*CATTLE MUTILATION EVIDENCE WANTED*

Mark Frierson

unread,

Apr 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM4/26/97

to

I am seeking, for my own private collection, a dry or wet preservation
piece of skin taken from a cattle mutilation victim, showing the burned
incision marks. Documentation is preferable. I would also like to obtain
some wheat from a crop circle that has been genetically altered. Please
let me know if you can help. *Only Serious Responses Please!

Contact me at: frie...@netropolis.net

Kristine Campbell

unread,

Apr 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM4/28/97

to

>Mark Frierson wrote:

>>
>> I am seeking, for my own private collection, a dry or wet preservation
>> piece of skin taken from a cattle mutilation victim, showing the burned
>> incision marks. Documentation is preferable.

ah, what type of documentation do you require exactly? a letter, complete
with "earls' farm" letterhead? perhaps stating,

hi. this is earl. please find enclosed skin. came from my cow, flossie.

also...the term "private collection" in your post concerns me. kinda
creepy there, markboy.

kristine
--
"bruce, I just wanna know what's up with the doo....."
--------------------------
Queen of the Venom Spewers
--------------------------
Official Knight of What is Deemed Funny and Amusing in afab
and now an official member of the Cult #13-13131-313
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Avenging Archangel of * Go Penguins!
the Spelling Flame *
Proud Board Member * Jesus saves but Jagr shoots and
of AFAB since October '96 * scores
-----------------------------------------------------------------
visit MY web page www.my.border.collie.com/~is.a.channeler.htm.
-------------

Carl Fink

unread,

Apr 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM4/28/97

to

In article <frierson-260...@max1bh.netropolis.net>,

frie...@netropolis.net (Mark Frierson) wrote:
>I am seeking, for my own private collection, a dry or wet preservation
>piece of skin taken from a cattle mutilation victim, showing the burned
>incision marks. Documentation is preferable.

Why? Cattle mutilation is done by coyotes, blowflies, buzzards and so
forth. Are you interested in scavenger biology?

>I would also like to obtain
>some wheat from a crop circle that has been genetically altered.

Mark, the people who were making the crop circles *confessed*. It was
done with a rope and a board by a couple of English guys, who were
copied by other hoaxers. It was all just a put-on.

>*Only Serious Responses Please!

I think my answer was pretty serious.
--
Carl Fink ca...@panix.com

"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the
exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them."
- Frederick Douglass

Scot Justice

unread,

Apr 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM4/29/97

to

On Sat, 26 Apr 1997 22:22:08 -0600, frie...@netropolis.net (Mark
Frierson) wrote:

>I am seeking, for my own private collection, a dry or wet preservation
>piece of skin taken from a cattle mutilation victim, showing the burned

>incision marks. Documentation is preferable. I would also like to obtain
>some wheat from a crop circle that has been genetically altered. Please
>let me know if you can help. *Only Serious Responses Please!

Does "cattle prod" burns count. Ya know, those alien bastards use
those for control and for probing...ooouuuccchhh:)

Scot

Michael D. Painter

unread,

May 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/1/97

to

I have relics of the saints, pieces of the cross, water from the flood
(windows and fonts version, rain version or both) and manure from the ark
but no crop.....
Wait. I just got in some of the holes from cattle mutilations and can let
them go cheap...

I also have a rather definitive article on the mutilation around somewhere
and there have been many video explanations of the circles.
These tend to be dull fact so don't bring much cash.

Jfcspam <jfc...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970501154...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>
> In article <frierson-260...@max1bh.netropolis.net>,
> frie...@netropolis.net wrote:
>
> >
> >Subject: *CATTLE MUTILATION EVIDENCE WANTED*
> >From: frie...@netropolis.net (Mark Frierson)
> >Date:

> >
> >I am seeking, for my own private collection, a dry or wet preservation
> >piece of skin taken from a cattle mutilation victim, showing the burned
> >incision marks. Documentation is preferable. I would also like to
> obtain
> >some wheat from a crop circle that has been genetically altered. Please
> >let me know if you can help. *Only Serious Responses Please!
> >

> >Contact me at: frie...@netropolis.net
>
> I can supply anything for the right price. Email your specs on the cow -
> specify dead or alive. Please indicate the specific genetic alterations
> you require and the type of circle you want the sample of wheat from.
> Payment must be made upfront, delivered in a paper bag by a brown shoeed
> square in the dead of night.
> Reply to jfc536ataoldotcom - John Cleary - Mail blocked at name above
>

John

unread,

May 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/3/97

to

Carl Fink wrote:

> Mark, the people who were making the crop circles *confessed*. It was
> done with a rope and a board by a couple of English guys, who were
> copied by other hoaxers. It was all just a put-on.

Just because a group of people said they faked some crop circles doesn't
mean they are all fake. It is my opinion that some are genuine, made
either by some force of nature we don't understand or perhaps by aliens.
But these are probably few and far between.

Scot Justice

unread,

May 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/3/97

to

On Sat, 03 May 1997 12:37:50 -0700, John <fl...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>Just because a group of people said they faked some crop circles doesn't
>mean they are all fake. It is my opinion that some are genuine, made
>either by some force of nature we don't understand or perhaps by aliens.
>But these are probably few and far between.

Oh yea, all crop circles are real, those aliens love rope and boards.
Guess the world will learn the truth some day, .... HEY, maybe Major
Ed "Physic of the Insane" Dames will "remote view" this, or maybe
Santa as an airborne terrorist:)

Scot

DrPostman

unread,

May 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/4/97

to

rel-admin <rel-...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>> Carl Fink wrote:
>>
>> Mark, the people who were making the crop circles *confessed*. It was
>> done with a rope and a board by a couple of English guys, who were
>> copied by other hoaxers. It was all just a put-on.

>It's widely accepted that the two 'hoaxers' who came forward to accept
>responsibility for Britain's crop circles can not possibly account for
>every single circle created - there have been far too many. The media
>happily seemed to accept this dubious explanation, rather than use their
>common sense. Of course, many circles are hoaxes.
Why is it that Art and others love to say "Doug and Dave can't be
everywhere"?
It sounds like they are saying that Doug and Dave are the only
ones who can hoax - there was a show on discovery that showed
how one of the prestiegous British universities held a contest that
blew the so called "can't be hoaxed circles" theory - some of the
crop circle researchers that were on hand became angry and
very disgusted at how well the collage folks could hoax - even
creating designs that the experts said could not be hoaxed.
--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD
Knight of the Potato Cannon,
Facilitator of Art Bell Anonymous,
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b,
And a lifetime member of the
Art Bell Internet Fan Club,
SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
"Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Want to email me? My address is: jami...@mindspring.com
"You write new so-called "reasons" and the original name-calling,
from the vacant minded fools that you are, had no alleged "reason.""
Bruce Daniel Kettler
--

Mathew Hendry

unread,

May 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/4/97

to

rel-admin <rel-...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
: > Carl Fink wrote:
: >
: > Mark, the people who were making the crop circles *confessed*. It was
: > done with a rope and a board by a couple of English guys, who were
: > copied by other hoaxers. It was all just a put-on.

: It's widely accepted that the two 'hoaxers' who came forward to accept
: responsibility for Britain's crop circles can not possibly account for
: every single circle created - there have been far too many. The media
: happily seemed to accept this dubious explanation, rather than use their
: common sense.

Strangely, the number of crop circles skyrocketed after these initial hoaxes
were widely reported. Were the aliens just cashing in on some free publicity,
or was it simply that more hoaxers appeared? What does your "common sense"
suggest?

: Of course, many circles are hoaxes...although I understand
: that a new devlopment in microwave/infrared photography (or something
: like that) can apparently distinguish the real thing from the
: pretence... does anyone have any additional information on the equipment
: being used? I gather from a recent article that it's being tested in
: scientific trials at the moment.

Of course, there must be a reliable means of distinuishing hoaxes from the
"real thing" for this new device to be scientifically evaluated. What is this
reliable means? And if it's reliable, what use is this new technique?

-- Mat.

Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh

unread,

May 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/4/97

to

rel-admin wrote:
>
> > Carl Fink wrote:
> >
> > Mark, the people who were making the crop circles *confessed*. It was
> > done with a rope and a board by a couple of English guys, who were
> > copied by other hoaxers. It was all just a put-on.
>
> It's widely accepted that the two 'hoaxers' who came forward to accept
> responsibility for Britain's crop circles can not possibly account for
> every single circle created - there have been far too many.

Gee, bunch of bored farmers run out of cows to tip and sheep to harass.
They see two guys on the TV getting famous. It follows that There'd be a
huge breakout of copy cat circles. Its the rural equivalent of suburban
Xmas light pissing contests. Hence the increasingly complex designs. Jim
Bob doesn't want to be topped by Ed.

The media
> happily seemed to accept this dubious explanation, rather than use their
> common sense.

Yes, it is much more rational to say space men did it in invisible UFOs
than to think that bored farmers did it to fool goofballs such as
yourself. That laughter coming from the barn is directed at you.

Of course, many circles are hoaxes...although I understand
> that a new devlopment in microwave/infrared photography (or something
> like that) can apparently distinguish the real thing from the

> pretence...does anyone have any additional information on the equipment

> being used? I gather from a recent article that it's being tested in

> scientific trials at the moment. Anyway, here's looking forward to an
> impressive display this Summer - hoax or otherwise...

I wouldn't put my money on otherwise.
--
Dr. Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh, BsD +=+ Sir Dave of the Giants
jw3...@nyssa.swt.edu +=+ Destroying Angel of Spam
http://www.swt.edu/~jw34998 +=+ afa-b Board of Directors
SKEP-TI-CULT® Administration +=+ Lifetime Member,
Officer #01-22112-324 +=+ Art Bell Internet Fan Club
Membership is FREE!

l...@killjunkmail.rwentk.demon.co.uk

unread,

May 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/4/97

to

On Sat, 03 May 1997 19:49:42 -0400 ca...@panix.com (Carl Fink)
commented:

>In article <336B94...@pacbell.net>, John <fl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>Just because a group of people said they faked some crop circles doesn't
>>mean they are all fake. It is my opinion that some are genuine, made
>>either by some force of nature we don't understand or perhaps by aliens.
>>But these are probably few and far between.
>

>Ah, yes, I'm starting to remember why I stopped reading sci.skeptic.
>
>"Your opinion" is irrelevant in this case, unless supported by some
>sort of evidence. This is not a matter of aesthetics or ethics here,
>where opinions can be argued to be equal. It's a matter of fact,
>where something a bit more rigorous is needed.

No Carl, it's not just a matter of 'fact'. You forgot to add that
until a peer reviewed journal like Nature prints a paper by one or
more professional scientists with PhDs and tenure which lists all the
evidence, any evidence that crop circle researchers may collect
doesn't count, because of course it's not rigorous enough.

Keep these pesky amateurs and their awkward questions out of science,
I say! Who do these people think they are, anyway?

R.

P.S. :)

morad barghi

unread,

May 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/4/97

to

Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh wrote:

>
> Mark Frierson wrote:
> >
> > I am seeking, for my own private collection, a dry or wet preservation
> > piece of skin taken from a cattle mutilation victim, showing the burned
> > incision marks. Documentation is preferable. I would also like to obtain

> > some wheat from a crop circle that has actually been altered. Please let

> > me know if you can help. *Only Serious Responses Please!
> >
> > Contact me at: frie...@netropolis.net
>

> This guy is really tempting me to light my old leather jacket on fire. I
> bet I could take for at least 100 bucks.

> --
> Dr. Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh, BsD +=+ Sir Dave of the Giants
> jw3...@nyssa.swt.edu +=+ Destroying Angel of Spam
> http://www.swt.edu/~jw34998 +=+ afa-b Board of Directors
> SKEP-TI-CULT® Administration +=+ Lifetime Member,
> Officer #01-22112-324 +=+ Art Bell Internet Fan Club
> Membership is FREE!

cattle mutilation is caused by chupakabras made in USA?

Sue Mitchell

unread,

May 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/4/97

to

In article <336b37e...@news.edge.net>, Scot Justice
<sc...@edge.net> writes

>Oh yea, all crop circles are real, those aliens love rope and boards.
>Guess the world will learn the truth some day, .... HEY, maybe Major
>Ed "Physic of the Insane" Dames will "remote view" this, or maybe
>Santa as an airborne terrorist:)
>
>Scot

Scot, haven't you got anything better to do than add your negative two
penn'orth to a newsgroup which obviously doesn't interest you?

You could be so much more productively employed raising funds for
charities that try to help people who don't have your advantages.
Please...
--
Peace and Love,
Sue.

