Crop Circles–Debunked!

At 25:33 of Thrive there begins an important section setting out one of the movie’s key claims: that “crop circles” found in agricultural fields are the creations of extraterrestrials and are intended to convey messages to the human race. Foster Gamble states affirmatively that crop circles are evidence of UFOs. The crop circle section is one of the most sensationalized portions of the first half of the Thrive movie. This article will debunk this specific portion of the film.

What Is A Crop Circle?

A crop circle is a large-scale pattern found in a cultivated field, usually involving stalks of grain (wheat, corn etc.) pressed and folded down to form a specific shape. Crop circles are usually geometric in design, but they’re not always circular. Crop circles (also known as crop formations) can be particularly impressive and beautiful if seen from the air. Many beautiful designs have been recorded. Over ten thousand crop circles have been reported in countries around the world, but 90% of the reports come from southern England (an important fact, as we’ll see).

What does Thrive claim about crop circles?

Foster Gamble, the maker and narrator of Thrive, asserts at 26:24 of the film that crop circles are associated with UFOs and extraterrestrials because they are too perfect to have been created by humans. Therefore, they must be products of extraterrestrials. This is the sole basis on which Gamble concludes that crop circles have a non-terrestrial origin. Then, having made this assumption, the movie goes on to discuss what the circles might mean, but all of this discussion proceeds from the assumption that circles are made by UFOs. Gamble concludes at 28:45 that the geometric shapes contained in some crop circles correspond with his own observations on the importance of the “torus” shape, which he describes earlier in the movie.

What causes crop circles?

The answer is very simple: crop circles are made by human beings. There is no real mystery about this. You can go to a website, http://www.circlemakers.org/perpetrators.html, where “circlemakers” freely discuss how they create the circles, why, and what they’re hoping to accomplish. It’s a complex phenomenon, but the main reason appears to be to hoax people and tap into their beliefs in the paranormal. Nowadays, it’s even become a business—people and firms hire “circlemakers” to make crop circles as a form of advertising or attention-getting.

You can see a video of exactly how crop circles are made below:

The phenomenon of crop circles seems to have taken off in earnest in the late 1970s. Two Englishmen, Doug Bower and Dave Chorley, began making crop circles in southern England at that time, using boards, string and a baseball cap. They admitted in 1991 that they were responsible for the vast majority of crop circles seen in England.

Why is Gamble’s reasoning faulty? An exercise with “rebuttable presumptions.”

In preferring an exotic explanation (extraterrestrials) over a more mundane one (human pranksters), Gamble is ignoring an important rule of evidence and reasoning: the simpler explanation is almost always the correct one. Once we have evidence that there are human beings out there making crop circles, the conclusion that all crop circles are of human origin becomes what we can call a rebuttable presumption. That means, unless you can rebut it with specific evidence to show that something else is in fact true, you must conclude that the rebuttable presumption is the explanation.

Let’s take an example. A little boy has been warned not to get into the jar of jam. A few minutes later the boy emerges from the kitchen with jam smeared on his fingers, shirt and around his mouth. You go into the kitchen and find the jar of jam open on the counter. You didn’t see the boy eat the jam, but when confronted, the boy says that his sister framed him by opening the jam and smearing it on his hands. The sister is upstairs in her room and no one saw her leave and come down into the kitchen. Also, her hands and clothes have no jam on them.

It is remotely possible that the boy’s story is true. The sister could have come down from upstairs, broken into the jam, smeared it on his hands, shirt and face, then washed her hands and gone back upstairs without being noticed. However, that explanation is extremely complicated. In order for this to be true a lot of unusual things would have to have happened: no one seeing the sister, no one hearing the commotion, this all happening so quickly, etc. It could be true, but it’s probably not.

The much simpler explanation is that the boy himself ate the jam and made up the story about being framed. Unless you have specific evidence that the sister did it—such as, the sister being witnessed in the act—the conclusion that the boy ate the jam himself is a rebuttable presumption. If you can’t rebut it, you must conclude that this is what happened.

Back to crop circles. We have two possible scenarios: (A) Gamble’s scenario, that crop circles are made by extraterrestrials; or (B), my scenario, that they are done by pranksters.

Things that would have to be true if Gamble is right:

  • Intelligent extraterrestrials must exist.
  • These intelligent extraterrestrials must have the ability and the desire to visit Earth in starships capable of traveling millions of miles across space and sustaining their occupants for years in order to make the trip.
  • These intelligent extraterrestrials must have a reason for wanting to come to Earth for the purpose of pressing weird designs in to fields of grain.
  • The process of creating crop circles must be done without the possibility of these extraterrestrials being witnessed in the act of doing it (I’ve never seen any claim of a person witnessing an alien making a crop circle).
  • Something must explain why extraterrestrials are particularly attracted to doing this activity in southern England much more often than anywhere else.

Things that would have to be true if I am right:

  • Some human beings must have the desire to play a prank.
  • Some human beings must have access to a board, a piece of string, and a baseball cap.
  • Some human beings must have some knowledge of geometry.
  • Some human beings who possess these characteristics must be present in southern England.

My explanation is much more plausible. It does not require the intervention of creatures whose existence is not proven; it does not require the use of technology that is beyond the capability of modern science; it does not rely on a host of suppositions that are meant to fill in the gaps between various weak parts of the theory; and most importantly, it is supported by evidence. Earlier in this article I directed you to a video where you can see people making a crop circle. You can, if you want to, even hire people to make one for you. This is pretty conclusive.

There is no evidence to support Gamble’s version. None. By contrast, I’ve presented evidence to support my theory. Because my theory is much more plausible and is supported by evidence, in contrast to Gamble’s which is extremely farfetched and not supported by any evidence, the conclusion that humans create crop circles is a rebuttable presumption that has not been rebutted—and that means you must conclude that it is correct.

But doesn’t Gamble admit that some crop circles are man-made?

Yes, he does, but he deals with this possibility in an extremely misleading way. At 26:14 of Thrive he admits that some crop circles are made by humans, but he says, “those made by human hands are crude compared to the vast majority of these elegant creations.” As he says this, several examples flash on the screen: very shoddy, poorly-done crop circles that do not compare to the “pristine” examples that Gamble wants you to believe are of extraterrestrial origin. The purpose of this exercise is to reinforce the basic assumption with which he approaches the subject of crop circles: that most of them are “too perfect” to have been made by human hands. I repeat that this assumption is the entire basis for Gamble’s claim that crop circles are made by aliens.

I have already attacked this assumption with evidence. Look at the video I posted above. Fast-forward to 9:35 and you can see the formation from the air. It doesn’t look anything like Gamble’s “crude” versions, does it? Indeed, it looks absolutely perfect. This crop circle was made in Silbury Hill, England in 2001 in about four hours.

This evidence demonstrates beyond all doubt that people can and do make crop circles quite easily. But even if this evidence did not exist, you can debunk Gamble’s reasoning with simple logic. Claiming that the shoddy examples shown on screen prove that human beings cannot make “perfect” crop circles is like claiming that because I drew this…

…and it sucks, this means that this

…is “too perfect” to have been made by any human, and therefore must have been painted by extraterrestrials.

Obviously, this conclusion is absurd.

Crop-circle makers themselves think this argument is absurd. Here is an excerpt from an interview with the maker of a crop circle, John Lundberg, who had this to say (link to the full interview here: http://www.starpod.org/news/1106291.htm)

“They [believers that crop circles have a paranormal explanation] come up with litmus tests that become an article of faith for them, terms such as ‘bent not broken stems’, ‘physiological changed to the plants’, etc are their ‘proof’ that the circles could not possibly be the work of mere human mortals. I think this attitude shows a complete lack of belief in human potential. Do these people not look around them and see what human civilization has achieved? The scientific, engineering and artistic marvels? We can get a man to the moon and back, but these people can’t believe that a few well organised artists can flatten cereal crops in a complex pattern.”

What about the strange “magnetic particles” that are found in crop circles?

At 26:48 of the film, Gamble asserts that “strange magnetic particles” are found in crop circles. This sounds like a convincing explanation for some non-human origin, doesn’t it? (Of course it does, which is why Gamble uses this example).

This feature too is easily explained. Here is a page that explains how to create a crop circle—with magnetic particles included. [http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Crop-Circle] Here’s how you do it:

“Also, melt some iron filings into droplets on site and sprinkle them around the flattened area to leave ‘meteorite particles’ and magnetized stalks.”

This is yet another technique used by hoaxers precisely to stoke the idea among believers that crop circles have some sort of paranormal origin. In this case, Foster Gamble fell for it.

Further evidence that crop circles are manmade: the Chilbolton crop circle and the “Arecibo message.”

At 26:56 in the film, Gamble devotes considerable attention to a crop “circle” at Chilbolton in England, which, as you see on the screen, is right next door to a radio observatory in England. I use the term “circle” in quotes because as you can see it was not a circle, but rather a rectangle, presenting an almost-duplicate of the Arecibo message. The Arecibo message, as explained in the movie, was a transmission of a graphic design beamed into space in 1974 by the Arecibo radio observatory in Puerto Rico as part of the SETI project (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). That message contained information by which some astronomers thought might lead an extraterrestrial civilization to find Earth—a representation of our solar system, a human figure, and some other details.

The crop “circle” found next to Chilbolton Observatory mirrors the Arecibo message, except that in the place of a human figure it shows a figure obviously intended to look like the usual cultural depiction of an alien—big head, big eyes, small body, etc., and in the place of the representation of our solar system it shows a different solar system. It is obvious from Thrive that Gamble believes that this crop “circle” is a direct response by extraterrestrials to the Arecibo message.

But is it really? Think about it from the standpoint of the conclusion demonstrated above. If crop circles are manmade, how can we explain the “circle” next to Chilbolton Observatory?

Actually, we can explain it quite easily. Note that it occurs right next door to a radio observatory. The staff of this observatory would be expected to know about the Arecibo message. They would also presumably know that some people think crop circles are extraterrestrial in origin. If one or another of the people who work here were willing to play a prank, wouldn’t it make sense they might do something of this nature? Or, if it was done by pranksters not connected with the observatory, doesn’t the idea of putting a crop circle in that specific location make a lot of sense—i.e., someone playing a joke on the observatory itself?

I posit this: because we already know that the thesis of human pranksters making crop circles is a rebuttable presumption, which has not been rebutted, the theory that the Chilbolton “circle” was done by humans and is somehow connected to the observatory is conclusive.

If it was aliens responding to the Arecibo message, why would they choose to respond by making a crop circle? Why wouldn’t they beam their response back to the Arecibo observatory itself? Aliens in posession of awesome technology—starships that can cross the gulf of space and presumably communicate in extremely efficient technological ways—decide not to use any of those capabilities, and instead send a very ambiguous message by pressing down a bunch of grain stalks in England?

Or, if for whatever inscrutable reason extraterrestrials decided they had to respond by making a crop circle, why wouldn’t they have done it at or near the Arecibo facility where the message was sent from? If they wanted to respond, why wouldn’t they make both the content and the origin of their response absolutely unmistakable?

Furthermore, the Arecibo message (read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arecibo_message) was beamed at M13, which is 25,000 light years from Earth. The message left Earth in November 1974 at the speed of light. By now the farthest it could have penetrated into space is 37 light years. If M13 is inhabited by intelligent beings who wish to respond, they won’t even get the message for another 25,000 years!

There is no other rational conclusion to reach except this one: the Chibolton circle was done by humans, and Foster Gamble was punk’d. Thrive’s contentions regarding crop circles are simply wrong.

If most crop circles appear in England, and crop circles are done by UFOs, why don’t most UFO sightings occur in England?

This is yet another non sequitur in Gamble’s argument. He admits (23:53) that most crop circles have appeared in England. We have seen that this is true. In fact according to Wikipedia, about 90% of them have. But if crop circles are made by aliens who arrive here in UFOs, as Gamble unequivocally asserts, then why don’t 90% of UFO sightings occur in England?

I mean, it only makes sense, doesn’t it? People think they see UFOs all over the world, in the UK as well. But if there was a direct causal relationship between UFOs and crop circles, and we know for a fact that most crop circles appear in England, then you should expect England to be the UFO sighting capital of the world, by a far margin. However, 90% of UFO sightings do not occur in England. This is circumstantial evidence that Gamble’s theory is wrong.

My answer, however—that crop circles are made by human beings—easily accounts for why most crop circles appear in England: because most people who make crop circles, and/or the people who tend to make the most crop circles per capita, live in England. Bower and Chorley certainly do. The people in the video I linked above do. Indeed, making crop circles appears to be a pastime that is most popular in England. The people who originally did it taught their friends how to do it, and those people were copied (willingly or not) by others in their general circles (no pun intended) of acquaintances. This all makes perfect sense.

What does Thrive’s “fact-check” section say about crop circles?

The Thrive website contains a “fact check” section (http://thrivemovement.com/fact_checks). Most of the “fact checks” presented are not really facts, or are not very reliable. Here’s what the site has to say to defend Gamble’s claims on crop circles:

“Crop Circles Fact: 5,000 crop circles have appeared in over 30 countries, most of them in England.

This is a conservative estimate. Crop Circles, authored by Colin Andrews with Stephen J. Spignesi, is a reference guide on the subject and answers many commonly asked questions in the field. This work states that more than 11,000 crop circles have been reported in over 30 countries and that they occur mostly in England. Colin Andrews is a former engineer with the British Government and is widely accepted as an authority on crop circle phenomenon. Stephen J. Spignesi is a New York Times best-selling author.

Sources:

Both of these sources confirm that England is where most crop circles are made.

Hillary Mayell. “Crop Circles” Artworks or Alien Signs?” National Geographic: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0801_020801_cropcircles.html

Stephen J. Spignesi and Colin Andrews. Crop Circles: Signs of Contact. Franklin Lakes: Career Press, 2003. (178).

Stephen J. Spignesi and Colin Andrews. Crop Circles: Signs of Contact. Franklin Lakes: Career Press, 2003. (75).

