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.htmlLucy Pringle
lucypringle
.co.uk
Gerald Hawkins
http://www.lovely.clara.net/hawkins.htmlFreddie Silva
http://www.lovely.clara.netBLT:
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
A
nd 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.