.
There was a time when none were hoaxed. That's when I was a nice
person.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > No they're not. I've been looking at this stuff for years. You're
> > a late comer. A baby hoaxer, who thinks he's an adult hoaxer.
> > Going to give us...what for!
>
> I can give you what you fear the most, a reason to doubt your
> aliens.
Likewise for you on all hoaxes and UFOs.
>
> > >
> > > > and as I said to you before, reason and logic won out.
> > >
> > > I would very much like to see your reasoning and logic abilities
> > > tested in public.
> >
> > Well then, get out there in public and re-construct the Sri
> > Yantra.
>
> Certainly, if I made it, I would.
Nobody made it. Especially the jerks that claimed it. They didn't even
know it was pressed into the hardpan.
>
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> > By who? And how? 2d pictures? Don't get so bloated with pride.
>
> Every site linked to from the connector had at least one of our
> circles
> there with no mention of being though of as a hoax. 4 said
> 'unhoaxable'
> about one or another.
Prove it. I don't believe you.
>
> > >
<<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > Just look at research on UFOs and crop markings. Look at the
> > stuff the mainstream media won't show and tell you.
>
> Where? URLs please, you can't expect me to be able to tell where you
> draw
> your line between 'they took me away in a big silver ship' and
> 'iot's a
> conspiracy'. I draw the line before any of it, you tell me what's on
> the
> 'truth' side of your line, I'll go read it.
Just read my posts.
>
> > >
> > > >The world "knows"
> > > > they are all hoaxes, so why do you bother with me?
> > >
> > > You keep answering my questions with insults to avoid explaining
> > > yourself for one thing.
> >
> > You are evasive, not me. I bring up points that are never
> > addressed.
>
> Name one point that's been evaded.
Oil seed rape. The thin 1-3 stalk wide rings with a standing center.
The markings with all the heads missing...like your head is missing.
The markings well into fields with no tramlines. Markings done on rain
soaked nights. The physical changes in the plants.
>
> > Whatever you can't do, your (non-existent) brother can do. That
> > crap doesn't wash with me.
>
> And alien crap doesn't wash with me. Thing is, someone's abilities
> at
> hoaxing outstripping yours is a lot more plausable than aliens
> making
> circles. (And yes, I know you keep saying that it's not aliens
> making the
> markings, it's something else, but if you won't explain it, I can't
> word it
> right).
Nothing washes with you except the crap spewing from your lying,
deceiving spirit..
>
> > >
> >
> > The lie you are tryiing to pull. The lie the mainstream media
> > pulls,
> > that every piece of evidence for the existence of UFOs is
> > non-existent. All crop-markings are hoaxes. Those lies.
>
> You're no threat to anything except the gullible and the paranoid.
I wouldn't bet on that. If you look at the "evolution" of hoaxing,
you'll see a conspiracy, of at least, mainstream media.
>
> You are
> organised religion without the manpower to carry it off. Show me
> evidence,
> if you know it exists, show it to me.
It is not organized religion. It is a belief system. And yes, I am the
only Desitic Christian on the planet ~and loving it. It's so scary
for you, isn't it? To know that we were genetically engineered.
>
> > >
> >
> > I have all the evidence I need.
Me too.
>
> No you don't, you just pretend to. That's why you won't show it,
> even
> though
> I've asked a hundred times.
All the stuff the mainstream media doesn't show and tell us.
Clear enough? Boy you are dense. No wonder why you're a hoaxer.
>
> > You are to dense to have any
> > evidence. And you want everyone to be the same way.
>
> I want you to stop shouting about aliens until you can at least show
> me the
> reasoning behind believing it. If not, you should get help.
See above.
>
<<<SNIP>>>
> > >
> > > More likely he was buggering goats or something.
> >
> > It's a fact, the tape exists. Now live with that.
>
> Prove it.
Because it was taken while the camera was on, doing what it was
made to do. The marking appeared, that's right it just appeared, under
the cameras "lens". The MoD acknowledged the marking
is on the tape by denying viewing......oh fuck you...the goddamned
thing exitsts. Don't be such an ass. That's better than any evidence
you come up with to prove they're all hoaxed..
>
> > And you say
> > I answer with insults. FAR Q 2.
>
> Yes, you do. I dare you to count yours to mine. Besides, that wasn't
> an
> insult to you, it was against the MOD personnel. Unless, of course,
> you
> are
> one of them giving away confidential conspiracy details? Or maybe
> you are a
> goat buggerer who thinks the insult was to be compared to a
> government
> agent? (One more for your count, you'll need em compared to my
> count)
I don't bugger goats, like hoaxers. I eat goats like I eat hoaxers.
