Ice meteors, climate, sceptics
Brian Sandle
> "Brian Sandle" <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:10761390...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz...
>> Eric Hocking <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> > Brian Sandle <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:<10756459...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz>...
>> > <sniparoo>
>> >> Eric diverted my followup to Grant's parallel of crop circles to ice
>> >> meteors out of this newsgroup.
>> > As requested by participants here - it's off topic as far as they're
>> > concerned.
>> Grant puts ice meteors in the same category as crop circles, that they may
> be
>> hoaxes. Is not that a sort of suggestion that it would be unusual for such
> a
>> large block of ice to fall from an aircraft?
> OK - then keep the discussion here on ice and pursue FMD elsewhere.
OK I have set followups to alp.paranormal.crop-circles
>> >> But I see he has not been able to answer
>> >> the statistics in my reply. In the database he refered us to, the first
>> >> crop circle in UK in May 2001 occurred in an area still under FMD
> control.
>> > Hampshire - no. Wrong. Cite provided.
>> We have convered that on nz.general.
> No, *I* covered this on nz.general, this was your response to the cite I
> refer to above...
Sorry, I should have said that you have already made a comment about
Hampshire.
But I was not getting very far with what you were posting. For example you
gave in support of your Hampshire comment:
http://www.hants.gov.uk/hcc/emergency/scudamore.html
It was published on 20 Mar and the only date it gave:
British Waterways will be re-opening some canals from 26 March and is
discussing re-opening some towpaths with local authorities;
> [..]
> You snipped the entire discussion and totally ignored the points I raised.
> Which is pretty hypocritical considering your excuse for rekindling the
> discussion over here was "to draw your attention to the nz.general article
> that you had not been replying to, ..." You do realise that I'm not in the
> same time zone as you, don't you? Also, there is life outside of usenet,
> but hey, you ignore most of my replies, so I'm not surprised you decided to
> ignore my post of the 4th saying it'd take a day or two to post the charts
> online.
I tried to economise for the moment by getting to the salient point, by
replying:
"How about you do a nice little table of when and where crop circles
appeared in UK with the dates that restrictions were lifted, as that is
your claim and it is a bit hard to look up. Then we can try to decide what
percentage level of significance can be attached to any correlation in the
data set, given the amount of data."
You did decide to turn attention to Wiltshire, but I am not totally convinced
by your dismissal of the investigators `taped-off' claim in Hampshire.
> <snip>
>> My post here was to draw your attention to the nz.general article that you
>> had not been replying to, and is again. That the start of the crop circle
>> season in Wiltshire, where the most occured in UK in 2001,
> One, just to repeat myself, the total number has nothing to do with the
> recording of the first of the year.
I am justing dealing then with the first each year. Though earlier you were
talking about the masses appearing there in late May.
> Two, if by "where the most occurred in UK in 2001" you mean that as a
> percentage of the total UK, 2001 was the greatest for Wiltshire, I suggest
> you go and have another look at the database. 1998 and 2000 were the recent
> peaks with 54% and 51% respectively. 2001 was 45%
Yes, what I was thinking, that it may be the most overall. Therefore to have
more at a point in time there is not so unlikely.
>> was only the 12th
>> latest start since about 1978, and that 7 starts had been later, according
> to
>> the database.
> Here's the annual average count, in 5 year blocks from the database:
> 1980-84 3
> 1985-89 11
> 1990-94 111
> 1995-99 110
> 2000-03 105
> Pre-1990 there is scant useful data to be starting trend analyses.
Well in 1991 the the first for Wiltshire was Jun 9. 96 Jun 1.
>> > Let's pursue this on the remaining ngs that the thread has been left
>> > on and where the thread has been renamed "FMD and Cropcircles (was Re:
>> > Ice meteors, climate, sceptics)" for those at all interested in
>> > pursuing this.
>> > Apologies to s.g.m regulars.
>>
>> To whom you seem to wish to have the last word on this matter.
>>
>> I hope meteorologists do not get hypnotised into two-valued thinking. The
>> `sceptic' approach is to pander to the low two-valued level of logic, and
>> create and perpetually try to reiforce the perception that there are two
>> camps, the one camp the believers, and the other camp the ones who claim
> that
>> since some circles are acknowledged as hoaxes then all are.
> When the database recorders conclude that a crop formation that spelt out
> the word "COCK" and another that spelt out some obscure Canadian band's name
> as "probably a hoax" you really have to wonder what their benchmark is for
> "real" circles are...
It is simple-minded to think a scientist would accept that just because one
group of people hoaxed a crop circle that it would have to be the same group
writing extra words in it. Ever heard of tagging competition?
>> In between is the
>> real world. The crop circle database has one mention of `fungal ring'.
> That
>> term does not produce as many results on a web picture search as the
>> technical term `fairy ring', which has the same meaning.
> Fungal ring, is the "technical term" and the botanical phenomenon is well
> understood.
> Why introduce fairies into the discussion?
The term has captivated scientists. They use it a lot: see Medline. Even
fairiefungin a potent toxin.
>> Maybe there are only
>> real fairy rings and hoax ones, and none produced otherwise.
>> The real
>> ones used to be thought to be associated with fairies, and of course
>> mushrooms sometimes. Then they would be copied for secret magic or
> religious
>> ceremonies - sort of `cargo cult' stuff with UFOs maybe. Then there would
> be
>> the religious antagonists to that with debunking and detraction.
> Again with the wild conjecture and non sequiturs. "real" and "hoax" fairy
> rings?
Indeed.
"Religious antagonists" debunking fairy rings? Where do you get this
> bunkum?
There is religious competition in some circles.
Then there are the things like Transcendental Meditation about which you will
find a lot of controversy on the net. Have you seen the photos of
`levitation' of persons in the lotus posture? They are of course fun photos
playing on the word `levitation' which is really about engendering a mind
state by bouncing in the lotus posture. Then someone calls them hoaxers when
they are photographed at the top of their bounce and it is called
`levitation', which normally people thinking to be meaing floating in the qir
for longer periods.
>> And I think strange things happen with weather magic, too, sometimes,
> don't
>> they?
> Weather "magic" now? Your first argument to me in this ng started with
> "Any decent scientist knows
> (a) correlation is not causation
> (b) to check the data."
> You missed
> (c) magic is not a scientific theorem
It is interesting that a number of physical scientists, including Sir William
Crookes had cnnection with the Theosophical Society, which studies latent
powers.
>> So there is that argument,
> Magic is not an arguement position?
Argument referred back to the `religious' antagonism.
>> let alone the `Is there global warming and
>> if there is is it greenhouse, and if it is greenhouse is it anthropogenic,
>> and if it is anthropogenic did it start with early agriculture 15,000
> years
>> ago?' sort of thing, battle.
> I have never heard of anyone sane arguing that anthropogenic driven global
> warming started 15,000 years ago. Cite?
http://kenethmiles.blogspot.com/2003_12_28_kenethmiles_archive.html
Wild rice was first cultivated 7500 years ago, and irrigated
paddies started appearing in the archeological record around
5000 years.
As Ruddiman concludes "[i]n summary, the 'anomalous' late
Holocene CH4 increase cannot be explained by nature forcing, but
it coincides closely with innovations in agriculture that
produce methane in abundance."
Carbon Dioxide
Carbon dioxide atmospherics concentrations have oscillated in a
similar fashion to methane as the earth moves through it's full
orbital cycle. Approx. 8000 years ago, a similar event happened.
[...]
"(1) clearance must begin near
8000 yrs BP (when the CO2 rise began) on a small, yet
'non-negligible' scale; (2) clearance must grow large enough by
~2000 yrs BP to explain ~80% of the pre-industrial CO2 anomaly;
and (3) the negative oscillation of 4 to 10 ppm after 2000 years
BP also need an explanation."
>> Currently the question of whether rockets poison any catalytic ozone
> process
>> in stratosphere which does not mix much, having its temperature inversion,
> is
>> being cogitated about on sci.environment. That follows on from the
> original
>> discussion of whether ice meteors may be related to greenhouse causing
>> reduced temperature above a certain levele in the atmosphere. Such
>> temperature ond loss of ozone can result from polar stratospheric clouds,
>> and rockets and airplanes put water into the stratosphere.
> But, as you say,
> "Any decent scientist knows
> (a) correlation is not causation
> (b) to check the data."
> Which is it then? If (a) above is correct, neither my conjecture that
> there's a correlation between FMD and the late recording of circles in the
> UK and your rumination that there's a correlation between shuttle launches
> and ozone layer thinning are not valid.
If you followed my continuation on sci.environment I point out that when
solar activity is partialled out the correlation drops by a good factor. I
yet have to put in halocarbons and parital out both. Maybe there will still
be something to explain.
You seem to think correlation is a
> valid tool for your arguments, backed by speculation and lack of an
> understanding of chemistry,
No-one knows rocket chemistry totally. As for the ozone reactions I have been
giving they are quite accepted.
yet not valid for mine, backed by data and
> references.
You said there was a cluster (starting late) when the FMD restricitons were
lifted. Then you say quantities do not matter. So it is hard understanding
how to communicate to you. What is a cluster if not a quantity?
And your statistics are a bit licentious. The database gives a creation as
mid April, and you give it an exact date as Apr 15. I do not know how it is
known what creation dates are anyway. Better to use discovery dates.
> Feel free to have the last word - but try not to introduce the "energy
> jamming" by the Russians during the moon shots, OK? Try to stick to the
> point at hand.
They allowed the energy, should I say frequency, with the English language
transmission to get through.
I think jamming casts light on detracting.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Eric Hocking
"Brian Sandle" <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
news:10763293...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz...
> Eric Hocking <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > "Brian Sandle" <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
> > news:10761390...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz...
> >> Eric Hocking <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> > Brian Sandle <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
> > news:<10756459...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz>...
