Questions to confront in the "man-made or not" debate.
Natural forces cannot account for complex formations. They are clearly made by an intelligence. Because their origins are shrouded in mystery, the question is raised - are they made by human 'field artists', or simply deliberate hoaxers - or by a non-human agency?
My premise -
Begin with the assumption that all complex formations are man-made.
Then consider any evidence which may raise doubts.
Node bending (how to account for it?)
Size, complexity and extent of formation, (eg Milk Hill 2001, Stonehenge 1996)
Complexity/depth /subtlety of geometry, (eg Gerald Hawkins, my own analyses, and those of others)
Complexity of the ground lay
Witness reports of aerial objects, lights, (and strange events, such as the Argentina cow which I have reported).
Anomalies reported in BLT such as changes to plant cell structure, microscopic iron particles, electromagnetic effects, also included in Colin Andrew's website.
The arguments and views of other researchers such as
Crop Circle Research (Paul Vigay) http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/index2.html and
Michael Glickman http://www.michaelglickman.net/start.html
Lucy Pringle http://www.lucypringle.co.uk
Gerald Hawkins http://www.lovely.clara.net/hawkins.html
Freddie Silva http://www.lovely.clara.net
On the other hand.... formations outside the UK are generally very basic and crude. . Does this mean that UK circle makers are much more skilful? Or that ET likes to visit Britain most?
And anyway - how much does it matter?
Quote from CCC forum (Wiz-oz) "If the formation is man-made, then I believe it doesn't matter. They're all a creative process from the right side of the brain and tapping into some form of consciousness, so in a sense once you engage with the phenomenon, you become an 'agent' of it - whatever the motivation."
Formations can be appreciated for their intrinsic values - beauty, symbolism, geometric complexity, regardless of whether they are man-made or not. From an analytical viewpoint, there are really just GOOD and BAD circles.
I take the liberty of quoting from Michael Glickman's site:
For me, Sacred Geometry is that which symbolises the bridge between Earth and Heaven, between the Manifest and the Unmanifest, between Matter and Spirit. Some crop formations are a conduit of transcendence and refer to this. Many more do not.
For a highly intelligent analysis of the entire phenomenon: read Simeon Hein. http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guests/119.html
And listen to his interview on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cRr_gP9mZ0
My thanks to 'peaceful' for leading me to this source.