__ __
{{{{\ /}}}} Sue Mitchell
{{::\ V /::}} s...@imps.demon.co.uk
>--->8<---<
{:.;/ 0 \;.:} "This could be heaven for everyone" ROGER TAYLOR
~~ ~~

Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh

unread,

May 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/4/97

to

Sue Mitchell wrote:
>
> In article <336b37e...@news.edge.net>, Scot Justice
> <sc...@edge.net> writes
> >Oh yea, all crop circles are real, those aliens love rope and boards.
> >Guess the world will learn the truth some day, .... HEY, maybe Major
> >Ed "Physic of the Insane" Dames will "remote view" this, or maybe
> >Santa as an airborne terrorist:)
> >
> >Scot
>
> Scot, haven't you got anything better to do than add your negative two
> penn'orth to a newsgroup which obviously doesn't interest you?
>
> You could be so much more productively employed raising funds for
> charities that try to help people who don't have your advantages.
> Please...

I enjoy most of his posts. You're just mad because people like us
destroy your daydreaming little fairy tales. Get used to it. We aren't
going anywhere. Besides, don't you have anything better to do than sit
around yakking about little grey men from space, that don't have
anything better to do than draw in crops of farmers that don't have
anything better to do than trick people like you?

Violence and Hate,

> --
> Peace and Love,
> Sue.

--

Silvermako

unread,

May 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/5/97

to

In article <336CBC20...@nyssa.swt.edu>, Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh
<jw3...@nyssa.swt.edu> writes:

>Yes, it is much more rational to say space men did it in invisible UFOs
>than to think that bored farmers did it to fool goofballs such as
>yourself. That laughter coming from the barn is directed at you.

Yes, I'm sure those bored farmers know all about the Mandelbrot Set and
construction of three dimensional tetrahedrons, etc. They may or may not
be related to UFOs, but it is certain that work of that complexity was not
done by bored farmers. That implication indicates abyssmal ignorance of
the phenomena. Why don't you do your homework first, then comment?
There's an excellent, well illustrated (that means lotsa pictures you can
look at, you don't hafta read and try to think) text on crop circles
entitled Harbingers of World Change, by Alick Barholomew, published by
Gateway Books, Bath UK, and available at any major bookstore here in the
US. You have to go to a real bookstore or library, though; adult
bookstores and comic book vendors don't carry it.

Rob Irving

unread,

May 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/5/97

to

In article <M6LKTTAc...@imps.demon.co.uk>, Sue Mitchell
<s...@imps.demon.co.uk> writes:

> __ __
>{{{{\ /}}}} Sue Mitchell
> {{::\ V /::}} s...@imps.demon.co.uk
> >--->8<---<
> {:.;/ 0 \;.:}

Sue,

Nice drawing. What's it supposed to be?

Rob

DrPostman

unread,

May 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/5/97

to

morad barghi <mo...@taj.com> wrote:

>cattle mutilation is caused by chupakabras made in USA?

Nope - I think that they are manufactured in Puerto Rico,
a Commonwealth of the US.

Sue Mitchell

unread,

May 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/5/97

to

In article <5kikpk$i...@camel3.mindspring.com>, DrPostman <I'm...@home.here>
writes

>rel-admin <rel-...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Carl Fink wrote:
>>>
>>> Mark, the people who were making the crop circles *confessed*. It was
>>> done with a rope and a board by a couple of English guys, who were
>>> copied by other hoaxers. It was all just a put-on.
>
>>It's widely accepted that the two 'hoaxers' who came forward to accept
>>responsibility for Britain's crop circles can not possibly account for

>>every single circle created - there have been far too many. The media

>>happily seemed to accept this dubious explanation, rather than use their

>>common sense. Of course, many circles are hoaxes.
>Why is it that Art and others love to say "Doug and Dave can't be
>everywhere"?
>It sounds like they are saying that Doug and Dave are the only
>ones who can hoax - there was a show on discovery that showed
>how one of the prestiegous British universities held a contest that
>blew the so called "can't be hoaxed circles" theory - some of the
>crop circle researchers that were on hand became angry and
>very disgusted at how well the collage

^^^^^^^
Apres Georges Braque, peut-etre? ;)

> folks could hoax - even
>creating designs that the experts said could not be hoaxed.

>--
>Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD
>Knight of the Potato Cannon,
>Facilitator of Art Bell Anonymous,
>Member,Board of Directors of afa-b,
>And a lifetime member of the
>Art Bell Internet Fan Club,
>SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
>"Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
>Want to email me? My address is: jami...@mindspring.com
>"You write new so-called "reasons" and the original name-calling,
>from the vacant minded fools that you are, had no alleged "reason.""
> Bruce Daniel Kettler
--

__ __
{{{{\ /}}}} Sue Mitchell
{{::\ V /::}} s...@imps.demon.co.uk
>--->8<---<

{:.;/ 0 \;.:} "Then War said, "Where is Armageddon, anyway?"
~~ ~~ GOOD OMENS

Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh

unread,

May 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/5/97

to

Sue Mitchell wrote:
>
> Jon,
> FTR, Scott sent me a very nice private e-mail, for which public as
> well as private thanks :) His post did him infinitely more credit than
> yours does for you.

I'm not interested in gaining favor in your star struck eyes.

> I don't recall making any mention of little grey men space.

Uh uh, here comes one of those weird insults with a smiley on the end.

> Apparently they have more reality in your mind than in mine ;)

No. That was a stupid thing to say. ;)

> People like me? People with open minds you mean.

No, people like you with minds so open that your brain falls out.

> People like you? People with closed minds perhaps? Destroyers? A

I don't have a closed mind. I don't believe space men are drawing
pictures in wheat fields. Does that qualify me as closed minded?

> New Age Spanish Inquisition maybe bent on destroying, not fairytales but
> anything that doesn't fit in with their rigid mind set?

HAHAHA! No, I use to be a big ufo/conspiracy/woo-woo/Art Bell fan.
Sorry, my mind set isn't rigid, it changes often.

> Sound familiar?

Not really.

> --
> Peace and Love,
> Sue

Violence and Hate,

Dufus

unread,

May 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/6/97

to

Sue Mitchell wrote:
>
> Jon,
> FTR, Scott sent me a very nice private e-mail, for which public as
> well as private thanks :) His post did him infinitely more credit than
> yours does for you.

> I don't recall making any mention of little grey men space.

> Apparently they have more reality in your mind than in mine ;)

> People like me? People with open minds you mean.

> People like you? People with closed minds perhaps? Destroyers? A

> New Age Spanish Inquisition maybe bent on destroying, not fairytales but
> anything that doesn't fit in with their rigid mind set?

> Sound familiar?

> --
> Peace and Love,
> Sue
>

> In article <336D4AA1...@nyssa.swt.edu>, Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh
> <jw3...@nyssa.swt.edu> writes

> >> >Oh yea, all crop circles are real, those aliens love rope and boards.
> >> >Guess the world will learn the truth some day, .... HEY, maybe Major
> >> >Ed "Physic of the Insane" Dames will "remote view" this, or maybe
> >> >Santa as an airborne terrorist:)
> >> >
> >> >Scot
> >>
> >> Scot, haven't you got anything better to do than add your negative two
> >> penn'orth to a newsgroup which obviously doesn't interest you?
> >>
> >> You could be so much more productively employed raising funds for
> >> charities that try to help people who don't have your advantages.
> >> Please...
> >
> >I enjoy most of his posts. You're just mad because people like us
> >destroy your daydreaming little fairy tales. Get used to it. We aren't
> >going anywhere. Besides, don't you have anything better to do than sit
> >around yakking about little grey men from space, that don't have
> >anything better to do than draw in crops of farmers that don't have
> >anything better to do than trick people like you?
> >
> >Violence and Hate,
> >
> >> --
> >> Peace and Love,
> >> Sue.
> >
>

> __ __
> {{{{\ /}}}} Sue Mitchell
> {{::\ V /::}} s...@imps.demon.co.uk
> >--->8<---<
> {:.;/ 0 \;.:} "Then War said, "Where is Armageddon, anyway?"
> ~~ ~~ GOOD OMENS

Sue: Notice how GOODNESS smells like the afterburner of a Twillian gorb
? Remember to keep GOODNESS in your zarn and don't stand too close to
the edge. Nag...@therealm.zot

Dufus

unread,

May 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/6/97

to

Sue Mitchell wrote:
>
> In article <336b37e...@news.edge.net>, Scot Justice

> <sc...@edge.net> writes

> >Oh yea, all crop circles are real, those aliens love rope and boards.
> >Guess the world will learn the truth some day, .... HEY, maybe Major
> >Ed "Physic of the Insane" Dames will "remote view" this, or maybe
> >Santa as an airborne terrorist:)
> >
> >Scot
>
> Scot, haven't you got anything better to do than add your negative two
> penn'orth to a newsgroup which obviously doesn't interest you?
>
> You could be so much more productively employed raising funds for
> charities that try to help people who don't have your advantages.
> Please...

> --
> Peace and Love,
> Sue.
>
> __ __
> {{{{\ /}}}} Sue Mitchell
> {{::\ V /::}} s...@imps.demon.co.uk
> >--->8<---<

> {:.;/ 0 \;.:} "This could be heaven for everyone" ROGER TAYLOR
> ~~ ~~

Sue: Good IS better than evil because its nicer.

Dufus

unread,

May 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/6/97

to

Sue Mitchell wrote:
>
> In article <5kjlrs$e...@chile.earthlink.net>, "Dr. Tim" <bogart1@earthlin
> k.spamguard.net> writes
> >
> >He is doing good. He's trying to help the foolish and ignorant.
>
> He's also perfectly capable of speaking for himself ;)

> --
> Peace and Love,
> Sue
>

> __ __
> {{{{\ /}}}} Sue Mitchell
> {{::\ V /::}} s...@imps.demon.co.uk
> >--->8<---<

> {:.;/ 0 \;.:} "Then War said, "Where is Armageddon, anyway?"
> ~~ ~~ GOOD OMENS

Sue: When the butterfly of GOODNESS opens your song and fills and
becomes your karma, you will then fine you have nothing to prove to
these mindless cretins. Light your smuge-bundle of truth, be content
with your inner discoveries, and henceforth let not the hour of
medication pass unnoticed. Nug...@therealm.zot

unread,

May 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/6/97

to

Dufus (Du...@bellsouth.net) wrote:

: DrPostman wrote:

: > Dufus <Du...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
: >
: > >Mark; As more than just a casual observer of the cattle mutilation
: > >phenomenon,(I hold post graduate degrees in Physics and related fields),

How many? Where form? What are the "related fields"?

: > >I've noticed a rather strange correlation that heretofor has escaped

: > >study. Note if you will that an inordinate number of such events occur
: > >in close proximity to barnyard chickens. I don't know what others will
: > >make of this, but as for me, I'm keeping my eye on a certain Road Island
: > >Red.
: >
: > Pervert.

: >
: DrPostman...Pervert? How clever! What a master of repartee you are. A

: bon mot Bonaparte! Given this level of verbal skills, I suspect you are
: but two or three generations away from some relative humping a chicken.

Verbal skills are judged based on economy of speech, accuracy,
clarity, exactness, power of conviction.
He qualifies.

R.M.

To lakwnizein esti philosophein.

Sue Mitchell

unread,

May 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/6/97

to

In article <336EAD5F...@nyssa.swt.edu>, Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh
<jw3...@nyssa.swt.edu> writes

>Violence and Hate,

John,
Life must have treated you awfully badly for you to react in such a
defensive/aggressive manner. Perhaps it would help if you were to talk
to someone about it.

Try e-mailing j...@samaritans.org

Anything you write will be kept confidential. Jo will reply
without criticizing or judging and you don't have to be suicidal to make
contact.

--
Peace and Love,
Sue
__ __
{{{{\ /}}}} Sue Mitchell
{{::\ V /::}} s...@imps.demon.co.uk
>--->8<---<

{:.;/ 0 \;.:} "Nihil est ab omni / Parte beatum" - Quintus Horatius Flaccus
~~ ~~

unread,

May 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/7/97

to

>DrPostman...Pervert? How clever! What a master of repartee you are. A
>bon mot Bonaparte! Given this level of verbal skills, I suspect you are
>but two or three generations away from some relative humping a chicken.

>Nug...@5threalm.zot

The Good Dr. was making an allusion. You did not get it. That's why it's
always a good idea to lurk awhile before you post.

DrPostman

unread,

May 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/7/97

to

Dufus <Du...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> --"Were'nt"...my, you are a man of letters. Had I known you were a retard, I wouldn't have bothered to answer. I get no kick in besting the infirmed. Please accept my appology...I didn't realize you were there until I stepped in you.

Just like the way you spelled Rhode Island as "Road Island"
Learn how to use word wrap you clueless dweeb - spell flames
are Glen's job here.