> >> > <sniparoo>
> >> >> Eric diverted my followup to Grant's parallel of crop circles to ice
> >> >> meteors out of this newsgroup.
> >> > As requested by participants here - it's off topic as far as they're
> >> > concerned.
<snip>
> OK I have set followups to alp.paranormal.crop-circles
And I have added sci.skeptics - just didn't want the n.gen and s.g.met
people to think that I can't back up my argument.
> >> >> But I see he has not been able to answer
> >> >> the statistics in my reply. In the database he refered us to, the
first
> >> >> crop circle in UK in May 2001 occurred in an area still under FMD
> > control.
> >> > Hampshire - no. Wrong. Cite provided.
> >> We have convered that on nz.general.
> > No, *I* covered this on nz.general, this was your response to the cite I
> > refer to above...
>
> Sorry, I should have said that you have already made a comment about
> Hampshire.
> But I was not getting very far with what you were posting. For example you
> gave in support of your Hampshire comment:
> http://www.hants.gov.uk/hcc/emergency/scudamore.html
> It was published on 20 Mar and the only date it gave:
> British Waterways will be re-opening some canals from 26 March and is
> discussing re-opening some towpaths with local authorities;
For starters - this is the notification of closure, but you did miss, under
the heading
"What you can do now" ... (their emphasis on "now");
"In some places you can:
- stay in caravans or tents
- walk, ride, cycle or drive on rights of way or in open countryside . . ."
Let's remember that there were no cases of FMD in Hampshire.
So let's recap.
Some RoW were open in late March.
2nd April <http://www.hants.gov.uk/cxpuxn/c1659.html>
"Rights of Way will be assessed starting tomorrow with a proposal to re-open
some by the end of the week. Code of conduct signs for walkers using these
newly opened public rights of way are to replace 'closed' signs."
3rd April National Nature Reserves are opening
<http://www.english-nature.org.uk/news/story.asp?ID=263>
15th April RoW status
<http://web.archive.org/web/20010525064645/http://www.hants.gov.uk/maps/path
s/su86.html>
Note that the circle was on the field between Old Winchester Hill fort and
Meonvale Farm, bounded by two open bridleways and a minor (sealed) road.
18th April many NNRs are open - most notably Old Winchester Hill fort.
<http://www.english-nature.org.uk/news/warning1.asp?P=5&S=>
4 May Hampshire County Council is to review its policy on re-opening
footpaths and other rights of way in light of recent Government guidance for
Local Authorities to accelerate the re-opening of footpaths in areas free of
Foot and Mouth disease.
Obviously not fast enough as,
8th may - Hansard "There is no reason why the worst performing authorities
should not achieve a similar or better performance. I urge all councils, and
especially those without infected areas, to make significant progress
towards reopening their rights of way wherever it is safe to do so."
<http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200001/cmhansrd/vo01
0508/text/10508w10.htm>
10th May Significantly almost 20% of the rights of way network and the
majority of countryside sites are already open
<http://www.hants.gov.uk/cxpuxn/c1719.html> and it is noted that "Farmers
will be able to apply to the Council Council for new 'No Entry' signs to
close paths.." only if specific livestock related conditions apply.
So, from the Crop Circle Field Report: uk01ab
<http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/database/reports/uk01ab.html>
"The formation, located south west of the hill fort, was seen first by farm
hand Ernie who noticed it from his cottage on the morning of 12 May."
(remembering that the NNR and the bridleways surrounding this field have
been open for 3 weeks)
"I was given permission to conduct scientific tests in the formation by the
farmer and I went in on Sunday 20 May..."
Point 1. If FMD restrictions were in place, the farmer would have been
breaking the law to allow people onto restricted land.
Point 2. From the above references you can see that there were no
restrictions on access to the site or on the surrounding Rights of Way due
to FMD. Indeed they were lifted 3 weeks previously.
Point 3. According to the crop circle site, the Meonvale Farm circle was
the first in 2001.
Therefore my statement that the first circles in 2001 in the UK only started
to appear in areas where FMD restrictions had been lifted.
Oh, and let's just visit the article written specifically to debunk the
position I take;
"Foot and Mouth Disease 2001 - correcting the media myths"
<http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/articles/index.html>
It says, "There has been much disinformation put about by the media,
claiming that the 2001 season only really took off after the re-opening of
the countryside after the Foot and Mouth disease closures. As you can see
from the diagram above (which I created for this purpose).There was one
reported crop circle (inside a Foot and Mouth restricted area at Winchester
Hill in Hampshire) reported in April, which compares with no circles in 1996
and only two in 1997 and 1998."
Incorrect.
1. The Hampshire circle was created in MAY.
The first and only circle found in April 2001 in the UK was created by an
artist in Somerset.
<http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb2?d=uk01aa> .
2. The Hampshire circle was created _ after FMD restrictions had been
lifted_
<snip>
> I tried to economise for the moment by getting to the salient point, by
> replying:
> "How about you do a nice little table of when and where crop circles
> appeared in UK with the dates that restrictions were lifted, as that is
> your claim and it is a bit hard to look up. Then we can try to decide what
> percentage level of significance can be attached to any correlation in the
> data set, given the amount of data."
>
> You did decide to turn attention to Wiltshire,
As I explaine - it comprises nearly 50% of the total in the past 5-6 years
AND had pretty good FMD references to RoW closure.
> but I am not totally convinced
> by your dismissal of the investigators `taped-off' claim in Hampshire.
Hope you're convinced now...
> > <snip>
> >> My post here was to draw your attention to the nz.general article that
you
> >> had not been replying to, and is again. That the start of the crop
circle
> >> season in Wiltshire, where the most occured in UK in 2001,
> > One, just to repeat myself, the total number has nothing to do with the
> > recording of the first of the year.
>
> I am justing dealing then with the first each year. Though earlier you
were
> talking about the masses appearing there in late May.
Please try to get your story straight.
That line contradicts each and every statement I have posted on this
subject. I have repeatedly said that it is not the total number that is
important, but the timing and distribution.
Quote one post that this has not been my stated position.
> > Two, if by "where the most occurred in UK in 2001" you mean that as a
> > percentage of the total UK, 2001 was the greatest for Wiltshire, I
suggest
> > you go and have another look at the database. 1998 and 2000 were the
recent
> > peaks with 54% and 51% respectively. 2001 was 45%
>
> Yes, what I was thinking, that it may be the most overall. Therefore to
have
> more at a point in time there is not so unlikely.
Hang on, hang on "I was thinkg that it may be the most overall"?
Your immediately previous line in this post is "I am justing dealing then
with the first each year.".
Which is it. Total or First. No wonder you quote me incorrectly, you can't
even remember YOUR position on this discussion.
> >> was only the 12th
> >> latest start since about 1978, and that 7 starts had been later,
according
> > to
> >> the database.
>
> > Here's the annual average count, in 5 year blocks from the database:
> > 1980-84 3
> > 1985-89 11
> > 1990-94 111
> > 1995-99 110
> > 2000-03 105
> > Pre-1990 there is scant useful data to be starting trend analyses.
> Well in 1991 the the first for Wiltshire was Jun 9.
WOW - from a total of 6 for the month for the entire UK, and only 52 for the
entire year.
> . 96 Jun 1.
Yep - pretty remarkable variance that, and that first one in 1996 was also a
hoax!
Only 83 for the entire UK that year. I wonder if BSE had anything to do
with that?
I decided to restrict my look back to the same period as the crop
researchers did for their article on "Foot and Mouth Disease 2001 -
correcting the media myths". Seemed reasonable since they thought that this
was a good enough period to demonstrate a trend.
<snip>
> > When the database recorders conclude that a crop formation that spelt
out
> > the word "COCK" and another that spelt out some obscure Canadian band's
name
> > as "probably a hoax" you really have to wonder what their benchmark is
for
> > "real" circles are...
>
> It is simple-minded to think a scientist would accept that just because
one
> group of people hoaxed a crop circle that it would have to be the same
group
> writing extra words in it. Ever heard of tagging competition?
You know perfectly well that that was not the point I was making, but since
you repeatedly attempt to misquote me, let me reiterate.
My objection was not that these were hoaxes, but that the researcher's
approach to categorising circles is predisposed to non-manmade circles. I
gave these as examples of that bias.
<snip>
> > Why introduce fairies into the discussion?
>
> The term has captivated scientists. They use it a lot: see Medline. Even
> fairiefungin a potent toxin.
Junk scientists get as much print space as any on Medline.
<snip>
> > Again with the wild conjecture and non sequiturs. "real" and "hoax"
fairy
> > rings?
>
> Indeed.
I'm not going to be deliberately obtuse and take this to mean "indeed there
are real and fake fairy rings" instead of "Again with the wild conjecture
and non sequiturs".
What the hell is a hoax fairy ring and to what purpose are they constructed?
> "Religious antagonists" debunking fairy rings? Where do you get this
> > bunkum?
>
> There is religious competition in some circles.
For debunking fairy rings? Oh, please...
> Then there are the things like Transcendental Meditation about which you
will
... snip because it is yet another non-related tangent. Is there anything
you don't believe in btw?
> >> And I think strange things happen with weather magic, too, sometimes,
> > don't
> >> they?
>
> > Weather "magic" now? Your first argument to me in this ng started with
> > "Any decent scientist knows
> > (a) correlation is not causation
> > (b) to check the data."
> > You missed
> > (c) magic is not a scientific theorem
> It is interesting that a number of physical scientists, including Sir
William
> Crookes had cnnection with the Theosophical Society, which studies latent
> powers.
Yeah, yeah and Newton was into astrology. Try quoting a scientist that
hasn't been dead 100 years.
> >> So there is that argument,
> > Magic is not an arguement position?
>
> Argument referred back to the `religious' antagonism.
