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.

Such as:

• 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

  BLT:   http://www.bltresearch.com/

   

•  For a concise summary of the arguments for 'non man-made': http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/articles/e016-deception.html
•  For the website of acknowledged circle makers for arguments for 'man-made':  www.circlemakers.org

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?

• For ongoing debate, and a huge archive database of photos, diagrams and comments, visit Crop Circle Connector Forum  http://www.cropcircleconnector.com

  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.