Glen Quarnstrom

unread,

May 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/7/97

to

Dufus <Du...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>Sue Mitchell wrote:
>>
>> In article <5kjlrs$e...@chile.earthlink.net>, "Dr. Tim" <bogart1@earthlin
>> k.spamguard.net> writes
>> >
>> >He is doing good. He's trying to help the foolish and ignorant.
>>
>> He's also perfectly capable of speaking for himself ;)

>> --
>> Peace and Love,
>> Sue
>>
>> __ __
>> {{{{\ /}}}} Sue Mitchell
>> {{::\ V /::}} s...@imps.demon.co.uk
>> >--->8<---<

>> {:.;/ 0 \;.:} "Then War said, "Where is Armageddon, anyway?"
>> ~~ ~~ GOOD OMENS
>Sue: When the butterfly of GOODNESS opens your song and fills and
>becomes your karma, you will then fine you have nothing to prove to
>these mindless cretins. Light your smuge-bundle of truth, be content
>with your inner discoveries, and henceforth let not the hour of
>medication pass unnoticed. Nug...@therealm.zot

Do you think Sue likes it when you talk dirty like that?

Glen Quarnstrom

unread,

May 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/7/97

to

Dufus <Du...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>Mark; As more than just a casual observer of the cattle mutilation
>phenomenon,(I hold post graduate degrees in Physics and related fields),

>I've noticed a rather strange correlation that heretofor has escaped
>study. Note if you will that an inordinate number of such events occur
>in close proximity to barnyard chickens. I don't know what others will
>make of this, but as for me, I'm keeping my eye on a certain Road Island
>Red.

A guy with "post graduate degrees in Physics and related fields" who
can't even spell "Rhode Island." Wow! Must be the Quickening.

Dufus

unread,

May 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/7/97

to

Scientific types are not literate, nor do we use spell check...Hiee,
such is so.

Dufus

unread,

May 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/7/97

to

"Clueless dweeb"...Your literary style is improving...now work on
content...avoid cliches...crutches for the verbally deficient.

Dufus

unread,

May 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/7/97

to

DrPostman wrote:
>
> Dufus <Du...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> --"Were'nt"...my, you are a man of letters. Had I known you were a retard, I wouldn't have bothered to answer. I get no kick in besting the infirmed. Please accept my appology...I didn't realize you were there until I stepped in you.
>
> Just like the way you spelled Rhode Island as "Road Island"
> Learn how to use word wrap you clueless dweeb - spell flames
> are Glen's job here.
> --
> Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD
> Knight of the Potato Cannon,
> Facilitator of Art Bell Anonymous,
> Member,Board of Directors of afa-b,
> And a lifetime member of the
> Art Bell Internet Fan Club,
> SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
> "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
> Want to email me? My address is: jami...@mindspring.com
> "You write new so-called "reasons" and the original name-calling,
> from the vacant minded fools that you are, had no alleged "reason.""
> Bruce Daniel Kettler
> --

What is the Board of afa-b ? Most of the posts are amusing, oh Knight of
the Potato(e) Cannon.

DrPostman

unread,

May 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/7/97

to

Dufus <Du...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>"Clueless dweeb"...Your literary style is improving...now work on
>content...avoid cliches...crutches for the verbally deficient.

I was right, you are a pervert.

Jim Meritt

unread,

May 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/7/97

to

Amusing thought: If "flying saucers" had anything to do with it, why not go
into orbit instead of in a field next to an expert (the farmer)? And then
deorbit the carcass. Anyone been hit by a falling steak, well done?

--
James W. Meritt
The opinions expressed above are my own. The fact simply
are and belong to none.

Mark E. Smith

unread,

May 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/7/97

to

In article <19970505035...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
silve...@aol.com (Silvermako) wrote:
> Yes, I'm sure those bored farmers know all about the Mandelbrot
> Set and construction of three dimensional tetrahedrons, etc.
> They may or may not be related to UFOs, but it is certain that
> work of that complexity was not done by bored farmers.

It might be helpful here to avoid making unwarranted assumptions
about what farmers, bored or otherwise, do and don't know. Many
of them are educated, and have been known to find their way to a
library now and then.
--
Mark E. Smith <msm...@tfs.net>

Mark Frierson

unread,

May 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/7/97

to

In article <5klqjb$8...@ecuador.earthlink.net>,
bog...@earthlink.spamguard.net (Dr. Tim) wrote:

--I hear that a certain webmaster has a poloroid photo of Art Bell's
--penis that might be just what you are looking for.
--
--Dr. Tim, BsD
--
--The Dr. Laura Parody Pages
--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/4695/laura.htm
--Bible passage of the day: Jesus wept, but the kleenex ran dry.

Well, I'd say that it couldn't possibly be as shriveled as your brain
matter! ...Or if there's even any left. Obviously you and your other
moronic pals on this newsgroup can't seem to read when it says "only
serious responses please!". Instead you choose to shit away your lives
making childish and idiodic responses to peoples sincere posts. I think
it's time that you get a life and take up a new hobby other than watching
Beavis & Butthead reruns. You truly need more reliable role models than
each other.

unread,

May 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/8/97

to

Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh wrote:
>
> Sue Mitchell wrote:

(snip)

> > People like you? People with closed minds perhaps? Destroyers? >
> I don't have a closed mind. I don't believe space men are drawing
> pictures in wheat fields. Does that qualify me as closed minded?

Perhaps it is space women then? Jeez, can't us women get credit for
anything?

> > --
> > Peace and Love,
> > Sue
>

> Violence and Hate,
> --
> Dr. Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh, BsD +=+ Sir Dave of the Giants
> jw3...@nyssa.swt.edu +=+ Destroying Angel of Spam
> http://www.swt.edu/~jw34998 +=+ afa-b Board of Directors
> SKEP-TI-CULT® Administration +=+ Lifetime Member,
> Officer #01-22112-324 +=+ Art Bell Internet Fan Club
> Membership is FREE!

Hooman

unread,

May 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/8/97

to

Rollin C. Thomas wrote:
[Snip]

Could anyone please share with the me the possible motives behind this
cross-posting:
folklore.science, natural.phenomena, alt.paranormal, alt.UFO,... and
then SOC.CULTURE.IRANIAN? How does that work? Feeling confused!

Hooman A.

Jerry Watson

unread,

May 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/8/97

to

Maybe BDK was thinking that he could lure Salmon Rushdie into the open
so that Brucie could turn him in and collect the reward?

jdw

--
Jerry Watson BsD, AUZD©

correct the "reply to:" to
jwa...@jill.reno.nv.us
if replying via e-mail

"In the land of those who exploit
sight advantaged animal companions,
a member of the eyepatch consumer
community would be a petty Autocrat."

homepages of note:

http://www.swt.edu/~jw34998/skeptic.html
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/4695

Dr. Peter Kittel

unread,

May 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/8/97

to

In article <337011...@wr.com.au> Michael Williams <aust...@wr.com.au> writes:
>
>The reliable method you are refering to is with infra red film.It has
>been found that there is an increased "water vapourisation
>signature"associated with real circles and no signature at all in faked
>ones."

Aha. Perhaps different groups of fakers use different methods? I can
imagine a few. Some with water and some without.

>There is no circle phenomena if the following is false.
>1/light forms have been videoed in the circles

Easy to fake.

>2/Unusual sounds have been recorded in the circles.

Easy to fake.

>3/The circles have been appearing in remote areas of Australia for about
>30 years now.

Their history is one of the best clues that they are fakes: First they
were just circles. When the players recognized that the esoterians
flew on this "phenomenon" they developed creativity and made the circles
more complex from year to year. Do you really believe exoterrists would
choose such a weird communication method with us?

>4/terence meaden and others have collected numerous eye witness accounts
>of balls of light moving into fields and a circle being found the next
>day.

Don't believe eye witnesses, when they are part of the game or when they
have financial interest to attract esoterical tourists to their region.

>If these claims are false then there is no problem.

I'm rather sure.

The first question one has to ask is, can you produce such phenomenons
by normal, available means? The first esoterian observers denied this
for the crop circles, but they were disproven. So, if it's possible
with normal, everyday tools, then evidence is extremely high, that only
these tools were used and nothing extraterrestrian.

--
Best Regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // http://www.pios.de of PIOS
Private Site in Frankfurt, Germany \X/ office: pet...@pios.de

Mr. ZhEd

unread,

May 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/8/97

to

Hooman wrote:
>
> Rollin C. Thomas wrote:
> [Snip]
>
> Could anyone please share with the me the possible motives behind this
> cross-posting:
> folklore.science, natural.phenomena, alt.paranormal, alt.UFO,... and
> then SOC.CULTURE.IRANIAN? How does that work? Feeling confused!

Well, take a look at the Ayatollahs Khomenei and Khamenei, weren't they
about as alien as you could possibly get?

Allahu Ahkbar

Mr. Ed

Glen Quarnstrom

unread,

May 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/9/97

to

Sue Mitchell <s...@imps.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <336EAD5F...@nyssa.swt.edu>, Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh
><jw3...@nyssa.swt.edu> writes
>
><snip much vitriolic nonsense>
>
>>Violence and Hate,
>
>John,
> Life must have treated you awfully badly for you to react in such a
>defensive/aggressive manner. Perhaps it would help if you were to talk
>to someone about it.

Perhaps it would help if you were to beg, buy, borrow, or steal a
sense of humor.

Sheesh!

Grumbles and Mutterings,

Me.

> Try e-mailing j...@samaritans.org
>
> Anything you write will be kept confidential. Jo will reply
>without criticizing or judging and you don't have to be suicidal to make
>contact.

Just what we need, a goddam counseling service here in afa-b. Maybe
you can do something for KettleBanger, PEDDER, and Bro. Ray Linenoise.

Glen Quarnstrom

unread,

May 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/9/97

to

frie...@netropolis.net (Mark Frierson) wrote:

>In article <5klqjb$8...@ecuador.earthlink.net>,
>bog...@earthlink.spamguard.net (Dr. Tim) wrote:
>
>--I hear that a certain webmaster has a poloroid photo of Art Bell's
>--penis that might be just what you are looking for.
>--
>--Dr. Tim, BsD
>

>Well, I'd say that it couldn't possibly be as shriveled as your brain
>matter! ...Or if there's even any left. Obviously you and your other
>moronic pals on this newsgroup can't seem to read when it says "only
>serious responses please!". Instead you choose to shit away your lives
>making childish and idiodic responses to peoples sincere posts. I think
>it's time that you get a life and take up a new hobby other than watching
>Beavis & Butthead reruns. You truly need more reliable role models than
>each other.

Oh, go suck a septic tank, puswart. Anybody who crossposts nonsense
like yours into more than three newsgroups deserves all the flames he
gathers, doubled and tripled. Now trim your newsgroups to eliminate
afa-b, and you'll hear no more from us. Keep trolling your drivel in
here, and expect to get your sniveling ass handed to you on a platter,
complete with pepper sauce.

>Lonestar Curiosity Shoppe- "Where the Abnormal is Normal"
>*Serving all your oddity and curiosity needs for 17 years- EST. 1980*
>Feel free to write or e-mail with any special
>requests or inquiries which you might have.

And spammers who add on a troll for a commercial site should be
emasculated with a rusty pinking shears, just for a bonus.

Jerry Bryson

unread,

May 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/9/97

to

> Could anyone please share with the me the possible motives behind this
> cross-posting:
> folklore.science, natural.phenomena, alt.paranormal, alt.UFO,... and
> then SOC.CULTURE.IRANIAN?

The poster wanted to reach as many paranoid freaks as possible?

--
My e-mail address doesn't really have caps.

reve...@usit.net

unread,

May 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/9/97

to

With the perhaps foolish hope of avoiding the dung chips that some are
flinging in place of serious discussion on this subject:
1) How can skeptics explain the fact that the grain stalks are bent at
a 90 degree angle as opposed to being broken. I have experimented with
real stalks (Hell, I even had controls guys :) ) and the suckers
break, they don't bend. If true, bent stalks alone would take the
phenomena out of the "two old drunks with a 2 X 4" class.
2) The complexity of some of the figures is staggering. OK, circles in
the dark I could buy. But Julia sets and the damned Mandlebrot set?
Give me a break! I do professional building layout for a living and
anyone who thinks that *all* these patterns were done by amateurs in
the dark is a damn idiot. (Oops, excuse the dung chip :) )
3) What about the fact (documented in detail in Science News) that
some of the diagrams are in fact graphical proofs of geometrical
theorems, four of which were known to mathmeticians (sp?) already but
*the fifth was totally new to the literature*???
4) It's almost impossible to walk through grain without leaving a
trail. When first found, how many of the patterns have no visible
access path that could have been used by hoaxers?
5) How do you hoax something like this silently in the dark right
under the noses of every fruit cake and half the media of Europe (not
necessarily two seperate groups :) ) as is often the case?

OK, skeptics, along with your dung chips please offer some rational
comments on the above or go back to alt.beanie.weenies where you
belong :)!