>
> >> let alone the `Is there global warming and
> >> if there is is it greenhouse, and if it is greenhouse is it
anthropogenic,
> >> and if it is anthropogenic did it start with early agriculture 15,000
> > years
> >> ago?' sort of thing, battle.
>
> > I have never heard of anyone sane arguing that anthropogenic driven
global
> > warming started 15,000 years ago. Cite?
> http://kenethmiles.blogspot.com/2003_12_28_kenethmiles_archive.html
Interesting - you did rather exaggerate the 15,000 years though...
<snip rocketry - I read it, but leave s.g.m to discuss>
>
> yet not valid for mine, backed by data and
> > references.
>
> You said there was a cluster (starting late) when the FMD restricitons
were
> lifted.
Quote the post. This from my very first post:
"During the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the UK in 2001 the
government closed all countryside footpaths, effectively blocking any
but the farmer from crop fields.
During the ban no crop circles were recorded in the English
countryside.
The first crop circle in England to be recorded was the day after the
walking ban was lifted in that county."
Note the use of the word "first". Throughout this conversation you have
misquoted and misrepresented my statements.
> Then you say quantities do not matter.
Not "then" - "from the outset".
> So it is hard understanding
> how to communicate to you. What is a cluster if not a quantity?
SInce it has no bearing on my stated position nor posted content - who
cares?
> And your statistics are a bit licentious. The database gives a creation as
> mid April, and you give it an exact date as Apr 15.
I find it hard to represent mid-April as a date function in Excel, so 15th
is pretty good for mid-month, I use 21st for late, btw.
> I do not know how it is
> known what creation dates are anyway. Better to use discovery dates.
All the data I quote, as does the crop circle research "distribution
analysis", is based on the observed dates.
> > Feel free to have the last word - but try not to introduce the "energy
> > jamming" by the Russians during the moon shots, OK? Try to stick to the
> > point at hand.
>
> They allowed the energy, should I say frequency, with the English language
> transmission to get through.
>
> I think jamming casts light on detracting.
I have no idea what you mean, and as I said, I have no desire to discuss it.
--
Eric Hocking
www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Attempting spam blocking - remove upper case to reply.
Eric Hocking
"Eric Hocking" <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<c096gc$1di$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>...
> [note follow-ups set to alt.paranormal.crop-circles and sci.skeptic]
> "Brian Sandle" <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:10763293...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz...
> > Eric Hocking <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > > "Brian Sandle" <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
> > > news:10761390...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz...
> > >> Eric Hocking <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > >> > Brian Sandle <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:<10756459...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz>...
> > >> > <sniparoo>
> > OK I have set followups to alp.paranormal.crop-circles
> As I explaine[d] - it comprises nearly 50% of the total in the past 5-6 years
<snip fairy and magic diversion>
> > [you contend use of correlation is valid for your argument] yet not valid for mine, backed by data and
<snip energy jamming diversion>
So, three days later and no response Brian. Rather ironic given your
statement at the top of this post "But I see he [ie. me] has not been
able to answer the statistics in my reply."
--
Eric Hocking
Brian Sandle
> Well, this post seems to have killed the discussion.
I'll just take a little bit at the moment
> "Eric Hocking" <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<c096gc$1di$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>...
>> [note follow-ups set to alt.paranormal.crop-circles and sci.skeptic]
>> "Brian Sandle" <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
>> news:10763293...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz...
[...]
>> The first crop circle in England to be recorded was the day after the
>> walking ban was lifted in that county."
>>
>> Note the use of the word "first". Throughout this conversation you have
>> misquoted and misrepresented my statements.
>>
>> > Then you say quantities do not matter.
>>
>> Not "then" - "from the outset".
>>
>> > So it is hard understanding
>> > how to communicate to you. What is a cluster if not a quantity?
>>
>> SInce it has no bearing on my stated position nor posted content - who
>> cares?
So going back quite a while, you were talking of the first *circles*:
I wrote:
>> Search your database for any country April 2001, there is only one result,
>> and that is an acknowledged art work.
You wrote:
> And this has what to do with my statement about the timing of crop circles
> appearing in May in areas where blanket bans on access to rights of way
were
> being eased?
You have been using April events in other years to bolster your statistics.
If they were not occurring anywhere much then in 2001 then that could be the
reason why they were not occurring in Wiltshire in April 2001.
Eric Hocking
news:4c7fcdcb7...@cropcircleresearch.com...
> Ooooh. someone's referring to an article on my site....
Yep, we've been bandying about your data for a week or so now.
> In article <fa173f58.04021...@posting.google.com>,
> Eric Hocking <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > > Point 1. If FMD restrictions were in place, the farmer would have
been
> > > breaking the law to allow people onto restricted land.
>
> Wrong. The crop circle appeared before people visited it. That Old
> Winchester Hill formation appeared during the time when access was
> restricted. Lucy visited it when restrictions had been removed.
From the report on your site
<http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/database/reports/uk01ab.html>
"[the circle was]...located south west of the hill fort, was seen first by
farm hand Ernie who noticed it from his cottage on the morning of 12 May."
> > > Point 2. From the above references you can see that there were no
> > > restrictions on access to the site or on the surrounding Rights of Way
> > > due to FMD. Indeed they were lifted 3 weeks previously.
>
> No they weren't. My father is the local countryside warden for that area
> and I can state that when that crop circle appeared it was most definitely
> restricted due to foot and mouth.
Your statement that this field was covered by FMD restrictions on the 12th
May, the earliest date we have for the circle is incorrect - regardless of
you recollection or your father's.
I gave a pretty thorough chronology of the Government and County
directives on FMD - these categorically state that Hampshire rights of way
and were opening during April/May. Particular note should be made of the
County directive c1730 below which outlines the directive from MAFF that
says it considered it safe to reopen RoW. Note also that Hampshire was
listed as one of the counties that was slow on responding to this directive
in government question time as recorded in the 8th May Hansard. Lastly, note
that the Fort reserve bordering the field was opened 18th April and
particularly note the RoW status map of 15th May
show that all the Rights of Way surrounding or accessing the field were also
open.
The directive from MAFF in March categorically states that the restrictions
will be most carefully applied in fields where there are stock and
recommended even then that paths crossing other fields should be considered
for opening.
28th March This is the Governement Order particular to FMD - it outlines
exactly what the restrictions are.
<http://web.archive.org/web/20010413172211/www.maff.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/
fmd/business/guidancel.asp>
Guidance for local authorities in England on public access to the
countryside on the rights of way network.
Including guidance on the Foot and mouth disease (Amendment) (England)
(No.4) and Amending Orders 2001
Remember, there were no outbreaks of FMD in Hampshire, therefore none of
point 5 on this page applies, but points 6 to 9 apply directly to RoW.
2nd April <http://www.hants.gov.uk/cxpuxn/c1659.html>
"Rights of Way will be assessed starting tomorrow with a proposal to re-open
some by the end of the week. Code of conduct signs for walkers using these
newly opened public rights of way are to replace 'closed' signs."
3rd April National Nature Reserves are opening
<http://www.english-nature.org.uk/news/story.asp?ID=263>
18th April many NNRs are open - most notably Old Winchester Hill fort.
<http://www.english-nature.org.uk/news/warning1.asp?P=5&S=>
27th April <http://www.hants.gov.uk/cxpuxn/c1697.html>
"FARMERS HELP COUNTY OPEN UP MORE PATHS
Hampshire County Council's strategy to re-open rural paths is now well
underway. 4,000 letters have been sent
to farmers, landowners and parish councils to ask them to identify paths on
their land without livestock nearby
that might be suitable. The response from the farming community has been
overwhelming, and more than 250 rural
paths have now been re-opened."
4th May <http://www.hants.gov.uk/cxpuxn/c1730.html>
"NEW PROPOSALS FOR RE-OPENING RIGHTS OF WAY
Hampshire County Council is to review its policy on re-opening footpaths and
other rights of way in light of recent Government guidance for Local
Authorities to accelerate the re-opening of footpaths in areas free of Foot
and Mouth disease. The Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF)
advised that it considers it safe to open all public footpaths except those
which cross farm land where there is no fence or wire separating susceptible
farm livestock from walkers on the paths."
8th may - Hansard
<http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200001/cmhansrd/vo01
0508/text/10508w10.htm>
"There is no reason why the worst performing authorities should not achieve
a similar or better performance. I urge all councils, and especially those
without infected areas, to make significant progress towards reopening their
rights of way wherever it is safe to do so."
15th May (I had mistakenly said April) RoW status
<http://web.archive.org/web/20010525064645/http://www.hants.gov.uk/maps/path
s/su86.html>
Note that the circle was on the field between Old Winchester Hill fort and
Meonvale Farm, bounded by two open bridleways and a minor (sealed) road.
This status report was issued on a Tuesday and shows the status of those
public rigths of way around the field for the preceding weekend.
> > > Point 3. According to the crop circle site, the Meonvale Farm circle
> > > was the first in 2001.
> Indeed. So what?
The "So what?" is that the above references show that this field was not
under FMD restrictions and that the NNR above it and the RoWs surrounding it
all had been opened just a few weeks earlier to this appearing. On your
site you make particular reference to it as proof that circles appeared in
FMD restricted zones.
This is not the case.
> There were actually a few formations which appeared
> during the F&M restrictions. There were also a couple in Wiltshire.
I'm presuming you're talking about the Pewsey and Barbury Castle sites?
I have a number of RoW notices that show that the RoWs were being opened
around Pewsey from 11th April. As soon as I can identify the paths in the
RoW Orders issued by Wiltshire council I'll be sure to share them with you
(on another PC as I write this).
As for Barbury Castle, it was recorded on the 29th May and no mention or
estimation is made of when it was built.
For the record, Wiltshire Council announced a reopening of RoW across the
county on the 15th May.