Star Dreams: A Crop Circle Documentary: http://www.zimbio.com/Crop+Circles/articles/RzuAclFOjzE/Star+Dreams+Crop+Circle+D”

You can browse the book referenced, by Andrews and Spignesi, here: http://books.google.com/books?id=TBowgkpSZpEC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false Take a look. You will see that it accepts unquestioningly the assumption that crop circles are made by UFOs and are trying to send messages to humans. Therefore, the writers of this book have simply made the exact same error in logic and reasoning that Gamble has made. You’ll also notice the book veers in a lot of “New Age” directions. A scholarly examination of the crop circle phenomenon would not do that.

The “fact check” section goes on to state:

“Electromagnetic Charge of Crop Circles Fact: The electromagnetic field over the area where the crop has been laid down to create the image, is often electro-statically charged. Some of these areas are littered with strange magnetic particles.

In the early 1990s a unique discovery was made while studying a crop circle in England. Plants in the formation were coated with fused particles of iron oxides (hematite and magnetite). Since this discovery, soil sampling is regularly undertaken at crop circle sites. Traces of melted magnetic material, adhered to soil grains, have regularly been identified.

Sources:

Newworldencyclopedia.org: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Crop_circle

“Magnetic Materials in Soils”: http://www.bltresearch.com/magnetic.php”

I have already explained what these magnetic particles are and how they got there. As for the cite to the “New World Encyclopedia,” you will notice that this is a user-generated wiki with a decidedly New Age bent to it. However, even this source admits the following:

“The main criticism of theories of non-human creation of crop circles is that evidence of these origins, besides eyewitness testimonies, is scant. Crop circles are usually easily explicable as the result of human pranksters. There have also been cases in which researchers declared crop circles to be “the real thing,” only to be confronted soon after with the people who created the circle and documented the fraud. Many people have demonstrated how complex crop circles can be created.”

There you have it—a source that Foster Gamble cites specifically to support his contention in fact refutes it! The New World Encyclopedia, later in the article, carefully decides that it can’t conclude whether crop circles are man or ET-made, but if you read the article you’ll see that even this source, generally sympathetic to “New Age” type stuff, specifically and unequivocally contradicts claims made by Gamble in the Thrive movie.

Gamble’s own sources refute him!

OK, Gamble is wrong about crop circles. Does that mean the whole movie is garbage?

Crop circles aren’t the only thing Gamble gets wrong. As you will see from the various debunkings that have been posted and will eventually be posted on this blog, there are many aspects of the Thrive movie that are misleading or just totally wrong. Indeed, Gamble gets more wrong than he does right. That should give rational viewers serious pause.

However, even if that were not the case, consider that the UFO-crop circle connection is a key sequence in the film and it’s crucial to Thrive’s overall argument. The claim is that aliens exist, that they are trying to give us the secret to “free” energy, and that this secret is being suppressed. Gamble specifically uses crop circles as a means of supporting his claims about aliens. If he’s this wrong about a key part of his own movie, that has to make you wonder—what else is he wrong about?

Conclusion

I have demonstrated, with evidence, where crop circles really come from and why the reality is different than what Foster Gamble says it is in Thrive. I have also demonstrated, by using logic and reasoning, why it is illogical and irrational to believe that crop circles are caused by anything other than human beings. While the evidence in this article speaks for itself, I strongly encourage you to check it out for yourself, and do your own thinking. If you do, I’m confident you will conclude, as I have, that the section in Thrive regarding crop circles is absolutely incorrect, misleading, and is a product of seriously shoddy research and even more spurious reasoning.

About these ads

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

502 responses to “Crop Circles–Debunked!”

  1. The Locke says :

    What ultimately made me conclude that Thrive was BS just by watching the trailer alone, was the part about crop circles and claiming they were made by aliens, when it’s been known for over 20 years that humans made these works of art (I call them that because, well… just look at them! They’re beautiful).

    To me saying that crop circles must be made by aliens because it appears to be to complex for humans to build is like saying that the great Pyramid of Giza must have been built by aliens because we while we could build something like that today, we can’t figure out how they were able to do it back then with their technology.

    (I know that many people might have been led to believe by shows like “Ancient Aliens” that we can’t build something like the great Pyramid of Giza today, much less back 4500 years ago, the fact is, is that we actually can build something like that, we just wouldn’t due to the cost and time it would take to build what is basically a giant tomb.)

    Yes, it is true, while we don’t actually know how the Pyramid of Giza was built back then, but, archaeologists have made some very good, and very earthly, guesses, on how it was built, using the technology the Egyptians had at that period in time.

    Now that I’m done with my rant comparing the belief that crop circles are create by aliens to the belief that the great Pyramid of Giza was built by aliens, here is a question to anyone who reads this and still thinks that those more complex crop circles are alien attempts at communicating: If aliens really were coming here and really did want to talk to us, why wouldn’t they just land somewhere in a very public area in the middle of the day and start talking to us?

    • SlayerX3 says :

      What really leaves me in awe about the crop circles is how gullible people can be when believing it.

      You mean, we can haul our asses to the moon and back but can’t make circles with exotic patterns in crop fields ?

      And what baffles me the most is that the idea of aliens coming to earth wanting to send a message is made through the crop circles, using exotic patterns but giving no means to interpret them. Not basic mathematical principles such prime numbers sequences, or number based encoded messages like binary or decimal, or broadcast in every radio signals a message just telling “hello we’re here !”

      But no they use signs in crops and give no way for us to understand them, if aliens really did that I’d just call them dumb.

      Still for crop circles that were man-made Gamble really as able to find tori in a lot of them, and guess what ? This association is just proving itself worthless, like saying you can fit several balls in a square box.

      • The Locke says :

        I bet some of the people who take Thrive seriously don’t think we went to the moon either…

        Anyways, as you just helped prove with your statement here, using simple logic is usually more then enough to prove to most people that things like crop circles are man made hoaxes.

      • Sarah says :

        “they use signs in crops and give no way for us to understand them”

        That left me thinking, will the aliens be able to decipher the message we sent? (assuming they ever get it).

      • Keegs says :

        Hey everyone. While i respect your right to share your opinions, and it is true that a few crop circles are hoaxes, the vast majority (over 10,000 reported circles in the last decade) remain un-explained. While many beleive that extra terrestrials are involved, I personally beleive that they are an electromagnetic phenomena which is related to the earths placement in it’s galactic orbit-which has had measurable effects on it’s magnetic field and in turn global weather patterns and seismic activity. Doug and Dave, who were around 50 years old at the time, could not physically have made the over 1000 crop circles that appeared in 1991-the year that they made this rediculous claim. SO your telling me that two 50 year old men made over 1000 massive geometrically perfect formations in the dead of night without any lights, on their own, all over the world in more than one place at once, without ever being seen? BULLSHIT.

        In a legitimate circle, there is measurable electromagnetic disturbances in the land which cause two way Raidios, microwave ovens, and other electronic instroments to malfunction. In a legit circle, the plants also change the direction of their growth, bending down at aproximately 90 degree angles whithout breaking. This means that the cellular structur of the plants has been somehow altered – although no one knows how. The plants are also interwoven in up to six layers of crisscrossing geometrical patterns. You would hafto be a fool to think any group of humans can do that with a board and some rope.

        Also to adress your statement, Slayer, the crop circle patterns have extremely specific mathematical ratios in their geometry, which when analized, reveal information about particle physics, the vibrational ratios which create musical notes, and even knowledge of human DNA, the earth';s electromagnetic field, and the placement of our planet in the solar system. Other topics covered in crop circles are the cycles of the moon, isoteric and other ancient symbols related to the evolution of conciousness, etc. I could keep typing but i think you get the point.

        A documentary which has compelling arguments about NON-HOAX CIRCLES is called “Star Dreams” and you can find the full video on google.

        It was interesting reading your opinions, but I think the situation is more complicated than you are giving it credit. Also Proctor Gamble does not really explain the crop circle phenomena well in that movie so i don’t blame you for not being convinced.

      • David Groves says :

        So sad you believed we hauled our asses to the moon. Sorry bud didn’t happen at all. I am not saying we did not make the crop circles but I would not use that as a basis for my argument. You are as bad as Thrive jumping to conclusions. I have a hard time believing people with lots of time motivation and intelligence are going to stomp around someones field at night with ropes boards or whatever silly thing you concoct just to have you admire their handiwork. There has got to be another explanation, David

      • a rational person says :

        @ david groves : you think the moon landing was faked?

        HAH AHAH AHA HA HA A AHAHAH HAAHAH AHAH HAA AHA AHAHAHAHAAH HAHAHAH AHAHAHAHA AHHAHAHAH HAHAHAHA HAH AHHA AHAHAHAH AHHAAH AHAHHAHAHA HAHAHAHA A AHAH AH AHHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHHA HAHAHAHA HA HAHAHAHA HA HAHAHA AHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA HA AHHAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAAH AH A HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA AHAAHHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        omg you are so fucking stupid…a conspiracy nutbag who literally believes we didn’t land on the moon…wow, i thought you morons had all killed yourselves off by now by wandering into traffic and dumb household accidents…but maybe you live in some kind of colony for morons where they give you a helmet and keep u in a rubber room so you don’t hurt yourself.

        unbefuckinglievable. a MOON HOAXER! bet u believe in lizard people too! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH

      • David Groves says :

        You sure spend a lot of time writing with nothing of intelligence to say. I am sure you believed Oswald killed Kennedy by himself and Osama took down 3 buildings with two planes. Stay tuned to main stream media for all the latest uptakes. They will inform you when they round your stupid ass up to the nearest camps. Let me guess you already know everything there is to know because you saw it on a tv. You probably believe that drones are for your safety and security too. It is obvious that the indoctrination has taken full control of your mind

      • anticultist says :

        ” I have a hard time believing ”

        Exactly David, and what you believe means fucking nothing in the real world.

      • David Groves says :

        Hey genius. It doesn’t matter what you think in the real world because you can’t think at all. Peace

      • tofufighter says :

        @ david groves
        > criticizes using the moon landing as a basis for arguing man’s ability to create crop circles, but offers no basis for arguing that there was no moon landing.

        > implies that “aliens” (or some other supernatural force) is somehow more plausible than bored humans, creating for creation’s sake (and some measure of self satisfaction or notoriety or any number of other reasons).

        I realise, of course, that arguing with you is futile. You’re the internet version of the crazy bearded guy on the street corner carrying “The End is Nigh” sign. I mean… you write intelligently… and i can understand a knee-jerk negative reaction to arguments that are made with a pompous tone… but i struggle to understand how anyone who has actually read through the evidence can still believe the conspiracy theories about crop circles, moon landing, 911 false flag and the “herding you into camps” lark, and simply label anyone who doesn’t agree as being indoctrinated.

        I predict that sometime down the line, you’ll realise how silly this is.

        In a country where the head of the CIA fails to cover-up his emails, or the president can’t keep his blowjobs a secret, and/or (insert embarrassing scandal of your choice) you still think the moon landing, roswell(?) or the events of 911 can be such thorough trickery, there definitely seems to be either wilful denial, or some notion that you sound ‘edgy’ or something by making anti-establishment noises.

      • David Groves says :

        You are absolutely right arguing with anyone is futile especially when that persons mind is made up. As far as a basis for the moon hoax being a fraud I really would not know where to start. The WHOLE thing is a joke. You would have to want to figure it out for yourself there literally is tons of evidence out there. I did not imply ALIENS did all the crop circles. I just said they were not all done by sticks.ropes and whatever. Again 911 stunk from top to bottom and anyone with any intelligence can see a motive look around you total war police state drones big big money huge government control grid. Yes everything is out in the open people believe what they want to believe. Blowjob by the president really? That’s so important that people want to talk about it? Yes we are being lied to. Yes it is coming from all directions. Yes it is hard to tell fact from fiction but that is why you have a brain if you would only choose to use it. There is an agenda yes it is in plain sight. No I am not the only person to know this nor the first to figure it out nor am I so smart that I have all the answers. The difference between you and I is that I have too many questions and search out answers that make sense. This is frustrating and mind boggling. I will give you a little clue. The pyramids were not built 4000 thousand years ago by bronze aged people wearing animal skins using stone mallets and flimsy metal chisels. No they were not quarried cut moved and then placed in a giant pile so they could be admired for thousands of years. No they were not high rise apartment buildings or offices or even worse tombs. No the aliens did not build them either. But again you would have to do your own research and figure it out for yourself. The government is not your friend. They do not help you or protect you. People are waking up to this shit everyday. You will too on your own time or when they force you to and then it will really be too late. Think for yourself question everything and look for motives. A clue it is all about control. The more ignorant and stupid people are the easier it is to control them especially when they fight over stupid shit like politics.religion. sex or money. Good luck to you and especially your kids in those armed prisons they call schools. Not only do they get the proper indoctrination ie mind control like you but they will get vaccinated as well. Keep eating those GMO’s and drink your fluoride.

      • anticultist says :

        “You are absolutely right arguing with anyone is futile especially when that persons mind is made up”

        After I stopped laughing about this retards comment, I went to find an image to describe the wall of text below it.

      • David Groves says :

        It is amazing you say so little with so few words and you think you are smart. Maybe since you can not seem to express yourself with words you shouldn’t say anything and people will think you are a genius.

      • a rational person says :

        oh my god this david groves is a fucking nutbag, and a moron too.

        MOON HOAX! i mean, he believes in fucking MOON HOAX! that is so retarded i can’t even get my head around it…and he thinks we don’t believe in his bullshit conspiracy theories because we’re brainwashed by media and fluoride…jeezus christ, these fucking nutbags totally need to stop breeding. i mean, where do these sick fucks come from? do they come crawling out of fucking meth head trailer parks or some shit?

        how can a human being stupid enough to believe the moon landing was faked actually function in real society? how does a person like that even have the brain power to keep their heart beating? how do these people grow up and get toilet trained and learn how to use a computer? how can anyone stupid enough to believe in MOON HOAXES figure out how to drive a car or open a bank account or get a job?

        oh scratch that last one, all u conspiracy fuckers are worthless unemployed losers…sorry, forgot about that.

        srsly…how come there aren’t any NORMAL people who like thrive? everybody who likes thrive is either a conspiracy nutbag, or some new age fruit bat, or a global warming denier, or a zeitgest cult zombie, or a scientologist, or some stupid kid who won’t read articles, or a moron who thinks the MOON LANDING WAS FAKED. i mean, if u put these freaks in a circus you could make a lot of money showing em off in a geek show.

        unbefuckinglievable. i need alcohol.