Michael Williams <aust...@wr.com.au> wrote:

>Of course, there must be a reliable means of distinuishing hoaxes from
>the
>> "real thing" for this new device to be scientifically evaluated. What is this
>> reliable means? And if it's reliable, what use is this new technique?
>>
>> -- Mat.

>The reliable method you are refering to is with infra red film.It has
>been found that there is an increased "water vapourisation
>signature"associated with real circles and no signature at all in faked

>ones."of what use is it"That is very simple,it means we may be able to
>detect fake circles very simply.Fred Silva is the man who has being
>doing this work.
>The belief that Doug and Dave created the circles in the begining is
>strange.They have admitted when asked for details that alot of the
>circles they claimed to have created were not in fact done by them.
>two old drunks at night with string and board could not interwove
>several layers of grasses together,into sophisticated symbols.But if it
>makes you feel better,they did it.

>There is no circle phenomena if the following is false.
>1/light forms have been videoed in the circles

>2/Unusual sounds have been recorded in the circles.It is not the Eastern
>warbler it is 3K higher than that.The same sound from the invisible bird
>has been recorded in Australia.

>3/The circles have been appearing in remote areas of Australia for about
>30 years now.

>4/terence meaden and others have collected numerous eye witness accounts
>of balls of light moving into fields and a circle being found the next
>day.

>If these claims are false then there is no problem.If you know nothing
>about the phenomena and dont know what cognitive dissonance is please
>dont even attempt a reply.Inarticulate meanderings trying to pass for
>scientific questioning are a sad joke.
>Unfortunately reality has to conquer systems of philosophy.
>mike

--
Rick Everett
reve...@usit.net

John Sayer

unread,

May 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/9/97

to

In article <peter...@combo.ganesha.com>, pet...@combo.ganesha.com wrote:

>In article <337011...@wr.com.au> Michael Williams
<aust...@wr.com.au> writes:

<snip>

>>2/Unusual sounds have been recorded in the circles.
>

>Easy to fake.

Easy to misidentify, too. There is a rather exotic bird-scarer in the area
of the East Field, Alton Priors, Wiltshire, which has been mistaken for an
anomalous sound source by several people already.

>>3/The circles have been appearing in remote areas of Australia for about
>>30 years now.
>

>Their history is one of the best clues that they are fakes: First they
>were just circles. When the players recognized that the esoterians
>flew on this "phenomenon" they developed creativity and made the circles
>more complex from year to year.

I haven't heard of anything more complex than simple circles in Australia
so far. Can you enlighten, please?

>Do you really believe exoterrists would
>choose such a weird communication method with us?

Who are we to know what exoterrists would or would not do, and who is to
define "weird" in this context?

>>4/terence meaden and others have collected numerous eye witness accounts
>>of balls of light moving into fields and a circle being found the next
>>day.
>

>Don't believe eye witnesses, when they are part of the game or when they
>have financial interest to attract esoterical tourists to their region.

"If", not necessarily "when", surely?

--
John Sayer
http://www.andover.co.uk/globalcircles/

Subscribe to THE CEREALOGIST - the journal for Crop Circle Studies

Alison Brooks

unread,

May 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/10/97

to

In article <5kvvo3$k74$1...@news.usit.net>, reve...@usit.net writes

>2) The complexity of some of the figures is staggering. OK, circles in
>the dark I could buy. But Julia sets and

*
>the damned Mandlebrot set?
*
Right by Cambridge University? And you expect anyone to believe it's
something other than students??

Heh, heh, heh, heh...
--
Alison Brooks

O-

Ronald

unread,

May 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/10/97

to

Dr. Peter Kittel wrote:
> In article <337011...@wr.com.au> Michael Williams <aust...@wr.com.au> writes:

> >The reliable method you are refering to is with infra red film.It has
> >been found that there is an increased "water vapourisation
> >signature"associated with real circles and no signature at all in faked
> >ones."

> Aha. Perhaps different groups of fakers use different methods? I can
> imagine a few. Some with water and some without.

That's total nonsense offcourse.An increased water vapourisation
signature does not mean that anybody has used water at any time while
making these CC's.It simply means that water already present is
vapourizing faster in real CC's than in faked ones.

> >There is no circle phenomena if the following is false.
> >1/light forms have been videoed in the circles
>

> Easy to fake.

Exactly how ? Without making tracks in the grain field ?In 15 minutes?
YOU say it's easy !Well,come on ,show us !
If it's SOOOOO easy then you should have no problem here.

> >2/Unusual sounds have been recorded in the circles.
>
> Easy to fake.

Ditto.

> >3/The circles have been appearing in remote areas of Australia for about
> >30 years now.
>
> Their history is one of the best clues that they are fakes: First they
> were just circles. When the players recognized that the esoterians
> flew on this "phenomenon" they developed creativity and made the circles

> more complex from year to year. Do you really believe exoterrists would

> choose such a weird communication method with us?

There are people around here who say that it's some sort of sign
language,and there are even a few people who claim to be able to
communicate through CC's making their own and then waiting for new
CC's to be made in the vicinity .
And by the way ,perhaps the very reason that the circles are becoming
more and more complex is to prove to all you Debunkers out there
that they are not man-made ?

> >4/terence meaden and others have collected numerous eye witness accounts
> >of balls of light moving into fields and a circle being found the next
> >day.

> Don't believe eye witnesses, when they are part of the game or when they
> have financial interest to attract esoterical tourists to their region.

Exactly how big do you think this Crop Circle tourism is ?
Do you really think farmers like the idea of having lots of people
messing around in fields full of near-harvest grain?
The farmers actually usually don't mind the CC's,as the grain isn't
ruined by making a Crop Circle.Only faked ones make a mess.

> >If these claims are false then there is no problem.
>
> I'm rather sure.

Exactly why are you so sure ?
You give no reasoning whatsoever.

> The first question one has to ask is, can you produce such phenomenons
> by normal, available means? The first esoterian observers denied this
> for the crop circles, but they were disproven.

Please state exactly who disproved what,were,how and when.

> So, if it's possible
> with normal, everyday tools, then evidence is extremely high, that only
> these tools were used and nothing extraterrestrian.

You're missing one big point here.The evidence is freely available to
us all.Unlike with UFO's were it is just dumb luck if you see one
(or pretty bad luck if you get abducted),whenever a Crop Circle is made
you can get in your car, drive to it and see it with your own eyes.

And the real BIG difference is,yes there are a lot of faked ones out
there,but you only need to see ONE Crop Circle actually being made by
something other than Humans to disprove the claim that ALL CC's are in
fact man-made!
People have already been witness to this it's just that you to stubborn
to believe them,and so you simply wave it away by calling them Liars.
Which I think is VERY insulting of you,by the way.

John Sayer

unread,

May 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/10/97

to

In article <cdVbMGAT...@flin.demon.co.uk>, Alison Brooks
<Ali...@flin.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>the damned Mandlebrot set?
>*
>Right by Cambridge University? And you expect anyone to believe it's
>something other than students??
>
>Heh, heh, heh, heh...

So if it's near a university, it's made by students...if it's on a farm,
it must be made by farmers, right? And if it's near a motorway - must be
made by motorists, yes? Near a pond? Made by ducks!

I don't think your logic is very sound. :-)

Charles Gregory

unread,

May 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/10/97

to

sca...@dial.pipex.com (Mathew Hendry) wrote:
> Michael Williams <aust...@wr.com.au> wrote:
> : The reliable method you are refering to is with infra red film.It has

> : been found that there is an increased "water vapourisation
> : signature"associated with real circles and no signature at all in faked
> : ones.

> We're back where we started. What makes a circle with this property more
> "real" than any other? Clearly one must have some other means of determining
> "realness" for this property to indicate anything other than itself.

While the statement that this effect is associated with "real" circles
is not substantial, the LACK of it associated with known faked circles
is VERY substantial. An observation that is NEVER recorded when a circle
is known to be faked carries with it the distinct posssibility that
circles where it is observed are not produced by the same means.

Naturally, we could speculate upon NEW methods for faking circles which
have not yet been witnessed, and which would produce the water vapour.
But the method cited is at least reliable at producing a reading which
would disqualify all currently known faking technologies. Not a bad
first step, in my opinion.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Charles Gregory SPAM PROOFING: Replace "domain" with "hwcn" below.
E-Mail: cha...@domain.org
Home Page: [J]ump to "http://www.domain.org/~ab801/Profile.html"
--

Santa Claus

unread,

May 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/10/97

to

Ah, yes, time to gently tug at the strings of "you don't have evidence
because I've dismissed it so your point is invalid for lack of
evidence."

Right. Let's be sarcastic. Not to "flame" but to make a simple point. No
insult is intended here. No name calling is being done, but for
argument, I now say, YOU, Dr. Kittel do NOT exist. I hereby put
forward the VERY reasonable idea that YOU are a fake. These
communications, even though APPEARING to be from someone with that name,
are in fact being generated by one or more FRAUDS pretending that there
is a "Dr. Kittel" posting to usenet.

pet...@combo.ganesha.com (Dr. Peter Kittel) wrote:
> Easy to fake.

> Easy to fake.

Yes, e-mail addresses and headers are incredibly easy to fake. I've done
it myself and have seen it done in numerous pieces of spam. Without
doubt the evidence is quite strong for FAKED e-mail headers.

> Their history is one of the best clues that they are fakes: First they
> were just circles. When the players recognized that the esoterians
> flew on this "phenomenon" they developed creativity and made the circles
> more complex from year to year.

First, when Dr. Kittel started posting, the comments were simple and did
not seem to relate to anyone else's postings, but now they APPEAR as if
the postings include complexities because we have responded to them.
This PROVES that Dr. Kittel is a fake, his messages changed and became more
lengthy and complex over time.

> Don't believe eye witnesses, when they are part of the game or when they
> have financial interest to attract esoterical tourists to their region.

Well, if the "game" is to perpetutate the belief in a REAL Dr. Kittel
when we know (sarcasm is still being liberally served here) that there
is NO SUCH THING then we can presume that ALL the witnesses who claim to
have REALLY seen Dr. Kittel are "part of the game" and we must not
believe them, no matter how credible they might otherwise appear.

> The first question one has to ask is, can you produce such phenomenons
> by normal, available means?

Oh, yes, just look at my header up above. "Santa Claus" is reeeeaaally
posting this to you. Uh-huh. Yup, sure. So "Dr. Kittel" postings can be
produced by very "normal", very "available" means, by anyone!

> So, if it's possible
> with normal, everyday tools, then evidence is extremely high, that only
> these tools were used and nothing extraterrestrian.

Now isn't this the point where the argument should logically lead to
ONLY the "tools" of e-mail header manipulation being used and "nothing
Dr. Kittelian".....

But in the case of Dr. Kittel, we say, "oh it's not very likely that he
is a fake", yet we say that the crop circles must ALL be. Why? Because
of PERSONAL EXPERIENCE leading to PERSONAL BIAS.

There is NO scientific basis to dstinguish my ludicrous sarcastic idea
that Dr. Kittel is "fake" from the idea that crop circles are fake.
Fakery CAN be done, HAS been done, and we have never SEEN a case where
any other means of producing the effect was observed firsthand except
for some "dubious" eyewitness accounts....

Every argument that could be used to make the two cases different is
based upon an assumption of TRUST. If anyone who sees a "light" making a
crop circle is lying, then anyone who sees a "real" Dr. Kittel typing a
message can be called a liar for the exact same reasons. We can say
that "many witnesses have seen real people posting to the internet" and
I'm sure someone can claim the same "numbers" for crop circle formation.

If you wish to say you won't believe it until you see it for yourself,
that is just fine. We ALL make that distinction, and indeed, that is the
SOLE basis for belief by those who have witnessed anomalous crop circle
formation.

Just stop with the petty conceit that YOUR experience is somehow
complete enough to be a basis for scientific reasoning while claiming
that someone else's experience is NOT.

Keith M. King

unread,

May 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/11/97

to

John Sayer wrote:

Crop Circles have neither added to or detracted from the UFO/Alien
phenomenon, my friends. Creating ground pictograms in order to convey
a "message", as some have alleged is the case, make no intelligent
sense. If Aliens are engaged in abductions, as others have claimed
they are, then why the additional work of Crop Circles? Why not
just give the whole message to their unwilling captives and spare
us the weak mind block routines? I mean, let's think clearly about
this: Some claim that extraterrestrials are our "Saviours", while
others say they are doing scientific experiments...still others claim
they have an evil alliance with govt. agencies across the world and
are experimenting with animals and humans in Area51. Then there's the
theory of multiple species alliances and wars....one being more
benevolent, the others, more predatory and malignant. Then, of
course, there's the "Galactic Federation" and the "Ethereans"....
(I also find it interesting that Causasians are a dominant species
among these creatures---"Aryans", I presume. Very disturbing, in my
opinon. I mean, it's really tough to glean any kind of hard material
from anecdotal reports like there. Somewhere out there, the reality
of this phenomenon(s) exists....let's keep looking.