>
> > >
> > > > The fact that the video exists
> > > > at all, is proof enough for me
> > >
> > > What, without seeing it? very perceptive.
> >
> > It exists, and they won't let the public see it.
>
> How convenient.
For them. Why do you think we can't see it? You friggin asshole.
>
> > Why not?
> > Because it would kill people like you, and vindicate me.
>
> Fine, bring it on.
I already have, you're to stupid to see it.
>
> > The farking tape exists.
>
> Proof please.
I already did....asshole. You're just to stupid to see it.
>
> > The event happened, and you're not
> > going to change it. You can't change history you pompous
> > ass.
>
> And you can't change the world, no matter how much you desire it and
> have
> yuor little star-trek meeting with other conspiracy theorists.
Yes I can, if you, and your sick ilk, would just fucking screw.
>
> > >
> > > > that the markings, which are clearly
> > > > humanly impossible to duplicate,
> > >
> > > Not clearly, no. There's the rub. You want to prove it, go right
> > > ahead.
> >
> > Clearly...very clear. You're the one who claims. You do it.
> > Get out there and re-construct the Sri Yantra.
>
> You claim too, you prove it too. The people who did it will prve it
> right
> after your aliens lay on their live demonstration.
They already have with humanly impossible to construct markings.
You even admit that. Jackass.
>
> > >
> > > > e real, that they appear,
> > >
> > > Where does 'appearing'come from? What proof have you that they
> > > appear?
> >
> > There are eye witnesses who have seen them appear. And how
> > about that pilot?
>
> How about that lone witness, give him around of applause. Maybe he
> missed
> it, it was first light. Maybe he was fiddling with the instruments,
> maybe
> he's a conspiracy theorist doing his cause a service, maybe he saw
> it in
> the
> plane and thought he'd get a bit of attention by only 'noticing' it
> when he
> was back down. If you won't accept the testimony of two or three
> people
> who
> all at the same time give testimony that they created something, why
> should anyone accept lone testimony?
Why not. It's done in courts. Sorry, but I believe him. I don't
believe
you.
>
> > There are videos of lights floating through the
> > grain.
>
> Something I'd like to explain myself, just don't go saying it's
> unhoaxable,
> it's not. Oliver's castle wasn't much more advanced than the tractor
> footage
> I'm assuming you are reffering to, the only problem with the OC
> footage
> was
> that the dumbasses didn't move the lights at the same rate as the
> camera
> shook.
I'm not talking about Oliver's Castle...shit for brains.
>
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> >
> > The wind is in the air.
>
> The wind *is* the air. A drop of water does not float, it is a part
> of the
> water. Airborne means in the air, not a part of it. If you're saying
> that's
> what the MoD said, 'airborne', it makes all the difference. Floating
> does
> not mean water, airborne does not mean wind. Besides, are you diggin
> up
> Meaden's theories on us or what?
Water floats in clouds. The wind is seperate from the air. It blows,
like you. And the morons in the MoD were implying exactly that.
You breath air, not wind. I wish you weren't breathing at all.
It is really airy out today.
>
> > So you admit, just as the MoD did, something extraordinary is
> > on that tape.
>
> Do I fuck.
Yes you do....fuckhead.
>
> When I've seen it I'll answer that. If I told you I had
> evidence
> of my theory on a disk, but you couldn't see it because it 'freak
> you out',
> but 'it does involve planks', you wouldn't take my word for it, so
> why
> believe the conspiracy theory? Suits you, sir, that's why.
Fuck you and your disk....okay. You fucking plank wank.
I wouldn't take your word for anything.
>
> >Let us see it..you bunch of asses.
>
> I'm not a bunch of asses, and I'd like to see it too, I'd like to
> know
> what's on it rather than just assume I know because no-one will show
> me.
The MoD tape? Why won't they show you? Can you possibly think about
it and come to a rational decision? No!
>
> > They won't show it to the public, and that doesn't make you
> > suspicious?
>
> Yeah, suspicious of what kind of chemical weapons or such they're
> testing
> and where, not what aliens they're hiding.
Oh, a conspiracy theory? From you...how refreshing.
>
> >Boy you are a dope on a rope. I wish you were
> > hanging from it. You just might in the near future.
>
> Really? How nice. All I wish for you is flowers and sunshine.
And all I wish for you is...what you have now.