      • David Groves says :

        I don’t think alcohol will solve your problems buddy. Psychotropic drugs might help alleviate the symptoms but not much. Electroshock therapy would be better but not the total answer either . A lobotomy would not help at all. See your problem is you don’t have enough brains to begin with so in a nutshell you are screwed .

      • anticultist says :

        Projecting your own mental neurosis onto other people wont reduce your own mental imbalances David, doesn’t work like that. Though you already know i suppose as you have probably been spending the last few years or so looking for a natural antidote to your depressions, anxiety, and inability to function around normal people.

      • David Groves says :

        I am impressed you shocked me with this comment. You actually put a few sentences together and formed a whole paragraph and actually tried to express yourself. I will give you an A for effort but very low marks for your content. You don’t know me and you never will and besides that you ain’t no doctor, psychiatrist. psychologist or whatever. By the way you write I doubt you are even educated but that doesn’t mean much these days anymore anyways. I don’t know you either but I don’t want to or more important PRETEND to either. Other than your short sarcastic projections that you think are clever you are going way over the limb by SUPPOSING ANYTHING about me. Perhaps you can take your own advice with your PROJECTED SELF DIAGNOSIS. All I have done was stated my own opinions and beliefs and I have been chastised ridiculed and cursed by people like you that just can’t imagine there is anything out there that might rock their little apple-cart. There is truth and there is untruth unfortunately you can not build anything that lasts on a pack of lies. That is why this whole ugly facade and charade of civilization and American Empire will come crumbling down in the near future. Empires never last forever and it is always ugly when they fall. This one could be the worst. Good luck in riding out the Apocalypse.

      • a rational person says :

        “you don’t have enough brains to begin with so in a nutshell you are screwed”

        says the guy who believes in FAKE MOON LANDINGS and LIZARD PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        i mean, fucking LIZARD PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!

        how are we not supposed to laugh at you when you believe in ridiculous childish shit like this? what, you think we’re supposed to take you seriously? really? LIZARD PEOPLE? FAKE MOON LANDINGS? are u fucking kidding me???????

        you are fucking insane. seriously. no real person who is not insane would ever believe in FAKE FUCKING MOON LANDINGS. yes i am going to put that in caps again. YOU BELIEVE IN FAKE MOON LANDINGS.

        how can we not laugh at this? with zero facts, zero evidence, in fact totally against ALL scientific evidence which proves beyond all shadow of a doubt that we landed on the moon, and here you are trying to get us to believe in FAKE MOON LANDINGS??????????? ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS, YOU SICK CRAZY PIECE OF SHIT?????

        FAKE MOON LANDINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • David Groves says :

        Calm down buddy you are going to have a stroke. Who said anything about lizard people. That must be the voices in your head. Admit it you didn’t even see the moon landings right? You haven’t even taken the time to watch that shit or learn about it. I was around back then it may have fooled me once and a lot of other good people but not a second time especially not in this day and age. You seem to keep repeating some stupid mantra MOON LANDINGS over and over again like this will make it real. It doesn’t work like that. You may as well keep repeating SANTA IS REAL I know he is my parents wouldn’t lie to me. Or the Easter Bunny for that matter. You already know the media lies to you you just don’t know to what extent or even why. You really need help if you honestly believe everything they say and even if you don’t believe some of it you put yourself in a double bind because you pick out what is true and what is not. My point is you can never believe a liar especially if they have an agenda. Yes they have an agenda and that is to get you to buy something mainly a big line of BULLSHIT. If you keep seeing or hearing lizard people call a crises line. Friendly people will be there to help you out in all your need

      • anticultist says :

        The nut bag is talking about other people having no education, and it is all inferred by his assessment of someone’s writing style.

        Tell you what nut bad go here and do yourself a favour and educate your own retarded mind.

        http://www.clavius.org/

        In the mean time walls of texts are a sign of a prick who likes the sound of their own voice, just saying.

      • David Groves says :

        You have have got to be kidding me right? The discovery channel? And this is the end all to all the CONSPIRACY THEORY’S about the moon. Is this is the best you got? Those are the same assholes who sold us this turd in the first place. This is main stream media at it’s worst. The same assholes that brought us the Vietnamese War and the Gulf of Tonkin affair that never took place that started the shit in the first place. And then they told us that we were going to win that war. It didn’t turn out to well did it? I know that was before your time and you don’t want to remember anyways. Lots of good people died for that one as well as some of my buddies. Please you were not around and you don’t know what you are talking about. Give me a break this is beyond stupid.

      • anticultist says :

        Anyway Rational I am done with this crazy fucker, he opened up with a line that should have scared any person with a clear mind, and that was his refusal to accept anything that he doesn’t believe. The very fact his mind is closed and and made up, shows he is incapable of of learning or finding out anything new that doesn’t conform to his current paranoid and dogmatic worldview.

        It is for this reason entering into a dialogue with it, would only be one sided, and that would the silly bastard proselytising at everyone here, and ranting and raving like the typical foaming at the mouth conspiritard. I am starting to sense this already, the egotism and narcissism has already surfaced along with the whack belief system.

        This idiot just wants a pulpit, and I have no time to stand in the church of crazy with reverend brain cell.

      • David Groves says :

        Wow a few more sentences and some more profanities. I guess the more upset one gets. the more he curses and the more stuff he makes up the righter he becomes in his own mind. Guys it’s been real and it’s been fun but it has not been real fun. Take the blue pill and go back to sleep and believe whatever you want to believe which means whatever lies they tell you that you want to believe. I guess you believe that you actually have a choice in this. Good luck.

      • a rational person says :

        haha, it’s hilarious how nutbags who come here to peddle utterly insane shit like FAKE MOON LANDINGS get all hot and bothered when you accuse them of believing in lizard people.

        there’s no difference, hoss…they’re exactly the same kind of crazy…u act like it’s so reasonable to think we faked landing on the moon, but somehow it’s crossing the line to think that queen liz is a reptile? IT’S THE SAME SHIT AND IT’S ALL NUTS.

        all of it…new world order, 911 inside job, lizard people, fake moon landings, fema camps…it’s all raving nutbag shit that nobody with an ounce of brains would believe in for one second.

        i think u believe in lizard people. but even if you don’t, what’s the difference? YOU’RE STILL FUCKING NUTS.

      • David Groves says :

        Lizard people again. The only person that has mentioned lizard people is you and repeatedly. So let me get this straight if someone doesn’t agree with you about anything you start to call them lizard people. That doesn’t even make sense. Where do the lizard people come from? Where to they go? What do they do for work? What do they eat? Where can a meet some? Do they act like you? If they don’t like me will they call me some weird names. Most important why do you know so much about them and what is so special about them anyways? Please comment on these questions if you can. You seem to be the expert on this. Please don’t tell me the lizard people came from the moon after we landed in 1969 and were so upset that the landed on earth shortly after to protest we had taken over their planet. Seriously buddy you need a break. I can’t imagine what kind of work you do. It is only a guess but it would not be working around other people because people disagree about things all the time and it is not healthy to go into a rant calling everybody a lizard person. There are more important things to talk about.

      • a rational person says :

        lizard people is the insane conspiracy bullshit that david icke farts out his mouth. he’s basically the star of thrive. he’s also a jew-hating nazi anti-semite. he says the world is secretly run by aliens who are lizards who look human.

        hmm, does this sound familiar hoss? yea, it sounds COMPLETELY BATSHIT NUTS, which is exactly what your theory about faked moon landings is too.

        so what i’m saying is there’s no difference between some nutbag moron who believes in FAKE MOON LANDINGS and somebody who believes in lizard people. lizard people do not exist. and we really did land on the moon. if you believe stupid conspiracy theories about fake moon landings you’re just as nuts as somebody who thinks 911 was an inside job or thinks that lizard people really exist.

        face it, hoss, all the shit you believe in is totally nuts. that’s why people like me laugh at you. when you refuse to deal with facts or understand logic, there’s nothing anyone can do except fucking laugh at you and your retarded moronic theories…like FAKE MOON LANDINGS.

        u got me, hoss? good.

      • David Groves says :

        Well it looks like you weren’t the only person to imagine the lizard people. One of your friends came up with the idea. But for some reason this idea resonates with you because that is all you want to talk about. This shows me there is some hope for you. You sure know a lot about you buddy Mr Icke and his theory’s but you seem to have fallen out of his belief system was this because he disagreed about something with you that you didn’t like did you start calling him names like lizard person or nut bag or all those other names you called me. Don’t tell me he believes that the lizard people went to the moon before we did or did we just send lizard people to the moon? I don’t know about you the more you talk the crazier it all gets. Why do you call yourself a rational person when all you obsess on is lizard people.

      • a rational person says :

        hoss, u got the mentality of a 4 year old. actually even less. my daughter was smarter than you when she was about 2.

        i’m called “a rational person” because the things i believe in are based on facts. the things you believe in are not based on facts. they’re based on insanity.

        i believe we landed on the moon because the facts show we landed on the moon.

        you believe the moon landing was faked because you’re nuts.

        i believe osama bin laden did 911 because the facts show osama bin laden did 911.

        you believe 911 was an inside job because you’re nuts.

        i do not believe in lizard people because the facts show that lizard people don’t exist.

        i don’t know whether u believe in lizard people, but you probably do, because you have to be nuts to believe in lizard people, and we already know you’re nuts. it doesn’t matter whether you say u don’t believe in lizard people, because we already know you’re nuts.

        bottom line: i’m rational and you’re nuts.

        see how this works, hoss?

      • anticultist says :

        ha ha ha,

        In all seriousness though he is right you are nuts.

      • Wyboth says :

        HOLD THE FUCKING PHONE. Back yo nigga ass up. Look who just came back.

        That’s right, bitches, I’m back for another round of conspiratard ass kicking. Get ready to watch these limp-dicked thundering faggots shit their diapers again, because I’m about to put their brains in the spin cycle. You think Ancient Aliens sounds legit? FUCK YOU. I’d rather base jump from the Empire State Building with my dick tied to a Pterodactyl than watch clips from that God-awful excuse for a History Channel show. So wipe up your sopping pussy and get ready, because a steaming load of badassery is coming to a topic near you.

        Warning: if you are prone to epileptic seizures, Alzheimer’s disease, ebullism, or spontaneous combustion, do not read any of my posts, as you will experience symptoms of all of these. Thank you.

      • a rational person says :

        hey wyboth, good to see u back hoss, while you were away i had to flame a scientologist and this stupid mutherfucker who believes the moon landing was fake. was thinking i was going to have to carry the load alone here.

        at least stratoblaster and pickle fucker haven’t come back though.

      • Wyboth says :

        That sounds painful. You should have saved some of the moon landing shit for me, those people are some of my favorites to fuck with. Looks like we at least don’t have to deal with kamehameha from space or whatever this picke guy was talking about.

      • Wyboth says :

        By the way, if anyone is interested in what I was doing while I was gone, I was doing some physics in video games (pretty novel idea). If anyone’s ever heard of the game Minecraft, I tried to apply real world physics to the game and see how much I can legitimately discover. It went pretty well. I have three articles up, and I’m working on a fourth. Now, conspiracy theorists, this contains math, so try not to get mad, okay?

        http://www.opticraft.net/index.php/topic,16472.0.html

        http://www.opticraft.net/index.php/topic,16565.0.html

        http://www.opticraft.net/index.php/topic,16706.0.html

      • SumGuy says :

        Terrible article, written by a windbag… or whatever the typing equivalent is… Great video by an unrelated source. Keep up the good work “News of the World Reporters!!”

      • James says :

        I entered a post earlier exclaiming how disappointing it is to find another website’s comment section filled with such hate and vitriol. Believe it or not, I just watched Thrive for the first time two nights ago. While there are plenty of claims that could be construed as suspect, there are points made in the film that a majority of citizens believe are valid. Does that mean they are factually correct? Of course not, but at the same time calling anyone a “nutjob” who believes there are serious problems with the Government’s official story about 911 doesn’t mean those problems don’t exist. That’s really as inane as claiming that muertos is a government disinformation agent.
        I would offer that, instead of making broad, sweeping statements about a particular belief, like crop circles being of alien origin, progress might be made if we take particular aspects of said phenomena and discuss in a reasonable, calm, manner. It IS possible to have such a discussion. I know this to be true as I often have such talks with close friends who claim to have a diametrically opposing political point of view from my own. What always amazes me is that often, when we put emotions aside, we find we have much more in common than we thought.
        Considering the serious problems that we face today, wouldn’t it make more sense to find and find common ground rather than club those over the head who don’t agree with us? Please know that I’m not pointing fingers at EITHER side of the discussions here; both sides (myself included) have used insult, ad hominem attack, and character assassination in “defending” their beliefs.
        With that in mind, since this is about “crop circles” and their origin, I’ll say that I don’t accept the alien hypothesis as proven Neither do I accept the claim that they are ALL made by hoaxers, for this reason. Study of the plants in some (not all, mind you) of the circles have shown conclusive evidence that the plant’s inner cellular structure had been violated by some type of external heat source that caused the cell walls to burst, even though the outside of these plants showed no evidence of an external heat source. Richard Taylor PhD, a physicist at the Material Science Institute at the University of Oregon published an article in the Physics World Journal saying that he believes that the circles are man made but that hoaxers today are using GPS and magnetrons (which are tubes that can be found inside microwave ovens) to make their circles. It may seem odd that a physicist from a respectable university would even be studying a phenomena that is usually decried as “woo” by mainstream science and academia. But the editor of the publication, Matin Durrani, states that: “It may seem odd for a physicist such as Taylor to be studying crop circles, but then he is merely trying to act like any good scientist – examining the evidence for the design and construction of crop circles without getting carried away by the sideshow of UFOs, hoaxes and aliens.”
        I had seen earlier claims by some scientists that there was evidence of microwave radiation used in these fields but never heard any follow up. It would seem that Dr. Taylor has done the follow up work. If we are to accept the supposition that some plants studied show signs of this type of intense radiation that is specifically targeted at certain plants in a much broader area, than it seems to me that only two conclusions can be drawn;
        1. that humans are carrying some type of radiation producing devices that are used to construct certain crop circles.
        2. Some other, unknown, force is using the same type of radiation to make the circles.
        Does that mean aliens? Nope. But for me, I tend to lean towards explanation number 2 because I have a hard time believing that there are enough people out there with the knowledge necessary to make a portable microwave producing device. So, my opinion, which is as perfectly valid as another’s, is that we don’t have enough evidence to conclusively say whether or not they are all made by humans.
        Maybe I misread muertos article above, but I don’t remember seeing anything in regards to the microwave evidence discussed. Perhaps it was not available to him at the time, but I do think this particular aspect of the phenomena is worthy of reasoned, intelligent discussion.
        Kudos to all of you who at least have an opinion. There are WAY too many in the world today who don’t give a shit about anything other than video games, fast food, and their next sexual tryst.