Keith

Dan Mckinnon

unread,

May 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/11/97

to

Dr. Peter Kittel (pet...@combo.ganesha.com) wrote:
:
: >2/Unusual sounds have been recorded in the circles.
:
: Easy to fake.

<G> I seem to recall reading a few years ago that some of the "unusual
sounds" turned out to be _birdcalls_ (!<G>) unrecognized by some
city-slicker perfesser.

Dan

Carl Fink

unread,

May 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/11/97

to

In article <5l39ot$d...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>,

Santa Claus (really Charles Gregory) <ab...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote:

>Yes, e-mail addresses and headers are incredibly easy to fake.

>There is NO scientific basis to dstinguish my ludicrous sarcastic idea

>that Dr. Kittel is "fake" from the idea that crop circles are fake.
>Fakery CAN be done, HAS been done, and we have never SEEN a case where
>any other means of producing the effect was observed firsthand except
>for some "dubious" eyewitness accounts....

But I *don't* assume that Dr. Kittel really exists as such, without
additional evidence not presented, precisely because Usenet postings
(not email addresses, BTW) are easy to fake.

There are people on the 'net that I know really exist, but not from
that kind of evidence -- because I've met them, or met people who've
met them, or know them via commercial services where it's much harder
to fake your name.

You've just proved that the crop circles *should* be doubted, Charles.
--
Carl Fink ca...@panix.com

". . . people everywhere -- when you strip away their superficial
differences -- are crazy." Dave Barry

Dr. Peter Kittel

unread,

May 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/11/97

to

In article <337536...@dds.nl> Ronald <dan...@dds.nl> writes:

Uh, Mr. Daeniken himself or a relative!

>Dr. Peter Kittel wrote:
>> In article <337011...@wr.com.au> Michael Williams <aust...@wr.com.au> writes:

>> >The reliable method you are refering to is with infra red film.It has
>> >been found that there is an increased "water vapourisation
>> >signature"associated with real circles and no signature at all in faked
>> >ones."

>> Aha. Perhaps different groups of fakers use different methods? I can
>> imagine a few. Some with water and some without.
>
>That's total nonsense offcourse.

Sigh.

>> >There is no circle phenomena if the following is false.
>> >1/light forms have been videoed in the circles
>>
>> Easy to fake.
>
>Exactly how ? Without making tracks in the grain field ?

There are always tracks existing from the work of the farmer. The faker
just uses those existing tracks.

>In 15 minutes?

I can imagine that, ye.

>> >3/The circles have been appearing in remote areas of Australia for about
>> >30 years now.
>>

>> Their history is one of the best clues that they are fakes: First they
>> were just circles. When the players recognized that the esoterians
>> flew on this "phenomenon" they developed creativity and made the circles

>> more complex from year to year. Do you really believe exoterrists would
>> choose such a weird communication method with us?
>
>There are people around here who say that it's some sort of sign
>language,and there are even a few people who claim to be able to
>communicate through CC's making their own and then waiting for new
>CC's to be made in the vicinity .

Sure people can say this. Others say they communicate with extraterrestrians
via transmissions those emit in the gaps on short wave between terrestrial
transmitters. In the end the bits of recorded info can always be assigned
a normal terrestrian station. It's a big fake.

>And by the way ,perhaps the very reason that the circles are becoming
>more and more complex is to prove to all you Debunkers out there
>that they are not man-made ?

Aha, then you sure can tell us, what those extraterrestrians *have*
communicated? Is there a translated text?

>> >4/terence meaden and others have collected numerous eye witness accounts
>> >of balls of light moving into fields and a circle being found the next
>> >day.
>

>> Don't believe eye witnesses, when they are part of the game or when they
>> have financial interest to attract esoterical tourists to their region.

>Exactly how big do you think this Crop Circle tourism is ?

In south England big enough that some farmers get some nice extra income,
plus it provides them *fun*.

>Do you really think farmers like the idea of having lots of people
>messing around in fields full of near-harvest grain?

Yes, as long as it pays out (they also can sell their products to the
visitors), there are several ways to profit.

>> >If these claims are false then there is no problem.
>>
>> I'm rather sure.
>
>Exactly why are you so sure ?

Because such extraterrestrian events follow some fashion. In one area,
it's those shortwave receivings, then it's crop circles, then it's Mr.
Daeniken, then flying saucers. And all these observations appear to me
as contradicting each others. It's just a fashion which changes rapidly.

>> The first question one has to ask is, can you produce such phenomenons

>> by normal, available means? The first esoterian observers denied this
>> for the crop circles, but they were disproven.
>
>Please state exactly who disproved what,were,how and when.

There were enough people England reproducing crop circles, with no broken
plants, etc.

>> So, if it's possible
>> with normal, everyday tools, then evidence is extremely high, that only
>> these tools were used and nothing extraterrestrian.
>

>You're missing one big point here.The evidence is freely available to
>us all.Unlike with UFO's were it is just dumb luck if you see one
>(or pretty bad luck if you get abducted),whenever a Crop Circle is made
>you can get in your car, drive to it and see it with your own eyes.
>
>And the real BIG difference is,yes there are a lot of faked ones out
>there,but you only need to see ONE Crop Circle actually being made by
>something other than Humans to disprove the claim that ALL CC's are in
>fact man-made!

Aha, and did you see an alien making a crop circle? No? Sorry, no proof.

>People have already been witness to this

First I hear. I don't believe them, see above about "eye witnesses".

>Which I think is VERY insulting of you,by the way.

Sorry to step on you or others, but I feel it's kind of a waste of
resources to bother for such crap, pardon, crop. There are bigger
problems on earth to take care of.

Mr. Ed...I mean Mr. Zhong

unread,

May 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/11/97

to

Hello, my name is Doctor Hemphill Beauregard. I am a legitimate
researcher into paranormal activities and objects.

I'm appealing for help from the inhabitors of these fine groups because
I consider all of you to possess the finest minds in Christendom.

Here's my request. I am looking for several unusual paranormal items. I
know they exist, and yet I also know that there is little chance of
buying them from Christie's. Hence, my supplications to you.

First of all, I am looking for urine samples from any Zetan commanders
with the rank of Oog-Malthzar or higher. I know that they are scarce,
since they're often used to pass drug tests, but I would appreciate any
help you can give me.

Second of all, I'd like a bottle of Cold Fusion. I know that the
University of Utah has brutally supressed all findings of this wonderful
device, but there must be someone out there amongst all these learned
personages who would be able to get me a bottle of this wonderful stuff.

Thirdly, I'd like a timepiece from the Andromeda Galaxy. The reason I'm
requesting one from that quadrant, rather than, say, the Pleiades region
is, I understand that they keep time in light-years there, rather than
Minutes or Zborbobs, and since I expect to be alive for a long time, I
want the longest period of time-measurement possible on my
Chronometeurs.

Fourthly, I'd like three sets of perpetual-motion-machine WaterPicks. I
get so tired of running low on batteries, and it would be delightful to
have a machine that runs forever!

Fifthly, I'd like some of those wonderful magnets found on Earth and
Pluto that actually change the molecular structure of water, evidently
making it become Hydrogen, or Ketchup, or something.

Sixth, I'm looking for some Angel Hair Pasta. I live in Oregon now, and
it is immpossible to find good Angel Hair Pasta.

Seventh, I'd like a small piece of Piltdown Man. I know that this fossil
shows incredible discoveries vis a vis man's Evolutionary Processes.

Eighth, I'd like the blueprints to the Hilton on the Moon, the 45-mile
high one. Barring that, could you bring me a matchbook from there? I
don't want anything from the other 50-mile high structures on the Moon,
like the NSA buildings, or the NWO headquarters, or Bill Gates' new
campus, but I'd like the interesting ones such as the new McDonald's,
or the new GMX building, or Hoagland's summer home.

Well, that concludes my requests to this august body, I appreciate your
efforts in helping me to fulfill these requests, thank you.

Dr. Hemphill Beauregard
DbS, DfF, DaH, PhD, HiF, SaL.
Oxford, Cambridge, Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Eegg-Leeng IV, Mars Campus.

Brian Mueller

unread,

May 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/12/97

to

Keith M. King wrote:

>Crop Circles have neither added to or detracted from the UFO/Alien
>phenomenon, my friends.

I agree here.

>Creating ground pictograms in order to convey
>a "message", as some have alleged is the case, make no intelligent
>sense.

Perhaps it's an atmospheric phenomenon. Surely they are not all made
by mankind, unless you claim that people have been doing this for
hundreds of years, because crop circles were spoken of in the Middle
Ages also (don't have any citations off hand, would have to look, I
read it somewhere). I also have heard that in genuine circles, the
bent crops are genetically different from the non-bent crops. Let's
see you do that with the method the two old farmers used.

[long silence]

I didn't think you could.

>they have an evil alliance with govt. agencies across the world and
>are experimenting with animals and humans in Area51. Then there's the

Area 51 was acknowelged by the Armed Forces of the United States of
America as being a military base a few years ago (92? the exact year
eludes my recollection). Some suspect that Area 51 also contains alien
bodies; I have never heard of the idea that it's an alien base or that
alien experiments are conducted there. In point of fact, however, Area
51 *does* exist. Go to Groom Lake, Nevada, and ask about it. There is
a cliff near the base with a large stone called "Freedom Rock" which
is enscribed with the signatures of all who gone to the cliff and seen
Area 51 with their own eyes. It _is_ there. Any fool can go there and
see it. Personally, I think it's what the US military says it is, a
base where new aeroplanes and other military technologies are
developed and tested. I don't know if I believe there are alien bodies
there, but I'm quite certain the Rosswell incident did not involve hot
air balloons (do you really think, in 1947, there was man made
material which was as light as aluminum and yet was unphased by the
impact of a 12 pound sledgehammer?).

>theory of multiple species alliances and wars....one being more
>benevolent, the others, more predatory and malignant. Then, of
>course, there's the "Galactic Federation" and the "Ethereans"....
>(I also find it interesting that Causasians are a dominant species
>among these creatures---"Aryans", I presume. Very disturbing, in my
>opinon. I mean, it's really tough to glean any kind of hard material

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Something tells me I
wouldn't want to know.

Silvermako

unread,

May 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/12/97

to

The following turned up on a search of my hard drive for information
previously collected on this topic. I don't know its source.
Nevertheless, I'd suggest that anyone who wishes to challenge it can go
argue with those north Alabama cops.

Report on Cattle Mutilations

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

Sand Mountain, Alabama

Press Conference - Fyffe, Alabama

"Presented by the Fyffe Police Department; Fyffe, Alabama"

Charles "Junior" Garmany, Chief of Police

Boyd Graben, Mayor, City of Fyffe

Ted Oliphant, Investigating Officer

Date: Wednesday, April 7, 1993, 1 P.M..

INTRODUCTION

Beginning in November of 1992, the Fyffe Police Department has been
conducting an investigation into unexplained cattle mutilations in
cooperation with neighboring police and law enforcement agencies. These
reported incidents began on October 20, 1992 and have continued through
the
last week in Marshall and DeKalb counties.

To date over thirty (30) animals have been discovered dead in pastures
with
various internal and external organs missing. The incisions examined on
there animals exhibit a precise surgical cutting. In many of the cases
there has been evidence of extremely high heat at the tissue excisions.
The
absence of physical evidence adds to the mystery at the majority of
mutilation sites. Though many animals have been found in soft pasture
land,
and in many cases mud, there have been no footprints, tracks, or marks
found anywhere near the mutilated animals.

To date no police agency has established a suspect or motive for these
incidents of phantom surgery perpetrated on area livestock. Neither has an
eyewitness or informant come forward to offer any credible insight or
testimony.

The first documented incident of cattle mutilation was reported on October
20, 1992 by Albertville cattle farmer John Strawn. The animal was
discovered in a wooded area of Mr. Strawn's pasture by a neighbor who
found
the animal dead, lying on its side. The animal's entire milk sac was
missing with no evidence of blood on the animal, nor on the ground where
it
lay. The neighbor said the neat, oval incision where the udder had been
removed appeared to be charred.

Other farmers in the Albertville area soon started reporting similar cases
over the next two months. The same organs were reported missing, though
what was taken varied from animal to animal. In many cases the rectum had
been cored out neatly, with no evidence of blood or body fluid present. On
female livestock the sex organs had been removed in an identical fashion
with clean, bloodless incisions. On male livestock, the sex organs had
also
been removed, again in oval, bloodless incisions. In early January
Albertville Police Department's Chief of Detectives, Tommy Cole, reported
that his ranch, too, had fallen victim to the mutilators when a Black
Angus
steer fell prey to the phantom surgeons. It was at that point that the
Fyffe Police Department began working closely with the Albertville Police
Department to further investigate the continuing incidents of mutilations.