See the 24th May press release:
<http://web.archive.org/web/20010605091722/www.wiltshire.gov.uk/latest_news/
getnews.php3?id=46>
Id: 46 - Thursday 24th May 2001 09:50 - Press Release
PR 401 Wiltshire opens up for May Bank Holiday
The May Bank Holiday will see the majority of Wiltshire's Rights of Way
legally reopened - the first couThee May Bank Holiday will see the majority
of Wiltshire's Rights of Way legally reopened - the first county in the
South West to adopt such a policy.
On 15th May Wiltshire County Council's Policy and Resources committee
announced a reopening of Rights of Way across the county with some
exceptions. [I will find these exceptions for you Paul]
From Saturday 26th May the only paths to be legally closed will be those
going directly through farmyards or those used as milking tracks. Farmers
will be issued with new notices to be put up only in those locations.
There is also an option for farmers to erect a notice asking walkers to stay
out of fields with large concentrations of livestock. This will only be an
advisory notice and will not be legally binding.
++++ end quote
Note that as from 15th there are only SOME exceptions to the lifting of
restrictions and from the 26th there are NO LEGALLY BINDING restrictions at
all in Wiltshire.
> > > Therefore my statement that the first circles in 2001 in the UK only
> > > started to appear in areas where FMD restrictions had been lifted.
> Sorry. Incorrect.
Please read the above and indicate where I am in error.
> > > Incorrect.
> > > 1. The Hampshire circle was created in MAY.
> Hmm. I shall double-check my original notes and photos, and correct the
> article if applicable.
It's applicable.
<snip>
> > > 2. The Hampshire circle was created _ after FMD restrictions had been
> > > lifted_
>
> Again, wrong. I know this from first hand experience, as I live in the
area.
This may well be - but I have provided council and government references to
show that you have your dates and recollection is wrong.
Please indicate where the government and council orders and directives
disagree with my statement.
> > > "During the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the UK in 2001 the
> > > government closed all countryside footpaths, effectively blocking any
> > > but the farmer from crop fields. During the ban no crop circles were
> > > recorded in the English countryside.
> This statement is incorrect.
Please indicate exactly where this statement is incorrect, in light of the
references I gave above
> > So, three days later and no response Brian. Rather ironic given your
> > statement at the top of this post "But I see he [ie. me] has not been
> > able to answer the statistics in my reply."
>
> Well, I'm rather late into this thread myself, as I tend to only lurk in
> here infrequently, due to the very high noise/signal ratio of intelligence
> discussion.
On this we agree. In fact back in 2001 when you and I discussed this we
stood off and agreed to disagree. While I'm willing to repursue this, I'm
about to leave on a 3 week business trip, so my responses may be a little
erratic over the next few weeks.
Brian Sandle
> "Paul Vigay" <pv-N...@cropcircleresearch.com> wrote in message
> news:4c7fcdcb7...@cropcircleresearch.com...
>> Ooooh. someone's referring to an article on my site....
> Yep, we've been bandying about your data for a week or so now.
You keep on posting a lot of stuff with supposition and no definite
date. Then people from the area tell you it was not open and also
the reporters said it was a taped off area, and you have not given a
good comment on that.
> This may well be - but I have provided council and government references to
> show that you have your dates and recollection is wrong.
No you haven't.
> Please indicate where the government and council orders and directives
> disagree with my statement.
Rewrite it and take out all the stuff which says things were
starting to be open at such and such a date. It means nothing.
>> > > "During the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the UK in 2001 the
>> > > government closed all countryside footpaths, effectively blocking any
>> > > but the farmer from crop fields. During the ban no crop circles were
>> > > recorded in the English countryside.
>> This statement is incorrect.
> Please indicate exactly where this statement is incorrect, in light of the
> references I gave above
Leaving that aside,
April 2000: 3 UK, 1 USA, 1 Netherlands =5
April 2001: Nil anywhere = 0
April 2002 1 Canada, 2 Germany, 1 Lithuania, 1 USA, 1 UK = 6.
You keep saying you wish to ignore all that, and say the reason UK
had nil in 2000 was the FMD. Now what reason did all the other
countries have nil? You will *again* say, I suppose, you are not
interested, you are only concerned with UK.
This is like the child who frowns and the cloud comes over the sun
and someone jokes with him that he caused it. Because of the way he
was spoken to he fails to be able to say it has also happened when
he did not frown.
Eric Hocking
> Eric Hocking <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > "Paul Vigay" <pv-N...@cropcircleresearch.com> wrote in message
> > news:4c7fcdcb7...@cropcircleresearch.com...
> >> Ooooh. someone's referring to an article on my site....
>
> > Yep, we've been bandying about your data for a week or so now.
>
> You keep on posting a lot of stuff with supposition and no definite
> date.
The references that I have been supplying and that you keep deleting
are from the UK government body (MAFF, now DEFRA) that issued legal
orders and directives on when and where the countryside restrictions
were to be put in place as well as when they were revoked. Additional
to this I provided the County directives on FMD restrictions. There
is no supposition in my references, they are the root source from the
UK government department in charge of managing the outbreak as well as
the County's addoption of same.
These are legally binding, dated, government orders. There is no
supposition and the dates are *very* definite. I urge you to prove
one of them incorrect.
> Then people from the area tell you it was not open and also
> the reporters said it was a taped off area, and you have not given a
> good comment on that.
Read my reply to Paul - he supplies personal recollection - I supply
dated government news releases and legal orders
> > This may well be - but I have provided council and government references to
> > show that you have your dates and recollection is wrong.
>
> No you haven't.
Read the references. They are from MAFF (DEFRA) and Hampshire and
Wiltshire county council press releases, directives and legal orders
(as passed by UK parliament).
> > Please indicate where the government and council orders and directives
> > disagree with my statement.
>
> Rewrite it and take out all the stuff which says things were
> starting to be open at such and such a date. It means nothing.
!!??? Uh, Brian, the whole point of this discussion is to determine
when and where the FMD restrictions were lifted in England and when
and where the first crop circles appeared in those counties.
> >> > > "During the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the UK in 2001 the
> >> > > government closed all countryside footpaths, effectively blocking any
> >> > > but the farmer from crop fields. During the ban no crop circles were
> >> > > recorded in the English countryside.
>
> >> This statement is incorrect.
>
> > Please indicate exactly where this statement is incorrect, in light of the
> > references I gave above
>
>
> Leaving that aside,
No, you show me where the statement is incorrect.
> April 2000: 3 UK, 1 USA, 1 Netherlands =5
> April 2001: Nil anywhere = 0
> April 2002 1 Canada, 2 Germany, 1 Lithuania, 1 USA, 1 UK = 6.
> You keep saying you wish to ignore all that, and say the reason UK
> had nil in 2000 was the FMD. Now what reason did all the other
> countries have nil? You will *again* say, I suppose, you are not
> interested, you are only concerned with UK.
Yes I am, 1. because that is exactly what my statement was concerning
and 2.it was only in the UK countryside in 2001 where FMD restrictions
were put in place. We've been discussing this for over 2 weeks and
you're still ignoring it?
> This is like the child who frowns and the cloud comes over the sun
> and someone jokes with him that he caused it. Because of the way he
> was spoken to he fails to be able to say it has also happened when
> he did not frown.
And your statements are the usenet equivalent of sticking your fingers
in your ears and repeating "I'm not listening, I'm not listening".
Just address the position that I made clear in my first post.
--
Eric Hocking
Brian Sandle
> In article <fa173f58.04021...@posting.google.com>,
> Eric Hocking <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> supposition and the dates are *very* definite. I urge you to prove one
>> of them incorrect.
> I'm not saying any are incorrect. However, they have little bearing on the
> actual restrictions in force around the country.
Eric goes into a huge circumstantial spiel instead of giving the actual date
when it was known the ban was off in a particular area. As I have said
several times.
Not every site in
> Hampshire or Wiltshire was updated 'immediately' government recommendations
> came out, therefore I think this whole discussion is rather a red herring.
>> Read my reply to Paul - he supplies personal recollection - I supply
>> dated government news releases and legal orders
> Indeed. However, that's what the public is aware of. Not everyone reads the
> government white papers and guidelines every week. I remember that a number
> of fields and footpaths still had "Foot and Mouth disease, keep out!" signs
> up well into August. Indeed, there's one footpath near here (in the Meon
> Valley) which *still* has a F&M - Keep out sign pinned on a tree next to
> the footpath entrance.
> If you're implying that hoaxers took notice of the government lifting of
> restrictions then that would also imply that they keep more up to date on
> government recommendations than local farmers themselves, which shows the
> level of 'dedication' (or level of sadness) that some of these hoaxers
> stoop to. That in turn implies that some form of organised hoaxing is going
> on,
Yes, could be world-wide, or some dates of pagan festivals or something.
Maybe they are trying to prove it happens world-wide all at once to make it
look like a visit. So then we are into looking for the deeper sources of
their actions.
rather than a spontaneous decision on coming out of the pub..... (the
> latter being foiled if you see a keep out sign on a gate or footpath, but
> the former implies they checked the government papers before choosing which
> field to hoax in).
People like sceptics?
>> !!??? Uh, Brian, the whole point of this discussion is to determine
>> when and where the FMD restrictions were lifted in England and when and
>> where the first crop circles appeared in those counties.
> But, as pointed out above, all fairly irrelevant to the actual events.
And further, as the uncle told the little boy, `Don't tell me the clouds have
ever come over when you didn't frown, this time is was when you did frown
therefore it must have been because of you.'
Brian Sandle
>>
>> starting to be open at such and such a date. It means nothing.
> !!??? Uh, Brian, the whole point of this discussion is to determine
> when and where the FMD restrictions were lifted in England and when
> and where the first crop circles appeared in those counties.