      • stratoblaster says :

        finally! a rational comment,

      • a rational person says :

        james sez:

        “Neither do I accept the claim that they are ALL made by hoaxers, for this reason.”

        well that doesnt matter, hoss…crop circles are made by people. all of em. thats a fact. doesnt matter whether you accept it or not. it is.

      • Joel T. says :

        James, you are correct in that simply calling people who believe that there are serious problems with the events of 9/11 a nutjob does not mean that the problems do not exist. Rather, it is the copious amounts of documentation, evidence, and analysis that means that those problems do not exist. Some of the “problems” are just factually inaccurate (such as the classic “buildings don’t collapse that way), and others are not really problems at all (the “but what about…!” line of reasoning).

        “Richard Taylor PhD, a physicist at the Material Science Institute at the University of Oregon published an article in the Physics World Journal saying that he believes that the circles are man made but that hoaxers today are using GPS and magnetrons (which are tubes that can be found inside microwave ovens) to make their circles.”

        This is one of the things that irks debunkers: conspiracy theorists being sloppy in their presentation of information. First, Taylor “believes” circles are manmade in the sense that he believes that the statue of liberty is manmade. Second, he does not himself propose that hoaxers are using magnetrons: rather, he reports that the BLT Research Team claims that they can do use magnetrons taken from microwave ovens to facilitate the creation of crop circles (it should be noted that the microwaves make the stalks bend easier, not that they make them bend of their own accord). Taylor is reporting what other people claim, but he isn’t claiming it himself.

        “It may seem odd that a physicist from a respectable university would even be studying a phenomena that is usually decried as “woo” by mainstream science and academia.”

        Again, a common debunker frustration: conspiracy theorists dramatizing the mundane. First, the fact that Taylor is from UO should indicate that the issue isn’t how you are presenting it. UO is indeed a respectable university, but it’s one that is known for its humanities. If you want science, you go about an hour down the road to Oregon State University. The fact that Taylor is at UO should make you want to look into him more: what’s a scientist doing there? If you looked into him, you would have found that Taylor’s passionate about fractal art and community engagement. If one looks at the article he wrote (http://pages.uoregon.edu/msiuo/taylor/human_response/CropCircles%28physicsworld%29.pdf), one will note that it is not a scholarly article (the lack of citations makes it clear). Indeed, the journal itself is not a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal. It’s on par with Popular Mechanics (except it requires membership in a professional society).

        It’s perfectly understandable and expected that someone interested in art would discuss a unique form of art in a non-academic publication.

        If one reads the article, one will also see that Taylor doesn’t discuss if crop circles are manmade or not. Since the only evidence is that they are manmade, there’s nothing to discuss. His intent is to provide a brief history of the things and discuss how they are made by humans. He does specifically note the “arms race” between crop circle artists and researchers: the artists want their circles to appear extraterrestrial in origin, so they are motivated to add complexities that, at first, confound investigators.

        “I tend to lean towards explanation number 2 because I have a hard time believing that there are enough people out there with the knowledge necessary to make a portable microwave producing device.”

        As Taylor noted, the BLT Research team claims that they can do this with magnetrons from a microwave oven. Microwave ovens are horribly common in the 1st world, so there is no real difficulty in obtaining one. Taylor specifically notes that crop circle hoaxers are highly motivated in their endeavors, indicating that it is very likely that such a hoaxer who got the idea to use a magnetron would pursue the matter sufficiently to learn how to use it safely. As for numbers, Taylor also notes that the two men who started the modern crop circle tradition themselves made 250 circles over their “careers.” In short, there are enough people, there are enough magnetrons, the people are motivated enough, and productive enough, to easily account for the crop circles. Given that there is absolutely no semblance of a shadow of a hint of evidence that the circles are not manmade, there is no reason to lean towards explanation number 2.

        “ So, my opinion, which is as perfectly valid as another’s, is that we don’t have enough evidence to conclusively say whether or not they are all made by humans.”

        The only evidence we have is that they are made by humans. Furthermore, the evidence we do have is substantial. Your opinion is not as valid as another’s, because your opinion is demonstrably unreasonable. Any reasonable opinion (such as that crop circles are manmade) is therefore more valid than yours. This is yet another irritation to the debunker: conspiracy theorists don’t seem to understand that any supposition that lacks evidence is inherently invalid. There is no A for effort.

        “Maybe I misread muertos article above, but I don’t remember seeing anything in regards to the microwave evidence discussed. Perhaps it was not available to him at the time, but I do think this particular aspect of the phenomena is worthy of reasoned, intelligent discussion.”

        This blog post was published in November 2011, Taylor’s article was published in August 2011 in an obscure publication. So yes, it’s very unlikely that Muertos was aware of it, much less had access to it. Taylor’s article, however, only supports this blog post, so it would have been a brief discussion.

      • stratoblaster says :

        well it seems we’re overdue for a how to video on how to modify a microwave for magnetron assisted backyard crop circle enthusiasts

      • Roxy M says :

        @a rational person “he’s also a jew-hating nazi anti-semite.” Well there you have it. You know absolutely nothing. He is NOT an anti-semite, he’s an anti-Zionist. BIG difference. He says wonderful things about Jews in Israel who are for peace, who go to jail because they refuse to serve in the Israeli military because they know it is wrong. There are rabbis in Israel as well as other Jewish Israeli citizens who also speak out against Zionists and Israel, are they also jew hating nazi anti-semites? Would you call them “self haters” because they are speaking out against all the atrocities Israel(not Jews as a whole) commits? So anyone who speaks out against Israel is automatically an “anti-semite”, as you put it? By the way, Arabs are also Semites, most people don’t know that or don’t care, so it doesn’t even make sense calling someone who is against Zionists and Israel an anti-semite. You are completely misinformed and don’t seem like a rational person at all.

      • conspiracykiller says :

        Anti zionism is just a euphemism for anti semitism.

        It seems clear the person clueless and misinformed here is you.

      • a rational person says :

        @ roxy m : yes, david icke is a jew hating anti-semite nazi scumbag. his whole “lizard people” conspiracy shit is exactly the same as the old “omg the jews are trying to rule the world” shit that hitler believed in except he put lizard people in place of jews.

        why? cuz its ok to hate lizard people but not ok to hate jews.

        david icke is a jew hating anti-semite nazi scumbag.

        any more questions?

      • conspiracykiller says :

        If icke isn’t an anti semite why would he say such retarded shit as this ?

        “..the local Jewish communities know that with the alternative media scrutinizing everything, they can’t get away with murder the way they did at Columbine.”

        Taken from here: http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/nairobi-post-analysis-of-a-bloody-psy-op/

        The guy is an obvious scumbag.

    • Richard Doyle says :

      If you say something is “debunked”, then I guess it’s debunked. What a joke this blog is. I wonder who is funding him? hmmm

      • Daws says :

        Boy these cover-all comments you’ve made really show that you’ve actually read any of the material. I mean such specifics you reply to!

    • Richard Doyle says :

      Ignore movies like Thrive and the internet. If you want the truth, please tune to ABC News, NBC News, CNN, Foxnews, or the white house website. Everything else is wackiness. Trust in Authority!

      • Keegs says :

        Please don’t make me vomit. You will only ever have authority over yourself. Don’t give that up.

      • Curtis Kobe says :

        You are straight retarded its people like you that make is so easy for the federal reserve to take over our country, don’t trust the Media at all, don’t trust Obama, they have thief own interests at heart

      • Roxy M says :

        You guys, I think he was being sarcastic.

    • gary says :

      I share your appreciation for these wonderful works of art, however the debate whether it’s humans or aliens is irrelevant. What i am curious about is what would compel a group of well organised artists to work anomynously at night to create their temporary masterpieces only to have their whole artform ridiculed, for over 20 years!. There is no evidence of humans, or aliens for that matter, creating the more complex formations at all, if they can film the mediocre effort above why not the others. The only evidence of human made crop circles is coming from people debunking the artform not appreciating it. the people in the video are not artists. they made an average pattern.Woopee
      You are pretty easily convinced if you take this as your conclusive evidence and you have only added more BS rather than clarity to the subject.

      • Anastasio says :

        @gary

        ——————————————————————————————
        “however the debate whether it’s humans or aliens is irrelevant.”
        ——————————————————————————————

        Irrelevant? Excuse me? Would someone like to bring gary up to speed with the premise of why this particular page on this blog exists? i.e. the primary bone of contention being whether crop circles are made by humans or aliens! Don’t tell me a perceptive and inquisitive mind, who has now joined this irrelevant debate, could have overlooked such a small but telling particular?

        The debate is irrelevant and here you are gary, throwing yourself in slap bang into the middle of the maelstrom with faux curiosity and a questionable lack of supporting detail. Not the right tools for the job I can assure you!

        Should you need further assurance gary, on whether a debate is or is not relevant or indeed taking place, then note well that after your curt dismissal of the very crux of the matter you do indeed proceed in a bumptious manner that seems to belittle and mock the human-made explanation based on the selfish, somewhat conceited, modern infatuation with self-flattery of one’s intellect by denying all rational explanation – simply because by denying all rational explanation means that you know best and nobody is clever enough to answer your clever questions.
        If the debate is irrelevant then how/why have you managed to add to it by calling the man-made hypothesis ‘BS’? And after all the material has been laid out here for you read through? All I need now is for you to tell us you have a degree or you’ve been researching the phenomenon for X amount of years and I can call ‘house’ on this little game of ‘Truther Cliché Bingo’ I’ve been playing.

        But that aside let’s have a look at some of the valid points you have raised and see if we can quench that curiosity of yours:

        ——————————————————————————————
        “What i am curious about is what would compel a group of well organised artists to work anonymously at night to create their temporary masterpieces only to have their whole art form ridiculed, for over 20 years!”
        ——————————————————————————————

        So you admit there are well-organised, anonymous artists working at night? Good, we’ll bear that in mind for later! But why the implication of ridicule? Just who is ridiculing the art form? The art form attracts thousands of visitors from all over the world to southern England to marvel at the art form, so much so a whole industry is built upon it! Tickets to tours are sold a year in advance, beers are named after the phenomenon, DVDs and lectures abound! It truly is one of those places on Earth you can go, see and come back with the T-shirt:

        http://www.cafepress.co.uk/+crop-circle+t-shirts?cmp=knc–g–uk–hum–apparel–search-b–crop%20circle_t%20shirt&pid=3607873&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=Google&utm_campaign=Humor%20Apparel%20-%20UK&utm_content=search-b&utm_term=crop%20circle-t%20shirt&GCID=283&Keyword=crop%20circle%20t%20shirt

        People don’t travel from hundreds of miles to ridicule the art form gary, I can assure you of that! I wouldn’t be so presumptuous to infer a misunderstanding, or dare I say an equivocation on your behalf, but invariably your idea of ridicule brings up another question:
        Is ridicule or contempt of an art form enough to stop artists from contributing to it? Well, it certainly doesn’t appear so:

        http://site.artsheaven.com/blog/2011/06/henri-rousseau-ridiculed-in-life-cherished-in-death/

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/apr/20/arts.artsnews1

        But sometimes there really is good cause to stop and ask what passes for art and why the artists do it:

        http://www.austriantimes.at/index.php?id=10442

        Why gary, why! Given the lengths of what some Austrians will go to in the name of art, the agriglyph art form is still surely THE art form that defies all rational belief!

        Why do people practise the art of crop circles? It’s a good question, and one that I would answer, as I always do, with ‘Art Gratis Art’. Can we perhaps agree that your understanding (or lack thereof) of the seemingly ‘absurd’ desire for these artists to create crop circles does not speak against the fact that these artists do in fact create crop circles? What you created here was a false premise with which you thought would somehow refute or cast doubt on man’s involvement in the crop circle scene.
        Needless to say, it doesn’t quite work like that here; there is a requirement to toil harder than to simply veneer your disbelief as eloquence with an end to convincing anyone who isn’t gary that you have a point.

        Can you explain why it is beyond man’s capability to create the “more complex” creations or why you require evidence to accept that man can create them?

        Before you answer, have a look at these examples that even the diehard truthers accept as man-made:

        http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/8080315.stm

        And what about this to satisfy your lofty standards for complexity? :

        http://inhabitat.com/artist-makes-giant-wintry-crop-circles-just-by-walking-in-the-snow/simon-beck-snow-art2/

        (ok fair enough, these weren’t made in wheat but they sure are pretty!)

        So just where is that arbitrary line between man-made and too complex? Will you share that with us?

        ——————————————————————————————
        “The only evidence of human made crop circles is coming from people debunking the artform not appreciating it. the people in the video are not artists. they made an average pattern.Woopee
        ——————————————————————————————

        And just how does one debunk an artform gary? If it’s called ‘art’ and is tangible to the senses surley it exists? No debunking required? And besides, you’ve already stated that there are well-organised, anonymous artists involved in the phenomenon. Does an inventor working on an antigravity craft do so just to debunk UFOs? Just where are you going with this c.r.a.z.y idea?
        I appreciate the artform, trust me I do, but I certainly wouldn’t refer to myself as a debunker. Just like you, I like to call ‘BS’ where I see it. So where do kindred spirits like you, I and crop circle artists squeeze into your educated declaration? Surely you haven’t written us out? And just how will you prove that ALL man-made circles were created by debunkers? I can’t wait to see that. I really can’t.

        You’ve attempted to come off uber-sceptical with your highlighting of the lack of evidence of man’s and ET’s involvement but can you speak as to whether that evidence was ever witnessed in the first place, given that it has most likely been harvested and ended up in someone’s loaf of bread by now? Does your uber-sceptisim lead you to question why there is a suspicious absence of scientific studies on the “more complex” formations that undoubtedly prove that man wasn’t involved in their creation? Are you aware that the simple, untidy swirled circles (not the complex ones) are the one’s contested to be of a non-human authorship?