A week after Chief Detective Cole reported his steer, the mutilations
struck again in Albertville. The next week mutilated cattle were reported
near Fyffe in Grove Oak A week later, in Dawson, just outside of Fyffe.
During the first week in February, 1993, more than nine (9) cases of
mutilations were discovered and reported in Marshall and DeKalb counties.

Throughout all the cases, cattle farmers and their neighbors reported
seeing or hearing helicopters in the vicinity either before or shortly
after mutilated cattle were discovered.

Comparison to other cattle mutilations documented by law enforcement in
forty-eight (48) other states since 1963 shows that the cases recently
documented here in northeast Alabama are part of a national problem.

In over ten thousand (10,000) reported cases of livestock mutilations
reported since 1967, the organs and tissue taken are always the same. Sex
organs removed, tongue cut deep into the throat and removed. Individual
eyes and cars or sometimes both have been excised. The jaw stripped to the
bone in a large oval cut and all tissue cut clean. Rectums are cored out,
almost like a stovepipe had been inserted and all the tissue and muscle
has
been pulled out.

All of this has been accomplished on these thousands of animals with no
evidence of blood present at the incision in some cases the entire blood
supply of the animal had been drained, yet without cardio-vascular
collapse.

Throughout the documented history of these cattle mutilations, no one has
ever been charged or prosecuted with the crime. No one has ever been
caught.

Recently many area residents and public officials have offered multiple
causes and suspects they believe may be responsible for these animals
wounds. Some say it's predator animals like coyotes or buzzards. Many
people believe it's the work of a satanic cult or of college students.
Nevertheless evidence collected and analyzed by Ph.D. scientists of
material collected from local animals and pastures clearly rules out both
groups.

TWO SIGNIFICANT CASES

On January 31, 1993, a rancher in the Dawson Community led investigators
to
the carcass of a Black Angus cow. The animal's genitals and rectum had
been
cored out in one large incision that left a hole the size of coffee can.
The animal's jaw had been completely stripped in an oval incision that
encompassed The entire right side of the animal's face. The tongue was
completely gone, cut deep down into the throat. There was no blood present
on the animal itself, nor on the ground surrounding it.

Further examination revealed a flaky white material on the animal's right
rib cage and on the ground five (5) feet from the carcass. The material
was
placed in the empty wrapper of a cigarette pack and transported to the
Fyffe Police Department where it was transferred to a glass jar. While
removing the flaky particles from the cigarette wrapper, the material came
in contact with the brass tip of a ball-point pen. Within one second of
contact with the brass, the material melted into an almost clear liquid.
To
reduce the risk of this happening to the remaining material, the rest was
shaken out into a jar where it remained unaffected. This white, flaky
material was then air expressed to a molecular biologist at a leading
eastern University for analysis.

After two tests, the scientist determined that the substance was composed
of aluminum, titanium, oxygen and silicon in significant amounts. He
stated
that the amount of titanium was larger than he would ever expect to see in
any substance and that there was no way this combination of elements could
ever occur in nature. This material has now been sent to another scientist
for a second opinion. When this second analysis is completed we will
release his name and the major eastern university responsible for the
analyses.Included in your press package is the preliminary analysis, a
photograph of the substance and the technical read out on its composition.

The second significant case in these incidents of livestock mutilations
occurred on February 7,1993. This time in Crossville, Alabama. Cattle
farmer David McClendon noticed during his morning head count that he was
missing a three-week-old calf. He went searching for and found the animal
in a wooded area dead with a large portion of its right hind quarter
missing. Examining the animal, Mr. McClendon found that all the calf's
internal organs were missing and all that he could see was the clean,
empty
chest cavity. There was no sign of blood on or near the animal. There were
no teeth marks on the tissue nor on the exposed leg bones. David McClendon
called local and county law enforcement. Shortly after they arrived the
county deputy stated that the animal had been killed by predators and
left.
Mr. McClendon wasn't satisfied that this was what happened to his animal
and later that day he brought the calf to the Fyffe Police Department for
a
second opinion. A first look at the calf gave the impression that the
animal had been eaten on by wild animals, but a closer look revealed
something else, according to Oliphant.

The entire edge of the animals wounds were straight and even, There was no
evidence of tearing, ripping, or chewing anywhere. Below the right leg
joint the hide had been cut in a square, with two (2) right angle
incisions. Close examination (videotaped) showed that the actual incision
appeared to be serrated, almost like steps with notches at each base.
During the initial examination of the calf, six (6) tissue samples were
taken from the animal and preserved in Mason jars. These tissue samples
were sent to Dr.John Altschuler, formerly of the University of Colorado,
who now runs his own state of the art pathology and hematology laboratory.
Dr. Altschuler states that all six (6) tissue samples he examined from
David McClendon's calf had been exposed to high heat, the tissue had been
cooked. Dr. Altschuler said the temperature required to do this would have
to be in "the hundreds of degrees and possibly higher" to burn the tissue
in this manner. As for the 'stepped and notched' incisions, Dr. Altschuler
stated that since he examined the first mutilated animal back in 1967, he
has seen this type of cut over and over again.

CONCLUSION

With these two lab reports of two different samples in two separate cases,
we are forced to conclude that the predator animals cannot be blamed for
the majority of the mutilation cases documented.

Dr. Jim Armstrong, Auburn professor of zoology and wildlife science
concurs. He states, "It would be obvious if a coyote have been tearing
through. The wounds would not be similar to a smooth cut. Coyotes bite
through and pull to tear away the flesh. It would have a 'chewed on look'.
There are other scavenger animals such as vultures that will eat at the
softer regions of a cow, but there's not going to be these clean,
surgical-type cuts. There is no way a coyote or other predator inflicted
those wounds." In the past week Dr. Armstrong has examined dozens of
photographs of mutilated cows taken by the Fyffe Police Department. He
states, "I went over the pictures with a USDA expert along with several
wildlife biologists. With the exception of one individual, we all agreed
that many of the cases were not typical predatory damage. The caution here
is that we're dealing with photos, that there is no other physical
evidence
for us to look at. "But the USDA agent and most other agreed with my
conclusion that many of the pictures were not coyote or other predator
damage."

DeKalb County Auburn Extension Agent Curtis O'Daniel also discounts the
likelihood of predator animals removing circles of cowhide. "Predators are
not bad about eating hide, they'll eat up the rest of it first. Along with
the bones, the hide will be one of the last things to go."

These statements made by expert professionals agree with the statements
made earlier this year by the Fyffe Police Department, that predators are
not responsible for the mutilations. The conclusion, however, indicates a
greater mystery: Who is doing this and why is there a lack (for the most
part) of physical evidence at the scene?

Police Chief Junior Garmany and Mayor Boyd Graben, themselves involved in
farming, believe the results of our investigation require further
attention
It is incumbent on all of us Military, state and federal government to
assists farmers to find out who the phantom surgeons are. It seems basic
to
help the man who is responsible for ensuring there is food available for
our dinner tables. The farmer is not interested in politically correct
official explanations. He wants to know what has happened to his livestock
It should be the responsibility of all law-enforcement to join together to
find an answer to this problem that is adversely affecting the cattle
farmer, here in Alabama.

John Sayer

unread,

May 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/12/97

to

In article <337923db...@news.cyberhighway.net>, address@sig wrote:

>joh...@andover.co.uk (John Sayer) wrote:

<snip>

>>So if it's near a university, it's made by students...if it's on a farm,
>>it must be made by farmers, right? And if it's near a motorway - must be
>>made by motorists, yes? Near a pond? Made by ducks!
>>
>>I don't think your logic is very sound. :-)
>

>But it beats the hell out of "it's near Alpha Centauri, so it's made
>by Little Green Men."
>
>Ever heard of Occam's Razor?

I agree. But if it was near Alpha Centauri (to follow the joke), the Alpha
Centaurians would be claiming it was made by Earthlings, no?

Yes, I've seen the phrase "Occam's Razor", but I'd appreciate a simple
explanation of what is meant by it.

John

John Sayer

unread,

May 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/12/97

to

In article <peter...@combo.ganesha.com>, pet...@combo.ganesha.com wrote:

>There were enough people England reproducing crop circles, with no broken
>plants, etc.

Can you please provide details: names, dates, locations? And proof of that
information's authenticity? (This is a genuine request, by the way - not
sarcasm!)

Many thanks,

Rob Irving

unread,

May 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/12/97

to

In article <337679c6...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, muld...@ix.netcom.com
(Brian Mueller) writes:

> Surely they are not all made
>by mankind, unless you claim that people have been doing this for
>hundreds of years, because crop circles were spoken of in the Middle
>Ages also (don't have any citations off hand, would have to look, I
>read it somewhere). I also have heard that in genuine circles, the
>bent crops are genetically different from the non-bent crops. Let's
>see you do that with the method the two old farmers used.
>
>[long silence]
>
>I didn't think you could.
>
>

Not disagreeing with you particularly, but at least get your facts right
before spouting off so sanctimoniously. You refer to the 'Movil Devil'
leaflet of 1678 - hardly the Middle Ages. The story involves a dispute
between a farmer and his workers over pay for harvesting, the end
result being that some of his crop 'mysteriously' went missing. Some
might argue over this, but the story holds its own quite well without
the need for a paranormal explanation.

unread,

May 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/12/97

to

Keith M. King (ali...@sound.net) wrote:
: Crop Circles have neither added to or detracted from the UFO/Alien
: phenomenon, my friends. Creating ground pictograms in order to convey
: a "message", as some have alleged is the case, make no intelligent
: sense.

Just idle speculation, but I have to wonder if there is NO message, but by
making it appear so, we are distracted from seeing some sort of pattern
that might give us understanding of the mechanisms used to create the
circles? Certainly there are fakers, and if you make the circles complex
and interesting, you create a "challenge" where fakers are going to try to
do even "better". First rule of hiding something, encourage the creation
of a bunch of decoys and fakes.

None of this presupposes any particular origin for the circles, only that
there probably is NO message, and that an unusual source/method is being
obscured by a clutter of fakes, and perhaps extraneous detail is added to
"non-fake" circles to encourage more fakery.

IMHO

Charles Gregory

unread,

May 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/12/97

to

Carl Fink (ca...@panix.com) wrote:
: There are people on the 'net that I know really exist, but not from

: that kind of evidence -- because I've met them, or met people who've
: met them, or know them via commercial services where it's much harder
: to fake your name.

: You've just proved that the crop circles *should* be doubted, Charles.

Yes, that is quite right. I've never SEEN one. I've never seen them being
formed, I therefore DOUBT what I have heard. What I advocate is NOT
attaching the label "scientific" to a doubt that is based on nothing more
than "well, I haven't seen it myself". People THINK they are using
"science" to "disprove" reports of anomalies in/around crop circles, but
all they are doing is using personal experience to choose who they trust.

My personal choice to NOT believe someone who says they took "scientific"
readings in a crop circle should be based upon KNOWN history of that
individual having faked data before, NOT from my personal bias that I have
experienced alternate data. CONTRADICTORY data would be another matter,
but one theory over another should not be chosen by personal bias.

Brian Mueller

unread,

May 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/13/97

to

Rob Irving wrote:

>Not disagreeing with you particularly, but at least get your facts right
>before spouting off so sanctimoniously. You refer to the 'Movil Devil'
>leaflet of 1678 - hardly the Middle Ages. The story involves a dispute
>between a farmer and his workers over pay for harvesting, the end
>result being that some of his crop 'mysteriously' went missing. Some
>might argue over this, but the story holds its own quite well without
>the need for a paranormal explanation.

I wasn't familar with this. It wasn't what I was talking about,
either. :-) Apparently this has been going on for quite a while (crop
circles, that is). You'll find that, as I'm not a history expert, if I
say "Middle Ages" I'm usually referring to before 1700 (which, for all
I know, was well after).

>
>By 'those two old farmers' you probably mean Doug & Dave, actually
>two artists.

oh well, you know what I meant. picky, picky. sheesh.

>It's true that they weren't capable of creating the genetic
>changes to which you refer. The real question is, can you supply a
>sensible reference to such a extraordinary claim?
>

Well firstly, I didn't claim that I could. It's one of those things I
read somewhere and I don't have the book anymore. I do recall that an
independent corporate laboratory did the analysis, and there were, in
fact, genetic differences between the bent crop and the non bent crop.
I truely wish I could be more specific, because the laboratory may
not, in fact, have been as credible a source as I remember it to be.
However, I don't think it should be assumed that the lab wasn't
credible because they determined there to be genetic differences.