Yes and your long tabulation is only saying because FMD restrictions on
entering fields were starting to come off in such and such a place at such
and such a time, then in this other place when the crop circle occurred they
may have been off, too.
Then you go on to the next gap in logic: though crop circles were late the
world round in 2001 compared to 2000 and 2002, you say the lateness in the UK
subset that year was likely caused by FMD.
>> >> > > "During the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the UK in 2001 the
>> >> > > government closed all countryside footpaths, effectively blocking any
>> >> > > but the farmer from crop fields. During the ban no crop circles were
>> >> > > recorded in the English countryside.
>>
>> >> This statement is incorrect.
>>
>> > Please indicate exactly where this statement is incorrect, in light of the
>> > references I gave above
>>
>>
>> Leaving that aside,
> No, you show me where the statement is incorrect.
Give exact dates that people believed they were allowed on the exact bits of
land where the circles were found.
>> April 2000: 3 UK, 1 USA, 1 Netherlands =5
>> April 2001: Nil anywhere = 0
>> April 2002 1 Canada, 2 Germany, 1 Lithuania, 1 USA, 1 UK = 6.
>> You keep saying you wish to ignore all that, and say the reason UK
>> had nil in 2000 was the FMD. Now what reason did all the other
>> countries have nil? You will *again* say, I suppose, you are not
>> interested, you are only concerned with UK.
> Yes I am, 1. because that is exactly what my statement was concerning
> and 2.it was only in the UK countryside in 2001 where FMD restrictions
> were put in place. We've been discussing this for over 2 weeks and
> you're still ignoring it?
New Zealand parrots are better at logic than you. They like to skate down
rooves of huts in the morning. Then an annoyed woken human banged on the
ceiling to try to get them to fly away. It happened a couple of times more,
till one parrot clung up-side-down to the spouting and peered in the window
to see what was making the banging noise while the other skated again.
Do you think it is likely that bad weather and lateness the world over is
only a coincidence, and also that bad weather has nothing to do with hoaxers:
they do not care about the weather, it must only be FMD restrictions that put
them off. You must have great faith in the dedication of sceptics to their
task.
>> This is like the child who frowns and the cloud comes over the sun
>> and someone jokes with him that he caused it. Because of the way he
>> was spoken to he fails to be able to say it has also happened when
>> he did not frown.
> And your statements are the usenet equivalent of sticking your fingers
> in your ears and repeating "I'm not listening, I'm not listening".
> Just address the position that I made clear in my first post.
USA crop prices dropped in USA with GM crops.
UK beef farming profits dropped with BSE following the warned-about feeding
lots of meat to cattle.
No connection, or a world-wide short-term-profit-driven attitude driving
unnatural practices?
My dates are a bit hazy, like yours.
Eric Hocking
Paul, you must have archive set to NO as I cannot see your responses
in Google. If you wish for me to respond to you on this thread I'd
need you to either turn Archive-NO off when responding here, or to
copy your response to my email address.
Thanks,
--
Eric Hocking
Eric Hocking
> In alt.paranormal.crop-circles Paul Vigay <pv-N...@cropcircleresearch.com> wrote:
> > In article <fa173f58.04021...@posting.google.com>,
> > Eric Hocking <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> These are legally binding, dated, government orders. There is no
> >> supposition and the dates are *very* definite. I urge you to prove one
> >> of them incorrect.
> > I'm not saying any are incorrect. However, they have little bearing on the
> > actual restrictions in force around the country.
They are the government and County issued directives on what
restrictions are in place, in which part of the country, at any
particular date, throughout the FMD crisis in 2001. They have every
bearing on the actual restrications - because the are, in fact, the
actual, government issued orders on the restrictions.
> Eric goes into a huge circumstantial spiel instead of giving the actual date
> when it was known the ban was off in a particular area. As I have said
> several times.
There is nothing circumstantial. The government orders are dated and
*law*. I suggest you read the Order itself.
> Not every site in
> > Hampshire or Wiltshire was updated 'immediately' government recommendations
> > came out, therefore I think this whole discussion is rather a red herring.
I have provided the County news releases that document their
implementation of the government orders. If you read the Hansard
record (8th May) you will find that hampshire in particular was
mentioned as being one of the counties that did not respond quickly
enough as far as sthe government was concerned, I then also provided
the County Council's reaction to that and their news release and
directives on reopening RoW and lifting FMD bans. These news releases
repeat the Governement Order conditions as they apply to the county.
> >> Read my reply to Paul - he supplies personal recollection - I supply
> >> dated government news releases and legal orders
> > Indeed. However, that's what the public is aware of. Not everyone reads the
> > government white papers and guidelines every week. I remember that a number
> > of fields and footpaths still had "Foot and Mouth disease, keep out!" signs
> > up well into August. Indeed, there's one footpath near here (in the Meon
> > Valley) which *still* has a F&M - Keep out sign pinned on a tree next to
> > the footpath entrance.
This is quite true - I came across such a sign nine tenths of the way
round a walk. I turned back. Regardless, and I supplied this in the
news releases, these signs are not legal. As ignorance of the law is
not a defence in a court of law, ignorance of the lifting of a law is
not a defence either.
Oh, and could you specify exactly where this sign is and which path it
relates to?
> > If you're implying that hoaxers took notice of the government lifting of
> > restrictions then that would also imply that they keep more up to date on
> > government recommendations than local farmers themselves, which shows the
> > level of 'dedication' (or level of sadness) that some of these hoaxers
> > stoop to. That in turn implies that some form of organised hoaxing is going
> > on,
Walkers, ramblers etc are more interested in the opening up of the
countryside, especially RoW, than farmers. It is pointed out in a
number of the late April and early May FMD orders that farmers are to
replace signs closing paths and that such signs if they still were
displayed had no legal weight. In the same releases farmers were told
that to keep paths closed, they had to apply for that. With regard
the first circle of the year in Hampshire, I provided a dated county
map, showing the field and the open status of all the RoW that
surrounded it.
> Yes, could be world-wide, or some dates of pagan festivals or something.
> Maybe they are trying to prove it happens world-wide all at once to make it
> look like a visit. So then we are into looking for the deeper sources of
> their actions.
eh?
> rather than a spontaneous decision on coming out of the pub..... (the
> > latter being foiled if you see a keep out sign on a gate or footpath, but
> > the former implies they checked the government papers before choosing which
> > field to hoax in).
Again, your ignorance of the law at the time does not mean that others
were ignorant of the law.
For instance, in an early post I pointed out that this claim from the
Wiltshire crop circle study group
<http://www.thisispewsey.co.uk/wiltshire/leisure/weird/231001.html>
"In spite of the foot and mouth restrictions which meant that the
croppies
had to keep away from fields and could not fly overland, about 40
formations were officially recorded in Wiltshire."
Was incorrect as shown in this Hansard record of May 9
<http://www.parliament.the-stationeryoffice.co.uk/pa/cm200001/cmhansrd/vo010509/text/10509w19.htm>
I had to use a Google cache of this page -
<http://smallurl.com?i=7021>
The aviation bans were that you could not fly *below* 500ft over
infected land or *below* 1000ft over the livestock cremation sites.
Again, ignorance of the law is not an excuse, and to incorrectly state
a law or it's conditions certainly does not help the crop circle
advocates case that implying circles were found later in 2001 because
they were unable to search for them from the air.
> People like sceptics?
> >> !!??? Uh, Brian, the whole point of this discussion is to determine
> >> when and where the FMD restrictions were lifted in England and when and
> >> where the first crop circles appeared in those counties.
> > But, as pointed out above, all fairly irrelevant to the actual events.
>
> And further, as the uncle told the little boy, `Don't tell me the clouds have
> ever come over when you didn't frown, this time is was when you did frown
> therefore it must have been because of you.'
Nice little proverb there - but how about addressing my post instead?
--
Eric Hocking
Eric Hocking
> In alt.paranormal.crop-circles Eric Hocking <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > Brian Sandle <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message news:<10768542...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz>...
> >>
> >> Rewrite it and take out all the stuff which says things were
> >> starting to be open at such and such a date. It means nothing.
>
> > !!??? Uh, Brian, the whole point of this discussion is to determine
> > when and where the FMD restrictions were lifted in England and when
> > and where the first crop circles appeared in those counties.
>
> Yes and your long tabulation is only saying because FMD restrictions on
> entering fields were starting to come off in such and such a place at such
> and such a time, then in this other place when the crop circle occurred they
> may have been off, too.
Nope. Not at all. I have said that it was only when FMD restrictions
have been lifted in a county that crop circles first appeared in that
county. That and only that.
> Then you go on to the next gap in logic: though crop circles were late the
> world round in 2001 compared to 2000 and 2002, you say the lateness in the UK
> subset that year was likely caused by FMD.
Strawman.
You constantly misrepresent my posts in order to dodge the point I am
making. And I have corrected you each and every time. Each time you
bring up the subject of worldwide circles I have corrected you by
reminding you that, from my first post, I had only talked about UK
crop circles. YOU persist on introducing the worldwide distraction
and to imply that this was ever my position is untrue.
Show ONE of my posts where this is not the case.
> >> >> > > "During the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the UK in 2001 the
> >> >> > > government closed all countryside footpaths, effectively blocking any
> >> >> > > but the farmer from crop fields. During the ban no crop circles were
> >> >> > > recorded in the English countryside.
> >> >> This statement is incorrect.
> >> > Please indicate exactly where this statement is incorrect, in light of the
> >> > references I gave above
> >> Leaving that aside,
>
> > No, you show me where the statement is incorrect.
>
> Give exact dates that people believed they were allowed on the exact bits of
> land where the circles were found.
I have given dated government and county FMD orders and news releases
giving just this. The fact that you prefer to snip them from your
replies so that you can pretend that they haven't been presented at
least three times to you is your problem and not mine.
As I said, quoting the references I have provided, show me where my
statements are correct. Remember, quote the references I have given
and disprove them.