        Have you realised yet that your whole argument pivots on what YOU think (it’s all me, me, me isn’t it gary?) passes for art, an artist and what is and isn’t too complex for humans to accomplish?

        That’s not evidence of anything but an argument from credulity gary, and I thought a sceptical connoisseur of critical thinking
        such as yourself would be above that. There’s no evidence of humans or aliens making the circles (as you believe), but I think we all know which lack of evidence convinces you!

    • Ananda says :

      Hello Guys,

      I can see from your first word, that the way you are bringing the subject is not correct at all. You probably work for the corpocraty, that rob the future and the destiny of the planet. Foster never says the ET made the CC. Is tell clearly of the suppress energy that could solve inmediatly our enviroment problems and the rest going from of the vulgarity that the culture of the fake magicien dark cabal want us to sell.

      There is an amazing HIGHER INTELLIGENCE, ET or not, who love us and beleive in us and help this planet since long. This intelligence create the CC in the midle of the field as everybody can see them and and give the opportunity to the reallly one interesting to find out by himself, understand what is all about. The intelligence behind is call Unity Consciousness that in a way human are part of it, there is NO SEPARATION.

      Is all about to free the planet if the human make a little effort to wake up.
      We are not alone indeed and this higher intelligence ET or not give us a little push to ake out the planet of the grasp of the dark old paradigm cabal that probably you are paid from to made such a stupid work.

      Your way of your debunked is your own limited projection to serve the dead zone of totaly failure system. Search where is failure inside yourself and you can learn a lot.

      They is a law in the universe we are inside what we observe outside, so I will not bring much attention to your blog, but is important to said something when is necessary. Knowing from the first word I read to not keep going on I know by the less of resonance not waste to much time in this.

      By the way the UFO ARE REAL, and in the sacred textes they are refer as the divine as the Merkaba or better they are the perfect description of the universe.

      So the UFO take a totaly another meaning and definition that make sense refert oday of the unify field organized. Because the technology behing the UFO and the CC phenomenon have to do with the field of consciouness.

      So in resume: is the UNIFY FIELD ORGANISE, the Merkaba behind. The unified consciousness ask to mankind to refer, and manifest into our life the perfection of God.

      Because we are this free energy ourself we can be in contact with the ufo, only if you go into your sacred heart arise your own consciousness.

      The secret agencies of the world know about all this and they try the psychological warfar as you do to bring people away of the most important subject that the UFO and the CC are.

      I’m french from my journey in planet Earth, and a messenger reporter, a kind of testimony, a star seed, or a cosmic experiencer whi did experience the reflexive fielf of CC, not only in the field in England, but in the field of SELF AWARENESS.

      To end here, we speak of HEALING with the higher consciousness individualy and globaly of our amnesia and separation from the God Mind.. So thanks for the circle makers and for the people who take the courage to do something for serve ALL. Thanks Foster for your work!!
      In love and Service
      Ananda

      • a rational person says :

        wow…you are fucking nuts.

      • Anastasio says :

        The irony is, that these Namaste types claim to be part of a larger whole, unified with all humanity so to speak, yet it’s clear by the views expressed above that Ananda is little more secluded from society than a cockroach with the clap.

        ——————————————————————————————————
        “Foster never says the ET made the CC.”
        ——————————————————————————————————

        Obviously, somebody hasn’t watched Thrive, and yet, here they are defending it….

        ——————————————————————————————————
        “…that probably you are paid from to made such a stupid work.”
        ——————————————————————————————————

        To paraphrase Withnail; you can stick your namaste up your arse and fuck off while you’re at it, bigot.

    • Mr. Anon says :

      Also note that David Icke believes that the Protocols for the Elder of Zion is an actual document. In reality, the document is a notorious anti-semetic hoax. Only a vicious Jew-hater would claim the document, which purports to reveal a plot by Jews to conquer the world, is anything more than a forgery.

  2. adamartaudm says :

    Thrive was shoody in its argument but so are you. There is a lot more to this than you presenting. Suggest you check richplanet.net for a real researcher on this issue

    • muertos says :

      I looked at that site you proposed, richplanet.net. It’s a conspiracy site. There was so much crankery, woo, and paranoid lunacy on the first page I didn’t even click any farther. There was an article by Judy Wood advertised on the first page. Yes, Judy Wood, the lunatic who believes that secret beam weapons from outer space destroyed the WTC towers. Also on the left was a laundry list of conspiracy theories–including 9/11, UFOs, New World Order, etc.

      I would not trust a site like this to tell me the time of day. Conspiracy sites and conspiracy theorists are guilty of doing exactly what I accuse Foster Gamble of doing regarding crop circles–obfuscating the truth, employing shoddy reasoning, and spreading outright falsehoods.

      Now, if you have a serious and legitimate example of my argument being “shoddy,” present it. Somehow I don’t think you can, but you’re welcome to make an attempt.

      • The Locke says :

        The name of the website alone was kinda a give that it’s a conspiracy theory website, but it’s even more and crazier BS then I thought. Even more so then prisonplanet.com or infowars.com. It’s almost like the site was created by David Icke…

      • Jake says :

        Crop circles – what an amazing phenomenon, and one that continues to create a huge amount of heated discussion and debate. Some claim they’re all a clever hoax – that is mainly perpetuated by hobbyists in the UK who spend countless nights in the countryside creating massive geometric designs. Others claim they’re a creation of extraterrestrial intelligence, or somehow a manifestation of the intelligence of our planet – with a benevolent message or warnings for the future. Then there’s those people that recognise that both of these scenarios are potentially true – after all there is very strong evidence to indicate that a huge proportion of crop circles are certainly made by people, and just as strong evidence to indicate that many could not have possibly been created by hand.

        What really intrigues me that in all these debates there is very little mention of the artistic merits or unique symbolism and designs inherent in the crop circles. Whether you believe they’re a ‘hoax’ or not, no one can deny that they have given birth to a unique geometric artistic style that has no direct predecessor in 20th century art anywhere on the planet. Not even in ancient or modern ‘sacred geometry’ do we have examples that correlate with these often massive designs only visible from the air. If Doug Bower and Dave Chorley are the originators of this style – as they claim and your blog affirms – they should be celebrated as two of the greatest artists of the 20th century. Perhaps the fact they’re not is due to their claim that they invented the phenomenon in 1978, whereas in actual fact crop circles had began appearing decades before this (and were also documented to be appearing in other countries during and prior to 1978). Or perhaps the fact they’re not is due to them being (at the time they went public) two pint-loving watercolourists in their 60’s from Hampshire with little previous interest in geometric design or complex mathematical formulae! Interesting read here with a lot of info on ‘early’ crop circles: http://oldcropcircles.weebly.com/index.html

        Crop circles are appearing in their thousands all over the world, with widely varying degrees of size and complexity. Many of these could have been created by small groups of artists with a string and a board, but it is absurd to assume that hobbyists/hoaxers could regularly penetrate fenced off and guarded private land (including military installations) to create the more complex and intricate designs in a few short hours available in a summer evening.

        Then there is the issue of physical changes to the crops at the microscopic level, as well as electromagnetic/atmospheric changes associated with some crop circles. Again, explaining this away by stating that some hoaxers leave metal filings onsite doesn’t account for the unusual changes in many crop circles or explain the extent of this phenomenon. See this article for an interesting account of research by Michigan biophysicist W.C. Levengood on the subject: http://www.bltresearch.com/plantab.php

        Although I appreciate your efforts in the above article to simply and clearly explain the extent of crop circle ‘hoaxing’, this really doesn’t do the subject justice because its far from a simple issue! There are so many problems with the ‘Doug Bower/Dave Chorley’ story as an explanation for the whole phenomenon worldwide. Can we look forward to a more comprehensive and researched ‘debunking’ from you in the future?

      • Zachary Jakobs says :

        If nothing else this blog is amusing.

      • Circle Maker, of a different variety says :

        Thanks to Jake for displaying other “evidence” as to why crop circles are a mystery. Only presenting one side of an argument (aka this blog) isnt how you allow people to make their own decisions. whether gambles only argument is that the designs are “too perfect”, it doesn’t mean thats the only identifying reason other people have found, and had you done ANY research AT ALL on the subject of crop circles other than what Thrive talks about, you would have known that. Or maybe you did, and chose to leave it out so that this blog can also be guilty of “misleading” people into one direction.

        i was researching crop circles and unfortunately came across this crappy blog obviously written by a republican extremist.

        the fact that you apparently have nothing better to do than write down time frames from a movie to complain about on the internet only leads me to believe this must be the only social interaction you get all day, and thats so sad.

      • muertos says :

        I am not a Republican. In fact, I’m a very liberal Democrat. I also have a quite normal social life. Any other erroneous assumptions you want to make?

      • alysdexia says :

        What are the expulsion nodes?

    • Keegs says :

      The guy above you sure got worked up over that. teeheeheee SILLY HUMANSSS!

  3. Alan says :

    Clearly the message did not reach the receiver. Gamble isn’t asking you to believe him, he’s simply collecting an extraordinary amount of evidence to support the idea that we are being duped into a self-sustaining humanoid harvesting system that promotes skepticism and duality in every subject. If there wasn’t a way to “de-bunk” every bit of evidence of that then the system would have failed the day after it started.
    I realize that you have some issues believing everything people say, especially controversial topics as discussed in Thrive, but are you the one devoting your life trying to make a difference for the better? Do you own a laboratory and spend countless hours trying to invent a product that could replace our reliance of fossil fuel? Do you think that spending trillions of dollars every year on a military budget to imperialize / colonize every country on Earth is creating a positive place to raise kids? Have you even tried to think how shitty it would be to grow up in an occupied country witnessing death and destruction every day of your life?
    There is nothing wrong with people expressing their opinion, no one is forcing you to believe anything that movie is trying to say. But spending your time purposefully trying to ruin them, to create opposition and controversy, it’s useless.
    If you say that even just one case of a human making a crop circle is enough evidence “de-bunk” the entire extra-terrestrial theory then one artifact of evidence supporting the theory of extra-terrestrial existence should have the same effect right?

    The video isn’t all in German, so don’t just give up on watching it. The artifacts were found in one of a group of three caves discovered by a farmer in central America. Nassim Haramein is someone that I have met personally and have taken his delegate program, also someone featured in Thrive, he is not just an archeologist and inventor like the movie titles him. He too has spent his entire life researching trying to “de-bunk” the science of physics. He actually has finished doing that if you care to watch his newest research that he presented at the Awake and Aware conference in September this year, it’s posted on thepiratebay.org. It is the mathematical proof of the source of ‘free energy’ ‘zero-point energy’ ‘new energy’ whatever whoever wants to call it, it’s out there. If you can “de-bunk” a mathematical equation that proves that, then you probably should get some kind of award from the NSA or MTV or something.

    Good luck with everything, I hope this helps.

      • Alan says :

        Yeah, I have already read his proposed critiquing of Nassim’s work. As far as responding to that you may just want to read it from Nassim himself:

        http://theresonanceproject.org/letter-to-dr-bob-a-thon

        http://theresonanceproject.org/bob-a-thon

        There are many things that Nassim does not put out in the public, and for good reason. He’s not here to prove anyone wrong, and he even says himself that he doesn’t respond to “de-bunkers”, normally. But since bob-a-thon put so much effort into his “de-bunk” attempt, Nassim took his time coming up with a response that was professional and fully backed by links and whatever else it would take to support his findings.
        If you want to take sides with the first person who makes his opinion public that opposes some new idea that actually can change the way we view modern science and physics, then go ahead. But like Nassim says in his response to bob-a-thon:

        “…most of these creative ideas, as seen throughout history, typically come from outside, independent thinkers who blindside the academic institutions.”

        and if you want to deny that fact, you would be denying the work of a lot of really famous thinkers who have a major role in the current understandings of ‘things.’ Just by seeing these ideas, even if you are going to dismiss them as off-the-wall, they are now a part of your awareness and in a sense they exist in your ways of thinking. There are a lot of things people take for granted in how the universe operates, even simple things, but that does not stop them from doing whatever it is they do. You can choose to ignore these findings and go on living your life, or you can embrace them and allow the changes to come. But I just want you to know that slavery exists in this country. You do the dirty work making a minimal amount of money while there are people inheriting billions of dollars for simply being born. Eventually it won’t have to be that way, but until you allow some sort of change to occur, you will remain a slave to the system.

    • Anon says :

      @ Alan

      I’ve followed and read those links you posted on Nassim’s letter to bob-a-thon.

      The only comment I can make is that I look forward to reading all of the ‘peer reviewed’ papers on Nassim’s theorys, once anyone within the academia world actually takes him seriously enough to look at his theorys.
      And its not about taking sides, as you have claimed I have done. Its about whether the theory can hold up to scrutiny.

      “There are many things that Nassim does not put out in the public, and for good reason.”

      Why? Could you elaborate?

      Also, in all fairness, I have seen some of his videos on YouTube concerning his theorys on sacred geometry, zero point energy, etc. He seems to be missing a hell of a lot of math that explains the theoretical mechanics behind it.
      If the theory is to be looked at (and tested if possible), the math needs to be presented that explains how the entire structure functions and whether it does what the theorists claims it does. If Albert Einstein had presented his body of work in the same manner that Nassim did, I would guarantee you that he would have been laughed at or at the very least, not taken very seriously.

      • Alan says :

        Anon, thank you for taking time to review these posts. All of Nassim’s papers are available to read on his website theresonanceproject.org and contain all the required math that explains what he is putting out there in his claims. Obviously it takes a lot of time to pioneer new concepts and equations to postulate a new theory in physics, Nassim’s lifetime of work proves that, but I think Nassim has done a fantastic job in the timing, order and fashion of releasing this information to the public. If you want to see the grand finale of Nassim’s work, which is in peer review right now waiting to get published, he did present the information contained within the paper at the Awake and Aware Conference of 2011. As seen in this video link:

        http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6771630/Nassim_Haramein_Awake__amp_amp__Aware_Conference_2011

        Whether you believe in the existence of Extra Terrestrials or not, there are good reasons why they would visit us out of necessity (if they do exist of course). One of those reasons being the invention of a bomb that could destroy all life on Earth… atom bomb… Roswell… well, another instance where these beings would be interested in what’s going on here on Earth is if someone started building a technology that would gain them access to inter-galactic travel, which Nassim just so happened to do. He has had interactions with Extra Terrestrials, which is something that he does not disclose to the public, like I said, for good reason. Something like that has put a lot of people on the list of non-creditable people in the search for the answers to these new technologies. But the amount of people who are making these claims is rising, Steven Greer’s gathering is one of the largest, but is not the only one.