It does sound rather extraordinary, doesn't it. :/ Now that I think
about it, I *really* wish I still had the book. :-)

>I strongly doubt that you can.

oh well, I guess you're right in this case. :-) I'll look and see if I
can find the book (I doubt I'll be able to get it...if you don't see a
post saying I did within the next few days, assume I couldn't find
it). It was one of those things written by a skeptic where they
disprove all claims of "paranormal" events.

Note that I doubt crop circles are caused by aliens; personally, I
think it's an atmospheric phenonenon (the real ones, that is). I have
no explaination for the genetic differences. Radiation??? In any case,
atmospheric phenonena are hardly paranormal (no offense to those who
believe aliens cause them).

The Doc

unread,

May 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/13/97

to

On 11 May 1997, Dr. Peter Kittel wrote:

> Sorry to step on you or others, but I feel it's kind of a waste of
> resources to bother for such crap, pardon, crop. There are bigger
> problems on earth to take care of.

Not meaning to step on *your* toes, but if you're worried about bigger
problems on Earth, why in the owrld are you reading these newsgroups? Last
time I checked, Forteanism and phenomenology in general was abaout being
open minded. Dismissing all possibility that crop-circles (or any other
phenomenon) are not hoaxes seems a little biased to me. Especially when
you take the attitude that the eye-witnesses are also fakes and hoaxers.
Just my $0.02 worth....

Drew.

================================================================================
Andrew Shiel 40, The Dingle,
an...@maths.tcd.ie Palmerstown, D20,
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~anvar Ireland.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/1804 01 6267143
Secretary of Fortean, Librarian of Sci-Fi, Co-ordinator of Amnesty.

"My mind is so open, I'd need surgery to open it further."
===============================================================================

Wes Taylor

unread,

May 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/13/97

to

Brian Mueller wrote:

>Rob Irving wrote:

>>By 'those two old farmers' you probably mean Doug & Dave, actually
>>two artists.

>oh well, you know what I meant. picky, picky. sheesh.

>>It's true that they weren't capable of creating the genetic
>>changes to which you refer. The real question is, can you supply a
>>sensible reference to such a extraordinary claim?

>Well firstly, I didn't claim that I could. It's one of those things I
>read somewhere and I don't have the book anymore. I do recall that an
>independent corporate laboratory did the analysis, and there were, in
>fact, genetic differences between the bent crop and the non bent crop.
>I truely wish I could be more specific, because the laboratory may
>not, in fact, have been as credible a source as I remember it to be.
>However, I don't think it should be assumed that the lab wasn't
>credible because they determined there to be genetic differences.

>It does sound rather extraordinary, doesn't it. :/ Now that I think
>about it, I *really* wish I still had the book. :-)

If you find it I suspect investigation will show that the Laboratory
in question will likely not have heard of their being named or will be
far from reputable. This is something of a track record with this
type of material. Material like that would be a godsend to some
cereologists who have got to be desparate for proof they are not
complete fools.

>>I strongly doubt that you can.

>oh well, I guess you're right in this case. :-) I'll look and see if I
>can find the book (I doubt I'll be able to get it...if you don't see a
>post saying I did within the next few days, assume I couldn't find
>it). It was one of those things written by a skeptic where they
>disprove all claims of "paranormal" events.

>Note that I doubt crop circles are caused by aliens; personally, I
>think it's an atmospheric phenonenon (the real ones, that is). I have
>no explaination for the genetic differences. Radiation??? In any case,
>atmospheric phenonena are hardly paranormal (no offense to those who
>believe aliens cause them).

The Crop Circle nonsensee should have been put to rest by a series of
tests last year when a number circles were made while cameras rolled
and then prominent Cereologists were called in to examine them and
they not only claimed they were not hoaxes but pointed to features
they claimed could not have been made by man. All for crop circles
made in front of a camera.

All or them were hoaxes. Get used to the idea and get over it.

Wes Taylor

DrPostman

unread,

May 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/13/97

to

nyr...@clark.net (Nyrath the nearly wise) wrote:

>You hear a breaking sound. Entering the living room, you see the
>lamp, broken on the floor, with your young son standing nearby with
>a guilty look on his face.
> You ask "who broke the lamp?"
> Your son informs you that a green monster jumped in through the
>window, flew around the room, knocked the lamp onto the floor,
>then darted out the window, cackling about how the son was going
>to be punished for breaking the lamp.
> Occam's Razor is why you don't believe your young son.
> Occam's Razor actually says something about "logical entities should
>not be unnecessarily multiplied", it is sometimes inaccurately
>reduced to "the simplest explanation is the best."

Damn! Now you've done it. All those folks with those
"believe the children" bumper stickers are gonna keep
this thread alive indefinitly. Everybody knows that Bill
Keane's Family Circus explained this phenomena:
A little ghost named "I don't know" alway does it.

--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD
Knight of the Potato Cannon,
Facilitator of Art Bell Anonymous,
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b,
And a lifetime member of the
Art Bell Internet Fan Club,
SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
"Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Want to email me? My address is: jami...@mindspring.com
"You write new so-called "reasons" and the original name-calling,
from the vacant minded fools that you are, had no alleged "reason.""
Bruce Daniel Kettler
--

David Kornreich

unread,

May 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/13/97

to

In article <5l7c3v$r...@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>,
ab...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Charles Gregory) wrote:

> What is NOT sound is the
> suggestion that a known or "most probable" cause somehow "eliminates"
> other explanations.

[snip]

> Mind you, while I think about this, I have to wonder about the arguments I
> hear that "all" crop circles are fakes because someone wants to make money

> out of the mystery.....

But this is not the argument. The claim "Crop circles are made by aliens"
is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence. In the
absence of such extraordinary evidence, the claim must be held as false*.
Scientifically, if a known process (human design in this case) is able to
account for the evidence, and more importantly is known to have been the
process at work on at least some of the circles, then there is no reason
to explain the balance of the phenomena in terms of unknown (alien)
processes. In other words, knowing that most circles are made by humans
does not imply neccessarily that we know the origin of all the circles,
only that we can explain their creation without resorting to previously
unknown phenomena. Thus, without convincing additional evidence, crop
circles are not evidence for alien life. Someone wanted to know what
Occam's Razor was. This is it.

I would hasten to point out that "strange sounds" or "strange lights" are
not evidence for aliens either. Until such sounds, lights, etc., are
identified, they are not evidence for _anything_. Simply because we can't
identify a sound or a light that somebody says they heard or saw, doesn't
force us to accept the "alien" theory. In other words, the "alien" theory
is _not_ the default. (I'd venture to say that it's not even a theory.)
The default is the theory which explains the phenomena in terms of known
forces. Anything else requires extraordinary positive evidence, not meager
ambiguous evidence.

Moreover, this meager ambiguous evidence is never used as positive
evidence that "aliens did it," but always as negative evidence, as in
"here, if humans did it, show me how this could possibly be." Now, you can
always come up with something, somewhere that hasn't yet been addressed by
the people arguing against you. This is the classic strategy of
creationists, UFOlogists, astrologers, and other assorted
pseudoscientists, as if disproving the conventional theory (if they could
do it) automatically means their outrageous claims have merit. Wrong. Even
if the "humans did it" hypothesis were proven false*, the "aliens did it"
hypothesis would garner _no_ additional merit. In other words, when a
theory falls, the thing to say is not "the crackpots who have advanced no
positive evidence of their claims must be right," but instead, "I don't
know what happened, and therefore reserve judgement until I see some
compelling evidence."

The reson for Occam's Razor is that once you start postulating
unneccesarily complex explainations, there is nothing to tell you when to
stop. If you say the circles were made by invisible aliens, for instance,
why do you stop short of saying that they were made by the Jolly Green
Giant or the Tooth Fairy? How do I distinguish a circle made by an alien
from one made by a ghost, a spectre, or a band of very small purple
leprochauns? It seems to me that a lot of people _want_ it to be aliens,
and so to them, it is.

Sorry for the rant, but when I read alt.folklore.science, I prefer to read
about science folklore, not pseudoscientific detritus.

*meaning: false in the scientific sense, i.e. false until proven otherwise.

> Charles Gregory
> E-Mail: cha...@hwcn.org
> Home Page: [J]ump to "http://www.hwcn.org/~ab801/Profile.html"

happy days,
d.a.

--
David A. Kornreich dk...@alderan.tn.cornell.edu
Cornell University Space Sciences
The Fraternal Order of the Eternal Employees of Floyd
** We Specialize in Circumstances Beyond Our Control **

Michael Lacy

unread,

May 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/14/97

to

In article <peter...@combo.ganesha.com>,

pet...@combo.ganesha.com (Dr. Peter Kittel) wrote:

>In article <337536...@dds.nl> Ronald <dan...@dds.nl> writes:

>>And by the way ,perhaps the very reason that the circles are becoming
>>more and more complex is to prove to all you Debunkers out there
>>that they are not man-made ?

Actually, if 'aliens' wanted to prove that the circles were not man-made,
they could just use their superior technology to tap into our TV, radio and
telephone systems and tell us so.

The real reason crop circles have become more complex over the years is the
same reason urban grafitti has become more complex over the years -
artistic competition. Now that Crop Circles have a large following, no one
is going to get nice pictures of their work published if they stick to
boring old circles - that's yesterday's fashion. If you want to make the
cover page of the 'para-niodmaial press,' they want to see originality.
Who knows, if you do a good enough job you might even wind up on a Led
Zepplin album cover. I'll bet the hoaxers that made that beauty are quite
proud of themselves (If, that is, they aren't kicking themselves for not
going public and recieving a commission from Atlantic records for the
reproduction rights to their 'art').

Michael Lacy

"My views are corrupted by my obsession with reality."

Brian Mueller

unread,

May 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/14/97

to

Wes Taylor wrote:

>If you find it I suspect investigation will show that the Laboratory
>in question will likely not have heard of their being named or will be
>far from reputable. This is something of a track record with this
>type of material. Material like that would be a godsend to some
>cereologists who have got to be desparate for proof they are not
>complete fools.

Well whatever. This comment is meaningless, since it's expected from
someone who thinks all crop circles are man made.

>
>The Crop Circle nonsensee should have been put to rest by a series of
>tests last year when a number circles were made while cameras rolled
>and then prominent Cereologists were called in to examine them and
>they not only claimed they were not hoaxes but pointed to features
>they claimed could not have been made by man. All for crop circles
>made in front of a camera.

That still doesn't prove anything other than that some crop circles
are hoaxes. By this logic, if I see a sculpture of horse that is done
so authentically that I percieve it to be real until I touch it, I
should assume that all horses are fakes. Rather stupid when you think
about it.

>All or them were hoaxes. Get used to the idea and get over it.

^^
you mean "of" here, right? :-)

I'm used to the idea; I think it's wrong.

Some have mentioned that there are people who have whitnessed these
things being created by some sort of natural phenomenon, and that
those whitnesses saw bright lights in the crop fields. What is your
explanation for these stories (assuming the whitnesses are not lying
and were not under the influence of mind altering substances when they
saw it)?

btw I still can't find that &(*&(E% book. My shelves are stacked
beyond their capacity as it is; I probably gave it to someone.
Alternatively, I may have seen it on the Discovery channel; I recall
watching a show on the subject once. I'm pretty sure it was a book
though.

Paul Little

unread,

May 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/14/97

to

In article <johnute-1205...@194.143.173.58>, John Sayer
<joh...@andover.co.uk> writes
>The sounds which were bird sounds *weren't* the sound reported several
>times in association with crop circles (which is like an "electronic
>fizzing").
>
>John
(Sayer)

These "Fizzing Crop Circles" Were they perhaps in any proximity to any
electricity pylons/installations. These installations can make an
incredibly unearthly "fzzz" sound under certain weather conditions
which can carry quite considerable distances. I've experienced it myself
when camping in a forest one night. First the sounds of the woods. then a
sinister gradually growing crescendo. ........ssssszzzzzZZZZZ! Scared us
all sh*tless. No clue as to the direction it was coming from.

hmmm. Perhaps we *were* abducted? ;-)
_________________________
/_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _\
| [][][] Paul Little [][][] |
\_________________________/ (N.B. its a harmonica not a UFO)

Paul Little

unread,

May 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/14/97

to

In article <johnute-1005...@194.143.173.56>, John Sayer
<joh...@andover.co.uk> writes
>In article <cdVbMGAT...@flin.demon.co.uk>, Alison Brooks
><Ali...@flin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>>the damned Mandlebrot set?
>>*
>>Right by Cambridge University? And you expect anyone to believe it's
>>something other than students??
>>
>>Heh, heh, heh, heh...

>
>So if it's near a university, it's made by students...if it's on a farm,
>it must be made by farmers, right? And if it's near a motorway - must be
>made by motorists, yes? Near a pond? Made by ducks!
>
>I don't think your logic is very sound. :-)
>

>--
>John Sayer

Oh Please, Alison has a very valid point.
Haven't you ever been a student?