> >> April 2000: 3 UK, 1 USA, 1 Netherlands =5
> >> April 2001: Nil anywhere = 0
> >> April 2002 1 Canada, 2 Germany, 1 Lithuania, 1 USA, 1 UK = 6.
> >> You keep saying you wish to ignore all that, and say the reason UK
> >> had nil in 2000 was the FMD. Now what reason did all the other
> >> countries have nil? You will *again* say, I suppose, you are not
> >> interested, you are only concerned with UK.
>
> > Yes I am, 1. because that is exactly what my statement was concerning
> > and 2.it was only in the UK countryside in 2001 where FMD restrictions
> > were put in place. We've been discussing this for over 2 weeks and
> > you're still ignoring it?
>
<snip weird parrot diversion - what WAS that about?>
> Do you think it is likely that bad weather and lateness the world over is
Not the world over - I am addressing ONLY the UK circles. As you
know. And as you persistently ignore.
> only a coincidence, and also that bad weather has nothing to do with hoaxers:
> they do not care about the weather, it must only be FMD restrictions that put
> them off. You must have great faith in the dedication of sceptics to their
> task.
Gee Brian, you NEARLY addressed the subject of this thread there.
Want to try to continue in this vein? OK, give me the crop
sowing/maturing times for, say, 2000-2002 in correlation with the
weather, if you think that this might be an explanation.
Oh, I forgot, you decided that weather wasn't an issue:
"Brian Sandle" <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
news:10756929...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz...
> Eric Hocking <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > So far you have admitted that:
> > a. There is a difference in the timing of the appearance of circles in the
> > UK in 2001 (weather you say)
>
> Changed mind.
So which is it? Does bad weather have any part to play in this
discussion or not?
> >> This is like the child who frowns and the cloud comes over the sun
> >> and someone jokes with him that he caused it. Because of the way he
> >> was spoken to he fails to be able to say it has also happened when
> >> he did not frown.
>
> > And your statements are the usenet equivalent of sticking your fingers
> > in your ears and repeating "I'm not listening, I'm not listening".
>
> > Just address the position that I made clear in my first post.
>
> USA crop prices dropped in USA with GM crops.
... and this has nothing to do with UK circles and FMD. Pretty poor
attempt at avoidance there.
> UK beef farming profits dropped with BSE following the warned-about feeding
> lots of meat to cattle.
... and this has nothing to do with UK circles and FMD. Yet more
avoidance oof the discussion at hand.
> No connection, or a world-wide short-term-profit-driven attitude driving
> unnatural practices?
... and this has nothing to do with UK circles and FMD. Yet more
avoidance oof the discussion at hand.
> My dates are a bit hazy, like yours.
The dates I quote, and which you persistently do not address (by
ignoring them totally), are quite accurate. The references are dated
government orders relating directly to FMD restrictions (and
conditions) as well as RoW closures and subsequent reopening dates.
Exact.
Instead of saying they're hazy - address the references directly.
--
Eric Hocking
Eric Hocking
Paul, I'm having to access this thread via Google, so if you wish me
to respond to any of your posts, could you either remove the
Archive-NO command or cc me in email? Thanks.
<snip>
> > There were actually a few formations which appeared
> > during the F&M restrictions. There were also a couple in Wiltshire.
>
> I'm presuming you're talking about the Pewsey and Barbury Castle sites?
>
> I have a number of RoW notices that show that the RoWs were being opened
> around Pewsey from 11th April. As soon as I can identify the paths in the
> RoW Orders issued by Wiltshire council I'll be sure to share them with you
> (on another PC as I write this).
I worked out why I wasn't able to use these RoW opening notices for
the Pewsey area. The RoW notices from the Wiltshire council only
applied to RoW in the restricted area. This map, from the Wiltshire
council site shows the FMD Restriced Area for Wilsthire.
<http://web.archive.org/web/20010626054724/www.wiltshire.gov.uk/download/planning/wiltsmap.gif>
In Pewsey it runs north of the railway line.
The Pewsey White Horse and the field that the circle appeared in are
south of the railway line.
This circle appeared in an area OUTSIDE of the FMD Restricted zone in
Wiltshire.
(on the above map, it's about where the s in "Manningford Abbots"
appears)
From March/April RoW were being opened outside of the restriced area.
Rather than give you the complete chronology, here are the salient
news releases and Orders.
[If you want to look up the complete lot, here's the list to review
from February through June:
PR264, 267, 271, 275, 364, 370, 372, 373, 377, 378, 380, 393, 401, 420
Id: 23 3rd May, Id: 35 11th May, Id: 47 24th May, Id: 48&49 24th May
(these are the declarations with the RoW schedules attached)]
To continue:
Id: 18 - Friday 27th April 2001 15:00 - Press Release
PR 373 Latest footpath re opening guidelines
Using the most recent guidelines from MAFF, Wiltshire County Council,
in consultation with local Parish and Town Councils, is continuing to
reopen various lengths of paths and bridleways across the county.
However, at present not all paths are open.
[...]
The public are requested to keep dogs on leads, to avoid contact with
cattle, sheep, pigs and Deer and not to walk through pasture land.
Note - "public are requested ... not to walk through PASTURE land"
(nothing about crops)
Lastly, this Order released by the Wiltshire County Council:
<http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/latest_news/getnews.php3?id=48>
[...]
Id: 48 - Thursday 24th May 2001 17:10 - General News
Foot And Mouth Disease - Declaration Opening Rights Of Way
Wiltshire County Council
Foot And Mouth Disease - Declaration Opening Rights Of Way In The
District Council Areas Of West Wiltshire, Kennet And Salisbury
Further To Article 37A Of The Foot And Mouth Disease Order 1983 (As
Amended)
Wiltshire County Council declares open the Rights of Way network in
the District Council areas of West Wiltshire, Kennet and Salisbury in
the County of Wiltshire WITH THE EXCEPTION OF those Rights of Way
which go through farmyards and/or farm buildings on farms or which are
tracks used to move livestock. This declaration replaces all earlier
declarations in the District Council areas of West Wiltshire, Kennet
and Salisbury.
This declaration takes effect at 5 p.m. on Friday 25th May 2001 and
continues in force until further notice.
[...]
So to summarise:
1st circle for 2001 - Hampshire 11th/12th May
FMD restrictions just lifted
15th May status of RoW surrounding field
<http://web.archive.org/web/20010525064645/http://www.hants.gov.uk/maps/paths/su86.html>
2nd circle for 2001 - Wiltshire 25th May- covered above.
FMD restrictions just lifted
3nd circle for 2001 - Wiltshire 29th May
FMD restrictions lifted 26th May
<http://web.archive.org/web/20010605091722/www.wiltshire.gov.uk/latest_news/
getnews.php3?id=46>
Id: 46 - Thursday 24th May 2001 09:50 - Press Release
PR 401 Wiltshire opens up for May Bank Holiday
The May Bank Holiday will see the majority of Wiltshire's Rights of
Way legally reopened - the first county in the South West to adopt
such a policy.
[...]
From Saturday 26th May the only paths to be legally closed will be
those
going directly through farmyards or those used as milking tracks.
Farmers
will be issued with new notices to be put up only in those locations.
That just about rounds me out as far as offering references to show
that:
In the UK in 2001, the appearance of the first crop circles coincided
with FMD restrictions being lifted by the relevant County Councils on
access to the fields where the circles were subsequently found.
--
Eric Hocking
Brian Sandle
[...]
> In the UK in 2001, the appearance of the first crop circles coincided
> with FMD restrictions being lifted by the relevant County Councils on
> access to the fields where the circles were subsequently found.
That correlation is showing a bit more clearly now.
Note I have recently pointed out a fair correlation between space shuttle
launches and ozone loss between 1980 and 2002. That is about 0.4 when it is
done by rank correlation and 0.6 by Spearman's. The significance level is
95%. That is a bit of a puzzle since shuttles are not the only rockets
launched though they are quite large.
Then I introduced solar activity, so three variable are interacting. Solar
activity is known to increase ozone, (unless it gets too strong, when it
destroys it.)
I then partially correlated shuttle launches and ozone level holding solar
activity mathematically partialled out. The partial correlation of shuttle
flight numbers to ozone loss then dropped right down to 0.2. That indicates
that the original fairly large correlation of flights to ozone loss was
tending to be a spurious result.
It turned out that the correlation between shuttle flights and solar activity
was about -0.6 (Spearman's). This means shuttles were not being sent up so
much in solar activity, activity of the level which might be increasing
ozone.
Now that is all preliminary work, needing a lot of checking and thought. But
it indicates how a correlation which at first seems high may need more
investigation.
You have hoaxers, you say, obeying signs warning people about FMD when they
know there is none in the area. They are obedient to that but they are still
prepared to destroy crops. Then you say it is not worth making the `circles'
if the public are not allowed in since they will not be seen.
Note that the circles the world over in 2001 started to occur after the FMD
restrictions in UK were being lifted. How could there be any connection?
Weather? Just maybe the lifting of FMD restrictions also related to weather,
so the correlation of circles to FMD is spurious. Animal disease could be
related to weather in that it spreads more when animals are more confined or
being fed in winter conditions.
Do crop circles appear in bad weather? Do the hoaxers go out in bad weather
or does the affect work on damp crops?
Do fungal rings occur in wet weather?
Eric Hocking
> Eric Hocking <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > In the UK in 2001, the appearance of the first crop circles coincided
> > with FMD restrictions being lifted by the relevant County Councils on
> > access to the fields where the circles were subsequently found.
>
> That correlation is showing a bit more clearly now.
Thank you for acknowledging that finally.
<snip shuttle and ozone argument - that's your baby to prove to
someone else>
> Now that is all preliminary work, needing a lot of checking and thought. But
> it indicates how a correlation which at first seems high may need more
> investigation.