        All of the information being presented through this work is by no means an end to all suffering, it’s simply the work of people who believe it could make a difference for the better. There are an unlimited amount of arguments that could be made for either side, and it’s your right to choose which side you go with. But, (call me a ‘suspicious’ person if you want) when you try to get down to the fundamental problems we face, 9 times out of 10, you will be lead to some similar conclusion as Thrive, or Zeigiest, or Esoteric Agenda. Do your own research, find the answers that you resonate with, have love and sympathy and empathy for everyone you share this planet with, and be yourself.

  4. muertos says :

    Alan: your post leaves me somewhat incredulous. It’s very clear that the main purpose of Foster Gamble’s deceptive movie is to engender belief in conspiracy theories. Why, if that is not his purpose, is the movie billed proudly as a “documentary”? Furthermore, why, if you do not believe in the literal veracity of the unsupportable and false claims that Mr. Gamble makes repeatedly in the film, would you come here to dispute my characterization of the movie, if you suggest that it is not intended to be absolutely factual and to be taken by its audience as such?

    If the “Thrive” movie is not intended to induce literal belief in its numerous false assertions, what is it supposed to do? Why would Foster Gamble waste his time, and a considerable amount of money it seems, making a piece of performance art that is billed as a “documentary” unless he hoped to convince somebody, somewhere, that the claims contained within it are literal truth?

    Your appeal that I should be spending my time trying to get the world off fossil fuel and raising kids in a world without death and destruction totally misses the point. You seem to be under the erroneous impression that this blog is about ideas to save the world. It’s not. This blog is about the errors, deceitfulness and untrustworthy nature of the claims in the movie Thrive, which you seem to have swallowed hook, line and sinker without even an inkling of critical or rational thought.

    Hope this helps!

  5. anticultist says :

    LOL Alan is caught hook line and sinker into this bullshit, he has even given his cash and time to study the woo of that wack a doo pseudo physicist. There is little chance of Alan listening to reason.

    In psychology the usual behaviour pattern goes like this:

    “A suspicious person is a person who has something on his mind. He looks at the world with fixed and preoccupying expectation, and he searches repetitively, and only, for confirmation of it. He will not be persuaded to abandon his suspicion of some plan of action based on it. On the contrary, he will pay no attention to rational arguments except to find in them some aspect or feature that actually confirms his original view. Anyone who tries to influence or persuade a suspicious person will not only fail, but also, unless he is sensible enough to abandon his efforts early will, himself, become an object of the original suspicious idea.The cognitive style of the denialist represents a warped sense of reality for sure, explaining why arguing or debating with a denialist gets you nowhere. But the denialist is not the evil plotter they are often portrayed as. Rather denialists are trapped in their denialism.Psychologically, certain people seem predisposed to suspicious thinking and it seems this may be true of denialism as well. I submit that dienialism stems from a conspiracy-theory-prone personality style. We see this in people who appear predisposed to suspiciousness, and these people are vulnerable to anti-establishment propaganda. We know that suspicious people view themselves as the target of wrongdoing and hold persecutory ideas.

    Pretty much describes Alan and all the drive by posters who have bought into this false and illogical worldview.

    • stratoblaster says :

      “a suspicious person” -this sums up the whole blog quite well, and most of the emotional, angry responses in the comments of so called rationalists who rail against anything related to unknowns, mysteries, and what they call “woo”…suspicious minds that are furiously locked in certitude. I’m all for debunking untrue claims well, scientific corrections of fact, however according to many here Thrive is worthless, we are alone in the universe, time is linear, matter is solid, and there is no reason to question details re: shadow banking, 911, crop circles, etc…..it’s all been explained so shut the f up. However, for me, it’s amusing because of all that suspicion, to yank their chains….. so I encourage anyone with a thread of wit to chime in with delight and mystery. The trolls will come running…

  6. Alan says :

    So where does that leave you all? Denialists of any kind of hopeful future? I do the same things you guys do just in reverse order. I take what I see in everyday life, the things that “mainstream” media is trying to force down everyones throats and I seek my own truth. Are you all telling me that you see zero problems with the banking system, the never-ending series of wars we keep getting in, the science that only until recently promotes combustible energy sources (only profitable monopolized sources).
    Thrive isn’t my first introduction into this field of study, nor will it be the last. Soon you will see that this “movement” will have completely disappeared from the surface of Earth, and you will be left here until Earth has recycled herself once again. If you cannot rely on anything else, how about the cycles of time Earth has been going through for the last 4.5 billion years? Ever hear of the Ice Age? Yeah, it’s going to be “something” like that.
    If you managed to sit through that video I posted you may have noticed spacecraft guiding an asteroid towards “the planet with an atmosphere”. Well, in my opinion that is how the life here was started. Ever read the articles about living organisms being found in asteroids? And the countless mentions of “Sun-Gods” coming down from the heavens in chariots of fire.. all of that is the only documented accounts we have of what happened, so you can either read it as it is and call them incompetent for not understanding the science behind what makes their craft fly, or you could understand that they were comparing what they saw and using the lingo that they knew everyone at the time understood. There are countless amounts of “religious” artwork examples of craft being illustrated hovering in the sky in the background. But none of that really matters, because it’s easy for people like you to just dismiss all of that on the grounds of people not providing pure evidence. That is how the whole dogmatic belief system started. It’s why we have the Vatican and it’s why they have an entire private library of all the concealing documents that are left from those times.
    I would imagine you are all very angry at the moment while reading this, thinking about how dumb I am for buying into all the nonsense. Well I’m not buying into anything, it all just makes a lot more sense that the mega rich corporate business owners who would support monopolizing every system that controls humans, to create manipulatable slaves to keep on providing them with more and more power. Eventually, if their plan works, they will be the ones funding space craft production and creating what they feel is required to live out in the universe. And anyone who buys into THEIR nonsense will keep on getting that new version of the iphone every year, or whatever kind of technology they are promoting.
    So can I ask you all some questions? okay good.

    What do you think the goals are of the super rich? Do you even understand the power they hold over you? What are you planning on doing to get out from under them?

    Is there some kind of ‘movement’ that you are all apart of? To save the debt-enslaving force, or how does that work out in your mind?

    What exactly are your beliefs? It’s obvious that you don’t believe in much, but those things that you do believe in, what are they? Love and Peace Vs. Fear and War would be the two extremes.

    I hope this helps, although I know it’s already been dismissed as gobbly-gook.

    • The Locke says :

      Even though I shouldn’t, I’ll answer your questions…

      1. Each individual member of the super-rich has their own goals and what they are I won’t continue to speculate, and any “hold” they have over me I can end just buy not buying their products. Simple as that.

      3. Although I’m apart of no movements. I might support certain groups that support certain things that I support (anti-cult, anti conspiracy theory, anti pseudo-science, pro-science, pro-reason). P.S. I also support unions and other workers rights group, but I am not a member of any.

      4. Religious beliefs or philosophical beliefs? Doesn’t matter, I’ll answer both:

      I do believe in God, and I’ll leave it at that because I also believe in not imposing my religious beliefs onto others.

      As for philosophical beliefs, peace is always better then war, but to achieve long lasting peace, the world needs real solutions, not pseudo-science and conspiracy theories, which tends to create more mistrust and fear then stopping it.

      • Alan says :

        1. I don’t think it’s that easy to just not ‘buy’ their product. As Gamble pointed out, not that he is the only one it’s just a fraction of the topic on this site, they own the healthcare system, the education system, the energy department, etc… How do you just not ‘buy’ that product? I would really like to know actually, because it truly is hard considering they also have laws that enforce the usage of most of their ‘products’.

        3.(? not sure where 2 went) So if the continuation of ‘science’ brought us to the same understandings that Nassim has concluded with it would be okay? You can’t just deny the opinion of a person who doesn’t say the same thing everyone else is saying. You are a supporter of unions so you should understand that. The opinion of every individual matters, right? I understand your liking to be surrounded by like-minded people, but that in itself is a default “cult” whether you realize it or not. Religion is a cult. Government is a cult. Your family may even be a cult. If looking strange to others is a concern to you, then you definitely have some self identity problems. Everyone should be encouraged to stand up for what they believe, and a community should reflect that by allowing people to speak their opinion and change things for the better.

        4. I respect you for answering these questions but (not to push any buttons or anything, and I won’t take this as you imposing your religious beliefs on me, and I don’t intend on you taking what I say as truth either) have you ever just thought about what “God” is? Science and reason tells us that god cant be some ‘guy’ up in the sky watching everyone, right? so… what is it? Because what I believe is that each and every individual person has ‘god’ inside of them. It’s your inner reasoning device, that always knows what you do, whether you are a ‘good’ person or a ‘bad’ one, that inner ‘being’ determines where you go when you die, and ultimately determines what every individual believes in. Ancient Yogic practice tells us that breath is the link to ‘god’, have you every just thought about what that means exactly? Breath is what keeps your body alive, it’s what keeps you in this reality that we live in, if you were to stop breathing your physical body would seize to ‘live’ and your spirit or whatever you want to refer to it as would have an opportunity to return to where it came from. So ‘god’ in that sense in not physical in nature.
        What kinds of things would promote peace then? Because if you haven’t noticed those same super rich people that you aren’t going to buy products from are the ones supporting the wars, imposing their ideas on what a government should look like, forcing countries to cooperate with them (WTO, WHO, Codex Alimentarius, World Banks). It’s a really well thought out system, I’ll give them that. But they too are a cult. And by simply living and working under their laws, you support them. They all use double-speak techniques, using media as their main tool of coercion.

        I’m more than happy to discuss anything with anyone as long as you aren’t just going to spent your time trying “de-bunk” whatever I say. I want your honest opinion on some of these things, because I honestly think your opinion matters.

        Thanks!

      • JFT says :

        Is god pro reason?

      • alysdexia says :

        “I do believe in God”. That explains your spelling.

    • SlayerX3 says :

      There is a difference between Skeptics and Denialists.
      Skeptics search for the evidence to the claims they have been presented, if the evidence is conclusive, true and can be verified by several independent subjects, we will accept it, if not those claims will be denounced as being unfounded and unreliable.
      Deniers will ignore everything regardless of being true or not.

      The problem with Nassim and Thrive, is that they both make wild claims with “life changing” implications, but utterly fail to deliver anything concrete supporting those claims, worse they induce people who have little or no knowledge about these subjects into believing false premises to make a statement.

      Nassim isn’t accepted inside the mainstream scientific group, because in a group that uses the scientific method, whatever claim you make has to be backed up by physical laws, the phenomena has to be tested, documented and replicated by independent scientists elsewhere using the same method.
      It isn’t about accepting and believing, it’s about empirical evidence and detailed explanations of the phenomena.

      And there are differences between denouncing all the wrongs in the world and proposing solutions and claiming a selective group of people control the world and everything wrong is their fault proposing solutions using pseudo-science and misleading ideas.

  7. Professor Pious says :

    Funny you mention “Sun-Gods” and “Chariots of fire” Alan. Foster Gamble mentions that popular myth in the movie, but you have to do some digging on the Thrive Movement web site to find the reference: a popup citation to the long discredited claims of Erich von Däniken.

    http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=573

    Excerpt: “Like so many fringe writers, von Däniken cannot accept that ancient peoples had spiritual experiences or imaginations. Whenever people in the past wrote about ‘gods’ and ‘heaven’ they were thinking about how to express their incomprehension of vastly superior technology. Because the gods of so many ancient cultures are associated with the sky or with objects in the sky, such as the sun and moon, von Däniken believes that there must be a literal connection.”

    http://www.skepdic.com/vondanik.html

    Excerpt: “[von Daniken] also frequently reverts to false dilemma reasoning of the following type: “Either this data is to be explained by assuming these primitive idiots did this themselves or we must accept the more plausible notion that they got help from extremely advanced peoples who must have come from other planets where such technologies as anti-gravity devices had been invented.”

    http://www.debunker.com/texts/vondanik.html

    Excerpt: “Enough of Von Daniken’s claims have, however, been examined to reveal his method of operations: to dazzle the reader with a skillful blend of half-truths (as well as quarter and eighth- truths, too).”

    A skillful blend of half-truths, quarter-truths, and eighth-truths? Deja vu. That sounds like the recipe Thrive uses to mislead people.

    Wikipedia also has a thorough summary of references debunking von Daniken’s claims:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniken

    • Alan says :

      Why do you only use the words of other people? Do they actually matter to you? I would assume not considering the constant critiquing you do of them.

      Why not form your own articulated response to these inquiries?

      No evidence left behind… Who built the pyramids? In none of the tablets and artifacts left behind describing every little thing the Egyptians did in their every day life (from brushing their teeth to having sex) did they express any notion of building a pyramid. That would seem like a pretty huge thing to talk about doing in your period of history. Even with modern technology those pyramids could not be replicated, much less with copper tools, vine ropes and wooden logs. Why is there a symbol left behind in every ancient civilization that is eluding to the same conclusion that Nassim has for “free-energy” after his decades of research of mathematical proof? He does not elude to receiving that message from sun gods, so where did he get it?

      I’m glad you can find someone else’s response that “de-bunks” someone’s opinion, but what is your opinion? That’s what I want to hear from you. Not someone else talking through you.

      • ImprobableExplantions says :

        I know better, but I’d like to make an attempt.

        “Why do you only use the words of other people? Do they actually matter to you? I would assume not considering the constant critiquing you do of them.

        Why not form your own articulated response to these inquiries?”

        Aren’t you doing the same thing, in linking Nassim Haramein’s video? In linking his response to the attempt to debunk?

        “I’m glad you can find someone else’s response that “de-bunks” someone’s opinion, but what is your opinion? That’s what I want to hear from you. Not someone else talking through you.”

