1647!

Were there microwaves back then? What technology existed in England at that time that could explain this?

Maybe the “technology” needs only to be something graceful and simple, and not require transistors or semiconductors.

Without doing any of my own research, I can’t state with any kind of certainty whether or not I am willing to accept your hypothesis, but it is certainly an interesting one.

What evidence would convince you that crop circles are indeed made by ordinary humans with ordinary materials? After all, falsifiability is an important aspect of science. If it’s not falsifiable, it’s not science… wouldn’t you agree?

Your thoughts, Mr. Vallee, on the most recent discoveries of radar pattern intereferences unlike anything yet witnessed, if you will.

Hard for scientists and public alike to ignore anything this blatant, isn’t it?

Reference : http://www.colinandrews.net/Melbourne-DroughtToSuperstorm-HAARP.html

And to be fair, Jacques specifically said that he doesn’t claim to have all the answers. And he’s absolutely *not* suggesting that any crop circles have supernatural origins. In fact, he’s arguing against that entirely!

I for one suspect that we are not the highest form of consciousness around. This is based on the trend of Kepler and Darwin knocking away man’s assumptions of being in the center of space and time, respectively. The assumption that man is at the pinnacle of sentience is just that, an assumption: A higher consciousness would only involve itself with us at its leisure.

But, by definition, its existence would be nigh impossible to prove without its cooperation. Secret elite programs like to work in the same vein.

Like this?

See, I mentioned it again. Hitler Hitler Hitler. But the discussion is interesting!

Suggesting that the military is secretly testing microwave weapons by making ornate and artistic patterns, though? That’s almost less plausible than aliens – at least it makes sense they would be creative about it.

Many early circles are known to have been done by pranksters with boards and rope. So, the simplest, most Occam’s Razor-friendly explanation of this stepwise technology improvement is that groups of pranksters have gradually improved their prankstering technology.

(2) How do you draw the distinction between “genuine” and “bogus” patterns? They’re all crop circles, some of them just have cracked stalks and others don’t. You’re suggesting they’re all man-made, so they must either all be “genuine”, or all “bogus”. This supports the hypothesis that there is a difference in the technology used to make them, sure. But nowhere does it rule out that there are simply groups of pranksters with different levels of technical advancement in their pranksterish arts. It be as simple as knowing how to choose the right time of day or year to do make the circle, a time when the stalks won’t be brittle, or a method of folding stalks over that is gentler than a plank and rope – perhaps a device for slowly lowering and turning a circular blanket.

(3) It’s England, where everything is close to everything else. Where are these military electronic labs? If they’re typical of government research facilities, they’ll be in research parks near universities, in towns with bars frequented by engineering undergrads. I suspect you are underestimating the drive to technological one-upmanship of cider-filled engineering undergrads.

One very basic question remains unanswered by your hypothesis, which is central to the cider+undergrad model: why would a top-secret government program go about making spectacular, fanciful show of its capabilities on private land whose owners are sure to go the press and call attention to your activities? The budget of a research lab that’s building a directed-energy beam weapon would easily cover the cost of buying or even renting a couple of hay fields. They could put circles in their own fields, then mow them before anyone got a chance to go to the press.

Make what hypotheses you will about the technology behind crop circles – they are not the product of anyone who wishes to remain hidden. This is done by someone who likes to read about themselves in the weekend supplement of the paper and have a good chuckle – that’s not typical of the directors of top-secret military-industrial research programs.

Also: what John Callender said.

The Levengood article you mention was published in “The Journal of Scientific Exploration”.
That journal’s founder described it as a publication that would “provide a forum where research on paranormal phenomena can be presented to other scientists without obstruction or derision.”
In other words it’s a journal of last resort with extra low scientific standards so paranormal papers have a place to get published without credible peer review.
Also, how do the researchers know whether they’re testing a “real” or a “fake” circle?
Also also here’s a clip from National Geo interviewing some circle makers:
http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/player/places/regions-places/europe-western/uk_cropcircles.html

On the other hand, the notion of “Forbidden Science” is a crock. If you don’t adhere to the commonly used tools of science, you’ve placed yourself outside of the system.

“Soon there were multiple circles in various geometric combinations, and in following years the designs became increasingly complex, leading to the idea that we were witnessing a classic, step-by-step program of technology development–not an atmospheric anomaly but not some sort of paranormal effect either.”

So in the same paragraph, atmospheric effects and the paranormal are given equal credence.

Hmph.

2)Mysterious crafts, and entities

3)A secret advanced man-made technology

From here I would go about this asking the question: what anomalies contradict any of these explanations? Ie., if say –as some have–they claim to have actually seen strange craft, and beams of light come from sky, and then a CC appears swiftly. And some say–as a pilot is supposed to have, as heard on audio, state that they can appear very quickly. Well what are we to make of this? Would this fit in with say number 1, and 3?

If, as Jacques seems to state that some kind of secret electronic technology is being used, what about the symbolism being used in the patterns where this idea could be entertained? Is there a propaganda excercise to do with this?

If so, could we speculate that IF there are other entities in craft with such capabilities that they would try and undermine such propaganda, both from men on the ground with planks, and using other forms of technology.

ARE there THREE types of CCs that could be detected which show they could belong to these threee hypothetical categories?
Ie., are there ‘crude’ microwaved ones, and others that surpass them in design, and message?

http://www.ufologie.net/htm/croppgexpnodes.htm

This site explains that “exploded nodes” can very certainly be created by mechanical means. Anyway, have you ever just put a plant in the microwave? An aerial microwave beam would heat water within the plant starting near the top (line of sight with tall, closely packed plants). The skin of the plants would soften as the water heats, it wouldn’t explode from within in such a tidy way in only a single spot toward the bottom of the plant.

Where can we read this evidence about the supposedly heated stalks? Where can we see the evidence that the circles are near military labs? (Presumably that doesn’t apply to every circle, so how strong is the association? Is there some cherry-picking of data happening inadvertently?) And is it possible that the association is because the staff at a military lab are the type of people who would make elaborate hoax circles?

Finally, the existence of the US Active Denial System isn’t good evidence for the beam weapon theory of crop circles. If the West already has a non-secret pain ray, why are they testing another, secret pain ray? Why wouldn’t this second beam weapon be publicised like the ADS was? Does the ADS collapse wheat?

If you want a discussion on the facts, you should definitely provide links to the evidence you cite. Otherwise it might look as if you are really more interested in enjoying a spooky mystery.

1. They’re *all* hoaxes, because the people behind *some* of the simplest ones have come forward and shown how they made them.
2. Extraterrestrials made them
3. Mother Earth is sending us a message heralding the dawn of the New Age

Personally, I find it much more fun to consider for a moment that there are other intriguing and strange explanations, or combinations of explanations, most of which don’t require any “belief” in the supernatural, UFOs, New Age woowoo, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2rtmoSuoL4

;)