Agreed - and it paid off by me being able to demonstrate that none of
the first three circles that appeared in the UK appeared in FMD
restricted zones, and further ,they appeared very soon after the
restrictions were lifted in those counties.
> You have hoaxers, you say, obeying signs warning people about FMD when they
> know there is none in the area. They are obedient to that but they are still
> prepared to destroy crops.
No argument from me there, I never set out to analyse the motives of
"hoaxers", merely to show that the defence put up by crop circle
researches is inaccurate.
> Then you say it is not worth making the `circles'
> if the public are not allowed in since they will not be seen.
When did I say, or even hint at this? Yet again you attempt to put
words in my mouth.
> Note that the circles the world over in 2001 started to occur after the FMD
> restrictions in UK were being lifted. How could there be any connection?
There is none and I have never postulated that there ever was. Why
would restricted access to UK fields have anything to do with access
to fields in other countries?
> Weather? Just maybe the lifting of FMD restrictions also related to weather,
> so the correlation of circles to FMD is spurious.
We have discussed possible weather connections at least three times -
you changed your mind and decided that there was no connection between
weather and the late appearance of circles in the UK.
If you have changed your mind (again) - the burden of proof is on you
to demonstrate that the "bad weather" argument forms a better
correlation with the first 3 circles in the UK than does the lifting
of FMD bans in those counties.
I gave you a hint a couple of posts ago on how you could do this -
agriculture deparment sowing/crop maturation/harvesting times and
yields.
> Animal disease could be
> related to weather in that it spreads more when animals are more confined or
> being fed in winter conditions.
Which was not the case with FMD. Rather than desperate conjecture,
why don't you come up with a specific argument. Just as I have done.
> Do crop circles appear in bad weather? Do the hoaxers go out in bad weather
> or does the affect work on damp crops?
Do the research and you tell me. THis is your conjecture, not mine.
> Do fungal rings occur in wet weather?
And who cares? As it has nothin to do with the discussion at hand.
--
Eric Hocking
Brian Sandle
> Brian Sandle <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message news:<10771795...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz>...
>> Eric Hocking <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>> > In the UK in 2001, the appearance of the first crop circles coincided
>> > with FMD restrictions being lifted by the relevant County Councils on
>> > access to the fields where the circles were subsequently found.
>>
>> That correlation is showing a bit more clearly now.
> Thank you for acknowledging that finally.
It was not at all clearly stated with the way you gave it before.
> <snip shuttle and ozone argument - that's your baby to prove to
> someone else>
What I was trying to prove is about statistics. Sorry I wrote Spearman's
when I meant Pearson's both times.
>> Now that is all preliminary work, needing a lot of checking and thought. But
>> it indicates how a correlation which at first seems high may need more
>> investigation.
> Agreed - and it paid off by me being able to demonstrate that none of
> the first three circles that appeared in the UK appeared in FMD
> restricted zones, and further ,they appeared very soon after the
> restrictions were lifted in those counties.
That is the correlation, only.
>> You have hoaxers, you say, obeying signs warning people about FMD when they
>> know there is none in the area. They are obedient to that but they are still
>> prepared to destroy crops.
> No argument from me there, I never set out to analyse the motives of
> "hoaxers",
Though you did say that they were keeping out when the Govt said to, that
they are obedient. Why would they be, because notices, or taping off was
not with what the Govt was stating? They knew to ignore taping and
notices, why did they not know to ignore the Govt since it was known there
was no FMD in the area in Hampshire, you said?
merely to show that the defence put up by crop circle
> researches is inaccurate.
According to them the Hampshire area was taped off.
>> Then you say it is not worth making the `circles'
>> if the public are not allowed in since they will not be seen.
> When did I say, or even hint at this? Yet again you attempt to put
> words in my mouth.
I was stating that as a question. Thank you for saying you do not agree.
These people are prepared to destroy crops, they have no reason to keep
out when a hoax FMD Govt order is present. So why would they?
>> Note that the circles the world over in 2001 started to occur after the FMD
>> restrictions in UK were being lifted. How could there be any connection?
> There is none and I have never postulated that there ever was.
There is a strong correlation, and all you are giving is some sort of
correlation, not backed by very sound psychology.
Why
> would restricted access to UK fields have anything to do with access
> to fields in other countries?
It was very strongly correlated. Therefore it needs to be shown how it is
spurious, the way I did somewhat with the correlation of shuttle flights
to ozone depletion. Just because a mechanism is not immediately obvious
does not mean it does not exist.
>> Weather? Just maybe the lifting of FMD restrictions also related to weather,
>> so the correlation of circles to FMD is spurious.
> We have discussed possible weather connections at least three times -
> you changed your mind and decided that there was no connection between
> weather and the late appearance of circles in the UK.
> If you have changed your mind (again) -
My original statement was about the world-wide stituation. They were
rather late world-wide in 2001. In UK 2001 they were only a few days later
than 2000, nothing really significant, except as part of the world-wide
pattern.
the burden of proof is on you
> to demonstrate that the "bad weather" argument forms a better
> correlation with the first 3 circles in the UK than does the lifting
> of FMD bans in those counties.
Three is not a really sufficient sample. With the weather there is a
rather larger one.
> I gave you a hint a couple of posts ago on how you could do this -
> agriculture deparment sowing/crop maturation/harvesting times and
> yields.
Though there is usually no maturation/harvesting in April/May in northern
hemisphere. The weather could have been getting better by summer, even.
Sowing could be a factor with weather and investigation of circles in
April/May, as could whether any `paranormal' i.e. unexplained, or natural
cause works in bad weather.
>> Animal disease could be
>> related to weather in that it spreads more when animals are more confined or
>> being fed in winter conditions.
> Which was not the case with FMD.
Were they not coming together for winter feed?
Rather than desperate conjecture,
> why don't you come up with a specific argument. Just as I have done.
It is not desperate conjecture, it is soundly trying to think up reasons
for any correlation.
>> Do crop circles appear in bad weather? Do the hoaxers go out in bad weather
>> or does the affect work on damp crops?
> Do the research and you tell me. THis is your conjecture, not mine.
So far you have not given a correlation with a significance figure.
>> Do fungal rings occur in wet weather?
> And who cares? As it has nothin to do with the discussion at hand.
Only if no crop circle has ever been a fungal ring.
Both you and I think it is likely that a lot of these so-called circles
are human creations. But as you have just reinforced you wish to assert
that they are all that.
Eric Hocking
> Eric Hocking <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > Brian Sandle <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message news:<10771795...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz>...
> >> Eric Hocking <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> > In the UK in 2001, the appearance of the first crop circles coincided
> >> > with FMD restrictions being lifted by the relevant County Councils on
> >> > access to the fields where the circles were subsequently found.
> >>
> >> That correlation is showing a bit more clearly now.
> > Thank you for acknowledging that finally.
>
> It was not at all clearly stated with the way you gave it before.
My point was not aided by your obfuscatory diversions and speculations
on worldwide circle appearance, fairy rings, weather magic etc.
> > <snip shuttle and ozone argument - that's your baby to prove to
> > someone else>
> What I was trying to prove is about statistics. Sorry I wrote Spearman's
> when I meant Pearson's both times.
You need to understand the data, it's source and the manner in which
it is gathered to adequately understand the statistics you might
derive from that data. Part of this is my day job - that's why I was
able to source the data and compile it into a cohesive argument.
> >> Now that is all preliminary work, needing a lot of checking and thought. But
> >> it indicates how a correlation which at first seems high may need more
> >> investigation.
>
> > Agreed - and it paid off by me being able to demonstrate that none of
> > the first three circles that appeared in the UK appeared in FMD
> > restricted zones, and further ,they appeared very soon after the
> > restrictions were lifted in those counties.
>
> That is the correlation, only.
Do you have a more valid reason than the banning of people from UK
fields in 2001 being a direct cause of the late showing of circles
here?
<snip>
> > No argument from me there, I never set out to analyse the motives of
> > "hoaxers",
>
> Though you did say that they were keeping out when the Govt said to, that
Incorrect. I never said that "hoaxers" were obeying government
notices, merely that circles did not begin to appear in UK fields
until FMD restrictions were lifted from those fields. The correlation
of the lifting of these bans and the (late) appearance of circles
implies that circles are built by earthbound entities with that can
read English and have a social conscience and an obedience to the law
of the country.
The alternative is of course aeronautical entities that can read
English but cannot form circles from a height greater than 500ft.
Whipping out a certain Razor - which option seems the most reasonable?
> they are obedient. Why would they be, because notices, or taping off was
> not with what the Govt was stating?
I have no idea what that sentence means. Care to rephrase it?
> They knew to ignore taping and
> notices, why did they not know to ignore the Govt since it was known there
> was no FMD in the area in Hampshire, you said?
News of the status of FMD was broadcast daily. It was the biggest
thing going in the UK at the time. How do I know? I was (and am
still) there. These directives were not just presented in Parliament.
The orders were conveyed to Councils and the councils and district
parishes posted the directives, orders and recindments practically
daily.
As I said previously, other people's ignorance of the law is their
business, but to use that ignorance of the state of the country as
being the understanding by the rest of the population is misguided at
best to continue in the face of the facts is a deception. Perhaps
only upon themselves, but a deception nevertheless.
> merely to show that the defence put up by crop circle
> > researches is inaccurate.
>
> According to them the Hampshire area was taped off.
According to them, they were not allowed to fly over FMD restricted
areas.
As I said, ignorance of the law is not a defence.
> >> Then you say it is not worth making the `circles'
> >> if the public are not allowed in since they will not be seen.
> > When did I say, or even hint at this? Yet again you attempt to put
> > words in my mouth.
>
> I was stating that as a question. Thank you for saying you do not agree.