        This is the real problem. These are not opinions, these are facts. Facts do not change for different people. You can’t say ‘For me, they are created by people, but for you they are created by aliens.”

        “No evidence left behind… Who built the pyramids? In none of the tablets and artifacts left behind describing every little thing the Egyptians did in their every day life (from brushing their teeth to having sex) did they express any notion of building a pyramid. That would seem like a pretty huge thing to talk about doing in your period of history. Even with modern technology those pyramids could not be replicated, much less with copper tools, vine ropes and wooden logs”

        This is an argument from a negative. I’m sure we could replicate the pyramids with modern tools- We build skyscrapers regularly. We also built a glass-mock-up in Las Vegas. The only thing we lack is someone with the desire to build a new pyramid, and the financing it would take.

        As to building one using copper tools, I remember watching a discovery channel type special on the question of how pyramids were built, but I’m unable to remember enough details to find it today. What I do remember was that a team tried to build a scale pyramid using only period available resources, and that they did in fact succeed.

        I’m not able to find a link to the show I saw (it was many, many years ago), However some googling did find this site which seems fairly on topic.

        http://www.eloquentpeasant.com/2007/08/24/why-the-aliens-did-not-build-the-pyramids/

      • Ananda says :

        The Sun Gods or the Solars Beings, as they present themself to me, are alive and very busy in the solar system.

        They are the Evolve Intelligence who work with the awakens
        human to bring the reality as Thrive. They and We the awaken crew on Gaia working all toghether. As we are in the fringe of time line catastrophy, the Star Seeds Sould have come in this time to help in human body to anchor the news codes. We all resonate of the new codes and the CC are the reason. We did some amazing work as to stabelise tectonic plate, or protected planet earth from the high cosmic rays.
        All could be done through the self awareness, self reflective consciousness remember the God Perfection and is what the CC refer.
        So the Sun Gods is not a myth but we have the great privilege to have work all together and see the awesome potentiel of the immense universal love.

        So we are far from the conspiricy and so on.
        Namaste in love and service for all

      • alysdexia says :

        There’s one painting of a wooden crane (with timbers from the cedars of Lebanon) and blocks.

        Maybe you can shut up now: http://google.com/search?q=pyramids+geopolymer. This works for Puma Punku also.

        Ananda, you are a retarded liar.

  8. anticultist says :

    A suspicious person is a person who has something on his mind. He looks at the world with fixed and preoccupying expectation, and he searches repetitively, and only, for confirmation of it. He will not be persuaded to abandon his suspicion of some plan of action based on it. On the contrary, he will pay no attention to rational arguments except to find in them some aspect or feature that actually confirms his original view. Anyone who tries to influence or persuade a suspicious person will not only fail, but also, unless he is sensible enough to abandon his efforts early will, himself, become an object of the original suspicious idea.

  9. SonofZadok says :

    I watched ‘Thrive’ recently. It led me to this site in an attempt to hear the other side of some of the claims made in the film. I’ve read your posts here and followed some links mentioned. The film presents itself as a buffet of niche interests, each able to be argued on its own; and don’t we love that. Those who fight every point made in the film will find plenty to debunk and doubt, but to throw everything out, along with the “spiritual”, if you will, intention of film, would be a disservice. Truth is gradually revealed. A simple examination of the arc of history shows that we do not know all things; rarely what we do know ends up being complete, if right at all. Our species has come a long way, but we do need some major adjustments. Let us all come together to make the world a better place. Let the dreamers dream, let the fact-finders find, but let us all fight injustice where we see it. I think this film has a heart like that. Peace to you all and a Happy Thanksgiving. May your belly and heart be as full as your brains. :)

  10. anticultist says :

    Spreading untruths is not a service to mankind it is a disservice, this movie does this. It is filled with inaccuracies and outright fabrications and we are expected to ignore these and just let them slide because you think the film makers have good intentions ?

    That sir is what is the kind of mentality that got the world into the mess it is in the first place, this same mentality allowed religious people to do evil because they had their hearts in the right place with good intentions.

    Skeptics will not tolerate bullshit and this film is full of it.

  11. george says :

    Very interesting. See also this article: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1538-thriving.html from james randi’s website.

  12. red collie says :

    Many best wishes to various skeptics and uninformed people here! A 300-meter crop picture was witnessed forming at 0300 to 0315 in East Field on July 7, 2007 in southern England by Winston Keech, Gary King, and Paula Presdee Jones. Furthermore, Winston had four cameras rolling at the time, two visible and two infrared. There was no one in the field below, and no human heat signatures. There was a flash of “sheet lightning” a few minutes earlier at 0300. Something like 37 tons of wheat were flattened within 15 minutes in pitch dark. Of the large circles there, all were ellipses as measured on the hilly ground, yet perfect circles as photographed later from above, because of geometrical projection. Just after dayight, the British army sealed off the field, yet Winston and others stayed around to capture photos or videos of Briitsh military helicopters chasing small saucers or metallic orbs. Thus the experimental facts came in solidly four years ago, and strongly support a paranormal hypothesis. Please see a movie “East Field 07/07/07″ on YouTube. Those results were presented in a press conference one week later, but only reported in Wiltshire papers. Many other firmly-evidenced paranormal crop circles also are known, for example Stonehenge 1996, Milk Hill 2001, or Cherhill Down last summer 2011 in daylight. What the “Thrive” movie presented was fairly correct and reasonable. Hardly any skeptics know the first-hand facts, as collected for 20 years by several dozen crop-circle researchers in Wiltshire, who cannot be bribed or easily fooled. The several “Circlemakers” web or TV sites are disinformation fronts for UK military intel services, and do not tell the truth about anything at all. Please try to learn something about this subject. Best, red collie (a professional scientist who has been studying crop circles since 2002)

  13. muertos says :

    I had a full response to your (red collie’s) comment typed up, but I decided to retract it and let the facts and reasoning of the original article speak for themselves. They speak rather louder than the spurious arguments you make in your comment, and your comment does absolutely nothing to refute them. However, if any other commenters wish to add their two cents, I’ll obviously approve their statements.

  14. anticultist says :

    The opening sentence of the poster above Muertos [by Red Collie] is all that really needs addressing to discontinue the effectiveness of the post, the fact they have jumped into the conversation with both feet first proclaiming the skeptics are uninformed shows the type of bias one encounters in these kinds of debates.When they are shown to be a believer in a crank idea, and the crank idea has been shown thoroughly to be a crank idea via well thought out reasoning and argument, they resort to throwing out the joker card of skeptics are uninformed, ill researched or uneducated in the matter.

    What the person above Muertos couldn’t possibly know is that there are two posters here with over 2 decades each in investigating the topic out of personal interest. Both of whom were people who initially believed the crank ideas and then afterwards with due diligence and academic thoroughness began to strip the false claims of the crank claims away layer by layer.These so called uninformed skeptics probably have the same or more personal research into the topic as the crank believers have, only they have covered the counter claims from the academic and scientific field with an open mind. Yes that’s correct an actual open mind, that is the willingness to properly read both sides and study the necessary information to arrive at a healthy and honest answer, no matter the consequence to their current world view. Something most crank believers avoid doing and would never honestly admit they did, but always tend to gravitate away from doing.

    There is the difference between a skeptic and a crank, a skeptic is willing to take time to research the topics claims and the counter claims thoroughly, where as the crank will only use confirmation/disconfirmation bias to maintain their irregular belief system.

    Now for the facts about the crop circle and the footage you discuss:

    The fact is there are no actual scientific explanations of so called ‘real’ crop circles that venture into known physics, all of them try to elaborate on electro- magnetic vortices that come down from the sky, or UFO’s that otherwise are none existent to the rest of the human race. None of them explain why the majority of crop circles occur in Southern England without resorting to spirituality or ley lines, power points or meta magic explanations, which in the real world of science are meaningless entities.

    The believers are trying to say when something unusual happens such as a flash of light’lightning, and then some minor orb is present in footage, it must instantly allocate said occurrence to aliens and inter dimensional travel. This is an indicator into a persons belief and not an indicator into their intellectual honesty. An intellectually honest person would probably say ‘hey there was a light, there was an orb and to be honest I am unsure what it was at the moment’. They would then weigh up all the plausible explanations, such as ball lightning, people making crop circles and then compare it to inter dimensional space aliens and average out that the latter is less likely without evidence.

    They would then consider that crop circles have never been linked to UFO’s, not once, their are claims that they are linked but there is never footage that is proven to be what is claimed. There is no direct causation or even correlation, and these things are not mutually exclusive. In other words people can fake crop circles at the same time thunder storms and rare electrical phenomena occur, or people can fake crop circles while other things go on around like flashing lights in the distance and seagulls flying past. Likewise people wanting to sit on a hill and catch a crop circle forming are very likely to believe something happened than someone not looking for the occurrence.

    Now in the video you say it happened over a 15 minute period, where as in the actual footage entitled pt1 on you tube the time frame goes from 1.35 am to 3.50 am, that would be a 2+ hour time slot. The interviewees state that they could see nothing of the field during this period until the light started to come up over the hill. Leaving anyone with a rational mind o see that the 2 hour time gap as easily enough for a group of people to get to work in the field. Likewise there is no evidence the flash of light at 3 am was anything related to the crop circle forming, this is a huge leap of faith to make this claim.

    In part 2 the guy claims he felt a consciousness taunting him to film the footage ! This in itself is pseudo babble and extremely dubious, and impossible to validate in any scientific manner. No matter how sincere he comes across his experience is mere anecdotal. Interestingly he uses the plural of we, yet there is no other person who was in his team backing up his claims on the video. My question is was the ‘we’ the other guys doing the crop circle in the field ?
    In part 3 What he describes as a flash at 3:13 am on the footage actually looks like a video edit, as you can see the grain and line on the video frame, there is no flash at all on the footage.
    That is all there is to say about this as the footage shows nothing.

  15. Alan says :

    Anyone can respond to this, and I hope more than one person can chime in.

    I am just wondering if anyone who is interested in this type of skeptical “de-bunking” ideology has any vested interest on something that cannot be backed up with a mainstream scientific acceptance. Crop circles are obviously out of the picture, free-energy devices aren’t happening, and trying to prove the motives of the super rich aren’t of any concern…

    Is the monetary system in good working order in your neck of the woods? Can our planet’s addiction to fossil fuel be relied on much longer? Do you realize there are acts of genocide happening, not only in other countries but ours as well? These problems may not affect you personally, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t happening. I know I have gotten the “we aren’t here to discuss plans to save the world” response already, but these people you spend time “de-bunking” are and I believe they deserve at least a little respect.

    What I really want to get into a discussion about is what you guys (or girls) think about these issues. There are a lot of things happening right now that completely support what Thrive brings up (not just the oogey boogey stuff) and I was wondering if you all had a chance to think about the overall message they are trying to portray, that something needs to be done differently on this planet. Or do you possibly see nothing wrong with how things are run? I have no idea what you guys actually believe.

    There are truly some great minds involved in putting this work together. I respect any and all opinions, so let’s have it!

    • sabrina leigh says :

      Wow, Alan, I respect you for continuing this conversation at all, let alone calmly, while meurtos advances her myopic viewpoints and will not, it seems, allow a single shred of possible validity to anything you say. It seems all intuition and heart-centered wisdom is of no value to her and she is content to debate about trees while the forest goes up in flames. I am curious about her notions of god but refuse to spend any more energy into observing this endless debate. Meurtos doesn’t want to be convinced of anything – she rests in the certainty of her own views. Leave her to them.

      Much of what she says has, in fact, been challenged and/or disputed by scientists who’ve come to see a spiritual signature in everything from neutrinos to newborns. Could be extra-terrestrial or more likely inter-dimensional. Some of these thinkers dwell within the mainstream academic community, some do not. Doesn’t matter – meurtos is not listening.

      • muertos says :

        I’m actually a guy, but thanks for your comment.

      • anticultist says :

        sabrina leigh said : “Much of what she says has, in fact, been challenged and/or disputed by scientists who’ve come to see a spiritual signature in everything from neutrinos to newborns.”

        LOL, show some evidence for these claims would you, I am sure the more scientifically literate of us would get a big giggle from your links.

  16. muertos says :

    I can’t speak for anyone else, but answers to your questions about whether I think the world is 100% hunky-dory are explained on the FAQ which you have obviously not even bothered to read. So for starters I would direct you to the FAQ for this blog, you’ll find the link at the top of the page.

    The argument I hear you trying to make is that it’s perfectly OK for the makers of Thrive to lie to their audience so long as their hearts are in the right place. Well, it is not perfectly OK for the makers of Thrive to lie to their audience, regardless of their motivations for doing so. As you point out, this blog is not about plans to “save the world.” This blog is about the lies and errors in the movie Thrive. I will not engage in discussion of any other topic here.

  17. Luke says :

    Hi muertos, ( this is just your nick name I presume? )

    I was going to go away after my last comment but after having looked through other parts of your debunking, I couldn’t help my self writing to you again with this;

    Your quote; “Things that would have to be true if Gamble is right:

    * Intelligent extraterrestrials must exist.”
    *
    *
    *
    *

    WOW,,,, Now listen to me carefully… Please….

    Are you aware that there are more stars in our visible universe than the number of each sand grains in All the beaches on Earth? (Talking of “astronomical” numbers, this is just the case.)
    -It is very likely that each one of those stars has its own system meaning orbiting planets just like our own solar system.

    So what do you think are the odds that earth is THE ONLY PLANET with intelligent life form?

    Just take a wild guess.

    Luke

  18. muertos says :

    I happen to believe that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.

    Conjecture that such intelligent life exists, however, is a very far cry from believing that it is visiting Earth and pressing weird patterns into cornfields in England. If you had paid attention to the full list instead of zeroing in on only the first point, you would see that the purpose of the list is to demonstrate exactly how many assertions must ALL be true in order for Gamble to be correct. Whether intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is obviously one of those assumptions–but it doesn’t get you anywhere near the finish line, i.e., the conclusion that Gamble (and you, evidently) desperately want to reach.

    From your comments I’m rapidly getting the impression that logical reasoning is not your strong suit. Please make sure you understand what you’re commenting on before you comment on it. Thanks.

    • Luke says :

      Muertos, our modern science is merely 4 centuries old if you take Isaac newton as the first stepping stone.

