Crop Circles!!...truth or fiction?

Originally Posted by Scibat

My problem with a lot of research about things like crop circles is that the researchers set out with the intent to find something unusual. So the research is biased from the start and of course, because of this it does indeed find something unusual.

Well I know exactly what you mean... but I think you need to take it very much case by case. I've seen the most incredibly rigorous parapsychological work done as well -- probably the science which, at its most credible, does more to exclude false results than any other.

The problem is that it seems a lot of people dismiss lex parsimoniae

Well on this poll, about a third. Not bad. :)

Not to mention, one can't always only look for the scientific answer either!

Did you ever happen to read Patrick Harpur's Daimonic Reality?

Originally Posted by Prokopton

Well I know exactly what you mean... but I think you need to take it very much case by case. I've seen the most incredibly rigorous parapsychological work done as well -- probably the science which, at its most credible, does more to exclude false results than any other.

I would love to see some of that. Most of what I have dug up, the science sometimes seems like it was done sloppily, or with a pre-existing bias towards finding something extraordinary.

Originally Posted by Prokopton

Well on this poll, about a third. Not bad. :)

I don't think everyone who has posted here has voted though. Also the OP should have maybe added more than "Aliens" maybe "Aliens, UFOs or Energy Vortices.". Plus polls tend to only show what people who respond to polls believe.

Originally Posted by Prokopton

Not to mention, one can't always only look for the scientific answer either!

I have not had much luck on the spiritual end of things, never had any experiences that really made me question the accepted scientific explanations for how things work and the nature of the universe. I am certainly not saying there isn't more out there, just that I have not experienced it, so I fall back to what I do know. Science.

Originally Posted by Prokopton

Did you ever happen to read Patrick Harpur's Daimonic Reality?

No but I checked the link, it looks like an interesting read.

Originally Posted by Scibat

Most of what I have dug up, the science sometimes seems like it was done sloppily, or with a pre-existing bias towards finding something extraordinary.

Are you talking about the actual peer-reviewed papers? Could you mention some names of the scientists concerned?

If you want to look as some very reputable papers, browse here for a start, no special access required.

But of course, the average 90 min Dean Radin vid lecture looks plenty rigorous and may be easier to digest.

No spectacular claims going on there... just good, patient science. Whether the crop circles crew are similarly thorough I've no idea -- one would have to read carefully. But I saw peer-reviewed papers there.

I have not had much luck on the spiritual end of things, never had any experiences that really made me question the accepted scientific explanations for how things work and the nature of the universe. I am certainly not saying there isn't more out there, just that I have not experienced it, so I fall back to what I do know.

Well I've had plenty of spiritual experiences but I don't think they contradict science, they simply show some materialist forms of belief to be... radically incomplete. :)

If you want quick kundalini and are willing to spend a few bucks, you could pay these people to help you see the light shining through the gaps in the physical. They have the stuff I was taught and more -- I didn't believe without experience either, but that was a decade ago. Or if lacking the cash (or sensibly reserving judgment!), you can start with Glenn's 1st book, when ready... Just my thoughts, but that is one way.

Originally Posted by Prokopton

Are you talking about the actual peer-reviewed papers? Could you mention some names of the scientists concerned?

If you want to look as some very reputable papers, browse here for a start, no special access required.

But of course, the average 90 min Dean Radin vid lecture looks plenty rigorous and may be easier to digest.

No spectacular claims going on there... just good, patient science. Whether the crop circles crew are similarly thorough I've no idea -- one would have to read carefully. But I saw peer-reviewed papers there.



Well I've had plenty of spiritual experiences but I don't think they contradict science, they simply show some materialist forms of belief to be... radically incomplete. :)

If you want quick kundalini and are willing to spend a few bucks, you could pay these people to help you see the light shining through the gaps in the physical. They have the stuff I was taught and more -- I didn't believe without experience either, but that was a decade ago. Or if lacking the cash (or sensibly reserving judgment!), you can start with Glenn's 1st book, when ready... Just my thoughts, but that is one way.

Thanks for the info, will definitely check it out. Dean Radin is one of the few scientists working in fields of non-traditional science that I consider credible. He seems to understand the necessity of doing the science right, without bias.

Originally Posted by Scibat

Dean Radin is one of the few scientists working in fields of non-traditional science that I consider credible. He seems to understand the necessity of doing the science right, without bias.

He does, absolutely... but I would say he's far from the only one -- let me know what you think of the links!

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Scibat

Honestly I think this is just another example of people wanting believing something fanciful, (Crop circles are made by aliens, UFOs, energy vortexes etc.) over the more likely, and mundane explanation. (The are made by people.).

I never really have grasped this concept, and certainly not embraced it (Starting to think that is why I am not very spiritual; I refuse believe in outlandish things without proof and won't delude myself that they exist without credible evidence.). At any rate, I think that is a far bigger mystery, than the origin of the crop circles themselves.

But I will save that discussion for another thread.

It;s simply a case of not knowing how crop circles occur. Man made circles don't have the magnetizm in the soil and the infertility, nodal elongation and genetic mutations, so are easy to distinguish fron what are called 'authentic' circles.

Originally Posted by Gem

It;s simply a case of not knowing how crop circles occur. Man made circles don't have the magnetizm in the soil and the infertility, nodal elongation and genetic mutations, so are easy to distinguish fron what are called 'authentic' circles.

Assuming you accept that research as credible. See my previous posts, but to sum up: If a researcher is biased towards finding some kind of an anomaly, then 9/10 they will find one. Much of the research done on crop circles is done with that sort of bias, which IMHO taints the research.

What needs to happen to make this sort of research valid, is that it needs to be done by an independent party of scientists that has no vested interest in the outcome.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Scibat

Assuming you accept that research as credible. See my previous posts, but to sum up: If a researcher is biased towards finding some kind of an anomaly, then 9/10 they will find one. Much of the research done on crop circles is done with that sort of bias, which IMHO taints the research.

What needs to happen to make this sort of research valid, is that it needs to be done by an independent party of scientists that has no vested interest in the outcome.

Samples are collected and sent to the lab then specrometered measured and the data printed out. The facts are bare. There is no belief involved, only wild unsubstantiated speculations.

Originally Posted by Gem

There is no belief involved, only wild unsubstantiated speculations.

That I will definitely agree with.

[Gem]

http://www.bltresearch.com/plantab.php