Try reading for comprehension. I did not say that I did or did not
agree with your statement, merely that I did not make that statement
and to imply that I had is a misrepresentation.
> These people are prepared to destroy crops, they have no reason to keep
> out when a hoax FMD Govt order is present. So why would they?
Oh, so you now have an insight into the minds and morals of "hoaxers"
do you?
The difference between causing crop damage and causing the continued
spread of the FMD epidemic and poles appart.
Repercussions? Compare the £5,000 fine for breaching the FMD
restrictions (ref past posts) and the £100 fine for crop damage
<http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/ncircle.htm>
> >> Note that the circles the world over in 2001 started to occur after the FMD
> >> restrictions in UK were being lifted. How could there be any connection?
>
> > There is none and I have never postulated that there ever was.
>
> There is a strong correlation, and all you are giving is some sort of
> correlation, not backed by very sound psychology.
I have not backed my argument with ANY psychology. Just stuck to the
facts.
> Why
> > would restricted access to UK fields have anything to do with access
> > to fields in other countries?
>
> It was very strongly correlated.
Show me this correlation.
Remember, there were no restrictions to access to fields due to FMD
outbreaks in 2001 anywhere else in the world. There were
export/import restrictions and border precautions, but no
(non-livestock) movement restrictions in any other country other than
the UK.
What "very strong" correlation do you think you can show?
> Therefore it needs to be shown how it is
> spurious,
OK. Go to it - show that the correlation between lifting of FMD
restrictions in the UK in 2001 and the then appearance of the first
circles in that country is spurious.
> the way I did somewhat with the correlation of shuttle flights
> to ozone depletion. Just because a mechanism is not immediately obvious
> does not mean it does not exist.
I thought you said "as any good scientist would know, correlation is
not causation". You changing your mind YET again? Or is it that
correlation is causation only when it supports your pet theory?
<snip>
> My original statement was about the world-wide stituation. They were
> rather late world-wide in 2001. In UK 2001 they were only a few days later
> than 2000, nothing really significant, except as part of the world-wide
> pattern.
If you are yet again attempting to explain it away with the weather
argument - post data not speculation.
> the burden of proof is on you
> > to demonstrate that the "bad weather" argument forms a better
> > correlation with the first 3 circles in the UK than does the lifting
> > of FMD bans in those counties.
> Three is not a really sufficient sample.
No wonder you are having so many problems with your shuttle
statistices. Try following the discussion, Brian. The 3 circles in
question have been raised as proof that FMD had no impact on the
timing of the appearnce of circles in the UK in 2001.
I have shown that this is not the case.
> With the weather there is a
> rather larger one.
Go at it. Show the data and the effect that weather has had on crop
maturation over the same period (1997 to 2003) and how it relates to
this discussio.
It is *your* contention not mine, therefore the burden of proof is
*yours*, not mine.
> > I gave you a hint a couple of posts ago on how you could do this -
> > agriculture deparment sowing/crop maturation/harvesting times and
> > yields.
> Though there is usually no maturation/harvesting in April/May in northern
> hemisphere.
Incorrect. Show data that supports your speculation on this matter.
Be warned - I've done my homework.
> The weather could have been getting better by summer, even.
Deep insight there. Yep, even in Britain, the weather can improve in
summer.
> Sowing could be a factor with weather and investigation of circles in
> April/May,
You are merely repeating my hint above. SHOW how sowing/crop
maturation and harvesting times and yields may been affected by
weather during the period in question. You only got onto the weather
subject because *I* mentioned it in about my 3rd post. Don't just
parrot what I've said, show the data and a correlation that
contradicts the FMD explanation.
> as could whether any `paranormal' i.e. unexplained, or natural
> cause works in bad weather.
RIiiiggghhhhtttttt. Weather affects magic now. I thought you said
magic could be used to affect weather? What *is* "weather magic"
anyway?
> >> Animal disease could be
> >> related to weather in that it spreads more when animals are more confined or
> >> being fed in winter conditions.
> > Which was not the case with FMD.
>
> Were they not coming together for winter feed?
You put forward the argument that animal disease (specifically FMD) is
related to weather - you show it. BY the way, what has this to do
with crop circles?
> Rather than desperate conjecture,
> > why don't you come up with a specific argument. Just as I have done.
>
> It is not desperate conjecture, it is soundly trying to think up reasons
> for any correlation.
But showing no data to back your reasoning. Grasping at straws is a
much closer description.
I will willingly retract that last statement if you can give any
scientific references for any of your conjectures - weather, animal
disease, fairy rings.
> >> Do crop circles appear in bad weather? Do the hoaxers go out in bad weather
> >> or does the affect work on damp crops?
>
> > Do the research and you tell me. THis is your conjecture, not mine.
>
> So far you have not given a correlation with a significance figure.
Uh Brian? Try reading that again "THis is your conjecture, not mine."
YOU need to show the correlation between weather and crop circle
appearance, not me.
> >> Do fungal rings occur in wet weather?
> > And who cares? As it has nothin to do with the discussion at hand.
>
> Only if no crop circle has ever been a fungal ring.
This would be one of your soundly reasoned arguments would it?
Show even an indication of a correlation between crop circles, wet
weather and fungal rings and I may take notice. But until you produce
some data - this has the appearance of a drowning man clutching.
> Both you and I think it is likely that a lot of these so-called circles
> are human creations. But as you have just reinforced you wish to assert
> that they are all that.
So therefore we have nothing further to discuss, since we both seem to
be in accord...
--
Eric Hocking
Eric Hocking
> > supposition and the dates are *very* definite. I urge you to prove one
> > of them incorrect.
>
> Hampshire or Wiltshire was updated 'immediately' government
recommendations
> came out, therefore I think this whole discussion is rather a red herring.
I disagree Paul. You quite passionately urge readers of you site to disabuse
the media of their "misconception" that FMD had a direct affect on circle
building in 2001 in the UK. As evidence you put forward the first three
circles in the UK as proof positive that circles were created while FMD
restrictions were in place. I have shown that the three examples you use
were discovered and built in fields where FMD restrictions had been lifted.
Regardless of whether signs were removed immediately or not, these signs
carried no legal weight and could be ignored without repercussions. Those
are the facts - nothing red about those herrings.
> > Read my reply to Paul - he supplies personal recollection - I supply
> > dated government news releases and legal orders
>
> Indeed. However, that's what the public is aware of. Not everyone reads
the
> government white papers and guidelines every week. I remember that a
number
Counties and Parishes were obliged and made public announcements that they
would convey the government's directives. These were posted in libraries
and other public buildings as well as parish noticeboards and websites.
That you were unaware of them does not change this fact.
> of fields and footpaths still had "Foot and Mouth disease, keep out!"
signs
> up well into August. Indeed, there's one footpath near here (in the Meon
> Valley) which *still* has a F&M - Keep out sign pinned on a tree next to
> the footpath entrance.
And it has no legal weight - so can be ignored.
You could paint "Do not park" on the road outside of your house, but if I
were to park there you'd have no legal comeback on me.
> If you're implying that hoaxers took notice of the government lifting of
> restrictions then that would also imply that they keep more up to date on
> government recommendations than local farmers themselves, which shows the
As I've said before, I have no intention of analysing either farmers'
motives for leaving notices up or "hoaxers" ability to keep up on things. I
can guarantee that people like the Rambler's Association were very aware of
when and where restrictions were being lifted around the country. Just
because you were not aware of the conditions and directives does not imply
that others were not.
> level of 'dedication' (or level of sadness) that some of these hoaxers
> stoop to. That in turn implies that some form of organised hoaxing is
going
> on, rather than a spontaneous decision on coming out of the pub..... (the
> latter being foiled if you see a keep out sign on a gate or footpath, but
> the former implies they checked the government papers before choosing
which
> field to hoax in).
Or read the parish notice board.
Again, this is all speculation - I only set out to show that the
restrictions you state were in place wrt the 3 circles you use as proof that
FMD had no impact on circle building did not exist at the time. You may not
have been aware at the time you wrote the piece, but you are aware of it
now. The statement is incorrect and does not support your position that
these 3 were built in fields while FMD restrictions were in place.
> > !!??? Uh, Brian, the whole point of this discussion is to determine
> > when and where the FMD restrictions were lifted in England and when and
> > where the first crop circles appeared in those counties.
>
> But, as pointed out above, all fairly irrelevant to the actual events.
The actual events were the FMD restrictions had been lifted when these
circles were built/discovered.
Quire relevant to the fact that you state FMD restrictions were in place at
the time.
Brian Sandle
> Brian Sandle <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message news:<10772222...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz>...
>> > <snip shuttle and ozone argument - that's your baby to prove to
>> > someone else>
>> What I was trying to prove is about statistics. Sorry I wrote Spearman's
>> when I meant Pearson's both times.
> You need to understand the data, it's source and the manner in which
> it is gathered to adequately understand the statistics you might
> derive from that data. Part of this is my day job - that's why I was
> able to source the data and compile it into a cohesive argument.
This thread continues without sci.geo.meteorology, exploring river flows as
indicating summed weather conditions, surface ground saturation.
And I have started a thread on sci.stat.math which has brought up the terms
`exploratory' vs `confirmational' statistics.
Eric Hocking
> Eric Hocking <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > Brian Sandle <bsa...@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
news:<10772222...@cobalt.caverock.co.nz>...
<snip>
> > it is gathered to adequately understand the statistics you might
> > derive from that data. Part of this is my day job - that's why I was
> > able to source the data and compile it into a cohesive argument.
>
> This thread continues without sci.geo.meteorology, exploring river flows
as
> indicating summed weather conditions, surface ground saturation.
That should be interesting.
> And I have started a thread on sci.stat.math which has brought up the
terms
> `exploratory' vs `confirmational' statistics.
Why? What has it got to do with the discussion and how can it help you
understand what you are trying to do?