BTW
I have my own theory.
Of course it's humans that are making the crop circles.
What do you think all these ex abductees are doing once "Coronation
Street's" finished, washing the dishes?
*Who needs string, theodolites, or GPS when you have your very own
alien implant to coordinate affairs.*
Look at the facts. I think the world should be told...........

_________________________
/_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _\
| [][][] Paul Little [][][] |

\_________________________/ (Hmm perhaps it is a UFO after all)

Peter Ceresole

unread,

May 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/14/97

to

In article <3379dfd0...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
muld...@ix.netcom.com (Brian Mueller) wrote:

>Why have they grown more complex over time? God only knows. Maybe
>they're influenced by electrmagnetic signals, which have become more
>common in the past hundred years (the emergence of commercial radio
>broadcast).

That's where it all falls down. There *might* be a few simple ones that are
created by meteorological phenomena but the complex ones are quite
different.

They have grown more complex as the makers have seen photos of the others
and have bought coffee-trable books with Mandelbrot images in them and
thought "Okay, we can do that". Why did the Mandelbrot shapes emerge only
after the Mandelbrot set had become the material of popular science TV
programmes and newspaper stories? Maybe the aliens had never really thought
about them, being too busy travelling between the stars to think much about
mathematics.

Of *course* they are fake. I find it unbelievable that anybody can think
any different.

--
Peter

Glen Quarnstrom

unread,

May 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/14/97

to

"Mr. Ed...I mean Mr. Zhong" <dgtl...@cdsnet.net> wrote:

>Glen Quarnstrom wrote:
>>
>> Ever heard[sic] of Occam's Razor?

>Yeah, wasn't that the one where the lady slaps him and he says "ahhh,
>thanks...I needed that!" Or was that Hai Doctari Aftershave?

I liked Occam's Razor so much I bought the company.
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
"afa-b's leading curmudgeon"

Lady Nidiffer

unread,

May 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/15/97

to

DrPostman wrote in article <5lagsu$7...@camel3.mindspring.com>...
<SNIP>

>
>Damn! Now you've done it. All those folks with those
>"believe the children" bumper stickers are gonna keep
>this thread alive indefinitly. Everybody knows that Bill
>Keane's Family Circus explained this phenomena:
>A little ghost named "I don't know" alway does it.
>

unread,

May 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/15/97

to

Richard White (CS) wrote:
>
[snip]

> >
> > But this is not the argument. The claim "Crop circles are made by aliens"
> > is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence. In the
> > absence of such extraordinary evidence, the claim must be held as false*.
> >

> > [snipped mucho stuff that seems logically sound to me, RW]

> >
> > *meaning: false in the scientific sense, i.e. false until proven otherwise.
>

> I'm not sure I understand your exact meaning here. Just as proof is
> required to hold a claim as true, isn't proof also required to hold a
> claim as false?
>
> For example, in mathematics, a theorem is not automatically considered
> false by mere fact that is has not been proven true. A good example would
> be Golbach's conjecture. [snip]

> Does this concept not also apply in the scientific sense? Rather than
> claim something is "false until proven otherwise", would it not be more
> accurate to say something is unknown (ie, neither true nor false) until
> proven otherwise?

Good question.

No, we don't assume something is false until proven true. But we do try
to apply various principles of parsimony to keep from drowning in
conjectures, and what's more important, we don't use conjectures as the
premises of a syllogism.

The Goldbach Conjecture (that every even number ca be expressed as the
sum of two primes) is a conjecture that has a lot of supporting evidence
and no known counterexamples but no proof. You still can't use it as
part of a proof, as it's unproven.

The statement "crop circles are made by alien spacecraft" has no
supporting evidence and tons of counterexamples to specific instances,
so while it's a conjecture, it's a conjecture of a very different
nature. And that leads us to an important point.

Experimental test of a theory begins by assuming the null hypothesis,
i.e., that there's nothing going on. We start from that point and then
try to prove that there is an effect. We try to reject H(0), the null
hypothesis. That's how we keep from being buried in supposition.

Parsimony demands that you don't automatically admit every possible
conjecture to the debate; you need a justification. There are an
infinite number of possible conjectures that can be made about the
world, and we have to select which of these are profitible to pursue.

-- mike
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Edelman m...@pass.wayne.edu
Wayne State University voice: (313) 577-0742
Computing & Information Technology fax: (313) 577-8787
Academic Computing & Support Services
Detroit MI 48070 http://www.pass.wayne.edu/~mje/home.html

(Remove the FILLER from my return address when mailing)

John Sayer

unread,

May 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/15/97

to

In article <peter...@combo.ganesha.com>, pet...@combo.ganesha.com wrote:

>Sure I'm biased to consider the simplest possible explanation the most
>probable one. I'm physicist, you must know, and simplicity and elegance
>of formulae is a big point in favor of a hypothesis. And the simplest way
>to explain crop circles is that they are made by mere humans for fun or
>publicity. It has been proven that it's doable.

Well, this depends on whether the "simplest" explanation for crop circles
is that they're all man-made. Is this not subjective? In this day and age,
I don't have any problem in considering that the more "exotic"
explanations (e.g. plasma vortices, ETs etc.) are just as "simple".

Secondly, even if they're all man-made, is it necessarily the case that
they're done for "fun or publicity"? Could there not be a far more serious
motive (e.g. to initiate a change in "consciousness", herald in the New
Age, sow discontent with established science/religion/politics etc.)?

Thirdly, only fake circles are "doable". No one has yet been able to prove
human manufacture of a circle which does not bear the hallmarks of forgery
(using the word intentionally - i.e. based on the premise that there have
been "genuine" circles, which have been, unsuccessfully, imitated).

Lastly, on what logical grounds should we accept that "simplicity and
elegance (definitely a subjective term!) of formulae is a big point in
favour of a hypothesis"? This seems to be an accepted "law". Why?

John Sayer

unread,

May 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/15/97

to

In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.970515002724.16276A-100000@grad>, "Richard White
(CS)" <wh...@csee.usf.edu> wrote:

>Rather than
>claim something is "false until proven otherwise", would it not be more
>accurate to say something is unknown (ie, neither true nor false) until
>proven otherwise?

Yes, it would! A breath of fresh air!!

Peter Ceresole

unread,

May 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/15/97

to

In article <johnute-1505...@194.143.173.51>,
joh...@andover.co.uk (John Sayer) wrote:

>Well, this depends on whether the "simplest" explanation for crop circles
>is that they're all man-made. Is this not subjective? In this day and age,
>I don't have any problem in considering that the more "exotic"
>explanations (e.g. plasma vortices, ETs etc.) are just as "simple".

They might be if they meant anything. But they don't. They're only simple
because they're meaningless.

--
Peter

Brian Mueller

unread,

May 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/15/97

to

pe...@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote:

>This is *Usenet* and articles, even if they are in response to a particular
>posting, aren't addressed to any particular person. Aliens seem to have
>come up in this discussion (don't they always?)

However, *I* didn't say it. You were talking to *me* and implied that
I had mentioned aliens as a possible cause. I have never said this.
Therefore your statement was a libelous comment. Be glad I don't take
this stuff as seriously as some do; I've heard of men literally being
sued for what they say on Usenet.

>But saying that meteorological factors cause anything beyond simple
>circular or strip patterns is extremely far fetched. Might as well invoke
>aliens.

There is a long distance between "extremely far fetched" and "might as
well invoke aliens", especially when I have never suggested this
(aliens), and you were implying I did.

>It's not a mistake. Both forms are perfectly acceptable these days. I used
>the neater one in this case.

They are not both proper, however. In that case, the word "different"
was being used as an adverb to modify the verb "think", obviating the
-ly suffix. Personally I think proper English is cleaner.

>
>English is a fast evolving language.

True. However, being an Englishman, one would expect that you would
employ proper usage of the language, especially since Usenet affords
one time to compose one's message.

It is still true that the statement "some are fake, therefore all are
fake" is not logical. The inanity of this statement has been clearly
demonstrated by many other posters. The possibility of a condition
does not cause it to happen.

I noticed you didn't reply to my comments regarding your logic itself.

Obviously, some of the crop circles were faked by Doug and Dave (or
whatever their names are). It does not follow in logic, however, that
they are all fake.

The following statement from Peter Cresole is true.

>But saying that meteorological factors cause anything beyond simple
>circular or strip patterns is extremely far fetched.

Let's assume then, for the sake of argument, that only the circular
patterns are natural. Prove to me that *all* the circular patterns
were faked, and I will concede your point. I emphasize the word all;
proving that some have been faked (to which I have already conceded)
does not prove that all are fakes. Furthmore, some posters have said
they whitnessed or know someone who has whitnessed the natural
formation of some crop cirlces, and that in the formation of said crop
circles, there were bright lights and other natural atmospheric
anomalies. You must also have an explanation for this, as I assume
that bright lights would defeat the purpose of stealth, for which the
forgers create the circles at night rather than in broad daylight
(usually).

Cheng-Jih Chen

unread,

May 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/15/97

to

In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.970515002724.16276A-100000@grad>,
Richard White (CS) <wh...@csee.usf.edu> wrote:

Oh, I'm going to regret getting into this one, aren't I?

>For example, in mathematics, a theorem is not automatically considered
>false by mere fact that is has not been proven true. A good example would

>be Golbach's conjecture. No one has yet proven it to be true, but no one
>seems willing to go out on a limb and declare it false.

The thing is, the real world is not the world of mathematics. Yes, in
math, you can't make statements without also providing proof of these
statements. The real world, however, doesn't offer the same sort of
certainties, and we have to make due with rules of thumb like Ockham's
Razor and so on, in order to think clearly about how the world works.

If you drop Ockham's Razor, you will have problems rejecting all sorts
of nonsense. I can claim that you, in fact, are not Richard White but
are in fact my self-aware AI project that's being fed real-world
stimuli in order to enhance the AI (a sort of up-to-date version of
Cartesian Doubt). By your reasoning, you will have to say that this
claim is "unknown". "Logically" (or at least using a wildly
unparsimonious logic) that may be so, but is it a reasonable
statement about the world?

>Does this concept not also apply in the scientific sense? Rather than

>claim something is "false until proven otherwise", would it not be more
>accurate to say something is unknown (ie, neither true nor false) until
>proven otherwise?

Following a rule of parsimony, "false until proven otherwise" is a
reasonable statement when dealing with UFOs and crop circles. True,
the existence of UFOs may not violate the laws of physics (and, in this
sense, the existence of UFOs will require less extraordinary proof
than, say, evolution not working or QED being fundamentally flawed),
but it requires us to assume that sentient beings travelled great
distances in order to trample on some poor farmer's field. It's about
as likely as me schlepping up Mt. Everest to build some snowmen.

--
"Yeah man, I tell ya what, man...That dang ol' Internet, man...You just go
on there and point and click...Talk about W-W-dot-W-com...An' lotsa nekkid
chicks on there, man... Click. Click. Click. Click. Click.... It's real
easy man." -- Boomhauer on the Internet, _King of the Hill_

Peter Ceresole

unread,

May 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/15/97

to

In article <337b28c...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
muld...@ix.netcom.com (Brian Mueller) wrote:

>I noticed you didn't reply to my comments regarding your logic itself.

My logic is at least as sound as yours. Try it.

>Obviously, some of the crop circles were faked by Doug and Dave (or
>whatever their names are). It does not follow in logic, however, that
>they are all fake.

No, and nor do I say so. Should I sue you for saying that?

What I support (following on from the whole thread, because this is not in
isolation) is that the faking of crop circles has been demonstrated. Apart
from very simple circles and stripes, the mechanisms for creating the
others are quite unknown- baffling in fact. The more complicated shapes are
in fashionable form; there were no Mandelbrot pictures reported or
described in the 1940s. Therefore the overwhelming likelihood is that they
are fakes.

--
Peter

Peter Ceresole

unread,

May 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/15/97

to

In article <5lfg71$e...@interport.net>,
c...@interport.net (Cheng-Jih Chen) wrote:

>If you drop Ockham's Razor, you will have problems rejecting all sorts
>of nonsense. I can claim that you, in fact, are not Richard White but
>are in fact my self-aware AI project that's being fed real-world
>stimuli in order to enhance the AI

Hey that's great. Congratulations, you're almost there. Another ten years
and it should be totally convincing.

--
Peter

Cheng-Jih Chen

unread,

May 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM5/15/97

to

In article <AFA12576...@cara.demon.co.uk>,
Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>If you drop Ockham's Razor, you will have problems rejecting all sorts
>>of nonsense. I can claim that you, in fact, are not Richard White but
>>are in fact my self-aware AI project that's being fed real-world
>>stimuli in order to enhance the AI
>
>Hey that's great. Congratulations, you're almost there. Another ten years
>and it should be totally convincing.

Peter is actually version 2.03beta4. The "smartass remarks" subroutines
have been completed.