      The planet earth is around 4.5 billion years old and the universe guesstimated at around, 14 billion.
      400 years is a very little time period when you scale it up against the age of the earth.
      Imagine if our science continues to progress for the next say, 1000 years. What kind of things may be possible?

      Now imagine that other (and much older) intelligent life form elsewhere had the same kind of progress as we had but for 100 million years. What kind of technology would they possess? Would it be too much to imagine that they have technologies to travel across the universe which to us seems impossible?
      Do you find this theory illogical?

      But yes, as you have mentioned, if all that has any links with the crop circle,,, I don’t know.

  19. muertos says :

    You are again using speculation to support something for which there is already a rational explanation supported by evidence.

    Do the awesome things that science may bring us in the distant future change the fact that we already know where crop circles come from, that their origin is entirely human in nature, and that this conclusion is verified by actual evidence as well as being totally consistent with logical reasoning? No. Not a single bit. In fact, the amazing things that science may bring us in the distant future are totally irrelevant to the subject of this blog.

    You concede that you don’t know if your conjectures have any link to crop circles. If you’ve conceded that point, you seem to have understood what this blog is about. Crop circles are not of extraterrestrial origin. Therefore, the things that the Thrive movie claims to the contrary are either deliberate falsifications or the results of shoddy research and poor reasoning. That’s the point this blog is trying to make. You seem reluctant to grasp this, but I’m glad you did finally.

  20. Luke says :

    What is your opinion about this clip from FOX?

    • anticultist says :

      This video is a total giggle, those plates look like they were made by a really poor level artist, almost like a child made it out of pasta and sprayed it gold. Also the constant statements of how people can’t plan circles to go east-west, how they can’t design these things on this scale, how they can’t bend the corn without breaking it, are all misnomers. The way they keep saying that only a human genius could do this and not some ordinary people, either that or aliens is actually too funny. I bet the people in Germany who made those symbols laughed their asses off when they heard those people say only non human genius intelligence could make those things.

  21. muertos says :

    Unpersuasive and unreliable. Nothing in the video is sourced. It’s just woo sensationalism, not fact, and engages in the exact same errors made in the Thrive movie. Note that the claims on which the extraterrestrial hypothesis hangs are all statements of opinion–in fact, the exact same opinion on which Foster Gamble bases his conclusion (a supposition that “these can’t have been made by humans!”) None of the physical manifestations presented here are incapable of being explained by the human causation explanation. The addition of the psychic as “evidence” of what’s going on is particularly spurious.

    • Luke says :

      Fine,,, so just what makes it so unreliable? Many of the claims in this video matches with numerous other indipendant claims. Bent stems with NO structural damages! Still growing! -How do this explain this????

      Seems to me that you don’t trust anybody except some nutters who claims to goes out in some one’s crop fields for the past 20 years and making them every week in total darkness, -Hey, that sounds like fun!

      So far, I have not seen any demonstration videos from those crop circle makers making the entire crop circles only in the middle of the night. One guys has done one using night vision (which were not easily available to public in the 80s and 90s).

      The end end result of this guys’ crop circle looked – very man made- WOBBLY!

      • Sarah says :

        “So far, I have not seen any demonstration videos from those crop circle makers making the entire crop circles only in the middle of the night”

        Here’s one example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtkMrNrEMLM

      • anticultist says :

        Thanks for the video Sarah, I think that shows how a group of people can make complex crop circles through the night easily enough.

      • alysdexia says :

        They needn’t be in darkness. They can wait until the crop’s been passed over and in daytime crawl and be hidden even to traffic.

        The problem with crop circles is that the fractals only arose after cheap 32-bit PCs with GUIs in the late 80s, and grew in complexity as computers did. There were none such in the 1920s or in the decades on either side when fractals were discovered, when it would be more helpful. What do crop circles say that we don’t already know?

    • alysdexia says :

      WtF is this woo? and whom do you parrot; that is, where did you learn this so-called term that’s not even in the dictionary?

  22. muertos says :

    Now you’re just dredging up crap and throwing it at the argument hoping it sticks. That’s not going to work here. I thought you grasped the central point of this blog, but now it seems you haven’t. I’ll just quote again a key section of this article and see if you can get it through your head this time.

    “In preferring an exotic explanation (extraterrestrials) over a more mundane one (human pranksters), Gamble is ignoring an important rule of evidence and reasoning: the simpler explanation is almost always the correct one. Once we have evidence that there are human beings out there making crop circles, the conclusion that all crop circles are of human origin becomes what we can call a rebuttable presumption. That means, unless you can rebut it with specific evidence to show that something else is in fact true, you must conclude that the rebuttable presumption is the explanation.”

    • Luke says :

      I am beginning to have a feeling that I am trying to communicate with some sort of, dumb AI programme that has been instructed to bring down any thing that is not written in the primary school textbooks without even trying to give any explanations.

      You said; “Once we have evidence that there are human beings out there making crop circles the conclusion that all crop circles are of human origin becomes what we can call a rebuttable presumption.”

      -In response to that, I am asking you my logical, rational, reasonable and obvious question again;
      -Have you ever seen any human crop circle makers who can make perfect, none-wobbly crop circles entirely in the pitch darkness in just 5 hours with out breaking a single stem? (Or even breaking the stems in matter of facts to make it easier)
      -All crops circles are made during the night to avoid the farmers with shot guns am I wrong? Unless you have conclusive evidence to that, your argument is not any more valid that those who claims that crop circles are made by little green Martians.

      Do I sound like a crap again?

  23. Alan says :

    Luke – you sound like a normal person, not a crap. There is no point in making topics of discussion on this website, there is only one answer to these people. Any kind of rebuttal with your own opinion will automatically be discredited by the fact that you do not have a PhD in UFOlogy… The people that do study UFOs believe in “pseudo-science”… Blah Blah Blah…

    Try joining in some discussions over on AlienScientist.com forums, they are open to the fact that we are not alone, and we have room to grow in this universe.

  24. anticultist says :

    A PhD in ufology is an oxymoron, how can one study the science of something that is unscientifically proven to exist in the first place ?

    This literally shows the fallacious thinking you people attribute to logic.

    Trust me when I say this, you command no respect with your pseudo scientific worldviews, and your moral high ground reveals your belief rather than your intellect.

    My advice to you boys would be to move on, you are being schooled here for the world to see, if you value your credibility now is the time to accept defeat.

    • drgibbon says :

      I don’t necessarily believe in aliens making crop circles (it’s feasible, although my initial feeling is that the chances are very slim), but the point Alan was trying to make has some weight. Academics (I am one myself), and other people who believe that the scientific method is the best/only way to generate knowledge, can be quite closed minded, and perhaps a bit haughty towards those not trained in such methods (note that I am not supporting crop circle arguments here, merely making an assertion from my own personal experience).

      You made a distinction in the post below between science and arts, discrediting the latter as a valid way to generate knowledge. This is interesting, since you were using knowledge apparently gathered from psychology (a post way up in the thread) to categorise and define “suspicious people”. In my opinion, psychology sits somewhere between science and the arts: It certainly is not a “hard science”, yet you are willing to believe/employ this kind of knowledge. A side issue is that one can take your “suspicious people” paragraph and apply it equally well to many of the posts from people on either side of the arguments here.

      I think what this debate highlights is how difficult it is to know what to believe in (and we are all functioning on belief). I know the idea that “the scientific method is always best” carries a lot of weight today, and it is extraordinarily useful, but the fact is that it fails to explain/capture much of our lived experience. For example, we could say that ultimately, everything has a basis in physical matter; therefore, everything is physics; therefore, an exhaustively true and correct physics should provide a complete explanation for reality. This may in fact be true, but that would be akin to the knowledge of God. For our humble human purposes, explanations at a materialistic level (or lower level of analysis) can seem correct, yet be misguided. Let me give a really quick example of how this can happen;

      1) Person A is diagnosed with depression.
      2) Our neuroscientific belief is that Person A’s depression is caused by a chemical imbalance in their brain (which may be partly true), therefore, the way to treat the problem is to introduce chemicals into the brain which will correct this chemical imbalance.

      This seems very rational and logical (and from the level of neuroscientific analysis, it is), however, there can be serious errors here. Let’s say that Person A is an Indigenous person living in a country with a history of racism, and they lead a life where they are confronted with racism (overt or covert), and/or their family-unit/culture has broken down as a result of colonial practises of the past. Does it make sense to administer anti-depressants (whilst ignoring the social causation/social roots)? I am not saying there are no possible effective pharmacological treatments, but they must have the power to bring about change/healing across society (if the culture as a whole was implicated), therefore the effect/use of drug treatments needs to be viewed from a sociological/historical etc point of view (not simply chemical/physical). We are not only looking at hard science here, but encompassing the arts too, which is important. The simple reason being that the arts compose a part of our lives, and therefore they have _something_ to say about human life that cannot be expressed any other way.

      Sorry I got so off topic, but I believe that this sort of example demonstrates one of the greatest dangers of science. A conclusion formed at a particular level of analysis can seem so correct that it is self-evident. My hope is to see more cross-disciplinary communication (i.e. more respect for hard science from the arts/social divisions, and vice versa).

      I actually have nothing to say about the Thrive movie (no doubt they make incorrect statements). I didn’t intend to support or debunk the movie, but just wanted to offer my thoughts on some broader concepts of how we are constructing at our world-views. Logic and the scientific method are undoubtedly useful, but it is completely possible to apply science and logic to the world, and still bring about suffering. Food for thought I guess.

      • anticultist says :

        “You made a distinction in the post below between science and arts” Indeed I did

        “discrediting the latter as a valid way to generate knowledge” – Show me where I said this ? I made the point that a PhD in ufology is not scientific, so your further points about how you chose to translate my point are irrelevant and do not hold.

        If you think Psychology is an art, then please by all means explain to me why they utilise the scientific method to collate data about peoples dispositions, rather than make paintings and take photographs with mere claims ?

        There are yet to be given empirical data sets and facts that can actually be assessed in any lab or scientific method to verify the existence of aliens and ufo’s let alone any data sets to claim they are here on Earth and meddling with our colons. This alone should ring your alarm bells as a so called scientist, because without even a shred of data that can actually be thoroughly analysed, and given an indicator that it is off world and unusual the UFO community merely resides in folklore and hear say. This is not the scientific method and anyone who attempts to even give credence to such a topic as if it had the same weight as the scientific method is quite literally wrong.

        I am an artist and an engineer [qualified not practising] so I have nothing against the arts, I just don’t use my arts to make factual claims about the world about me based on artistic whims, instead I would use my art to explain the world about me utilising already well established scientific facts.

  25. anticultist says :

    And before you point to Bowmans PhD in ufology given to him from Melbourne University, allow me to enlighten you, that it is a doctorate in Philosophy.

    That means it is not a science, it is an arts.

    • drgibbon says :

      @anticultist: For some reason there’s no reply button on your latest post. Anyways;

      “Show me where I said this ? I made the point that a PhD in ufology is not scientific, so your further points about how you chose to translate my point are irrelevant and do not hold”.

      They hold for what they are; an illustration of how a narrow faith in science can potentially go awry when applied to society (really nothing to do with Thrive though). But as far as I can see, Alan was referring to being non-university educated; he didn’t mention science, that was your interpretation of what he said. You talked about Bowman’s PhD being arts, not science, and therefore not relevant. Then you go on to say “I just don’t use my arts to make factual claims about the world about me based on artistic whims, instead I would use my art to explain the world about me utilising already well established scientific facts.”

      So yes, you appear to establish your worldview through scientific facts. That’s fine, I was just suggesting that sometimes this kind of knowledge is insufficient. I agree that the Thrive stuff on crop circles is most likely bogus, the first thing that came to my mind was “if they were so advanced and wanted to help us, why would they choose to communicate in such a way?”. Plus there’s some really impressive human made crop circles from the links here people have given.

      But if you wanted to entertain the possibility of alien life visiting our planet, human scientific fact circa 2012 is probably not going to suffice. Say there were alien civilisations advanced enough to warp through space, whatever. Considering we are not even close to that level of development, wouldn’t it be likely that our current scientists would not be able to fathom whatever they are doing? They might even be able to interface with human minds without being physically present, who knows (so human ‘abductees’ never leave their beds). Essentially, science can’t say much about issues that are beyond its current capabilities to know. Again, I’m not supporting the Thrive alien stuff (I did enjoy parts of it but found a lot of the movie to be flakey). But even if things are only theoretically possible and the probability (from our current point of view) is very low, we shouldn’t disparage those who do believe in them, and in argument I think it’s best to be civil, and not come across all “you got schooled”.

      “If you think Psychology is an art, then please by all means explain to me why they utilise the scientific method to collate data about peoples dispositions, rather than make paintings and take photographs with mere claims ?”

      It is true, there is strong tendency within psychology today towards positivist empiricism. However, I believe it was Richard Feynman who called psychology a “cargo cult”, in that they/we take the “empiricist techniques” from the hard sciences, and apply them incorrectly. A permanent problem in psychology is that we cannot know for certain the state/consciousness of another person, it is always inferred (through behaviour, neuroscience, whatever). But we don’t have the mathematical precision of physicists when making inferences; we are dealing with more complex constructions (a conscious human being, many conscious human beings if we want our results to generalise). These inferences require human interpretation, and cultural biases come in (for participants and researchers), etc. There are just so many ways to theorise and argue about the results of almost any psychological experiment.

      A lot of the very rigorous psychological studies say quite basic things about humans (much of cognitive psychology), and when you get to the level of defining personality types (such as your quoted “suspicious person”), well, I’ll just say that there are so many different theories out there, many of which sound appealing, but they are “soft science”, very open to interpretation. The history of psychology is littered with fads and explanations for human behaviour, many of which captured people’s interest for a while, and then faded away. There are certain long lasting traditions that have proven to be useful (IQ testing for example), but even here we find precious little in the way of hard facts. Freud used empirical data (idiographic), but his inferences have come under heavy fire (although his legacy lives on in the psychodynamic approach). The nomothetic approach is probably more accepted in the study of personality these days, but it carries its own set of problems, and one would be hard pressed to find claims made about people that are indisputable.

      I think the really interesting thing here is how people choose what to believe in, or who to trust (similar problem in computer security, how to know which machines to trust). I’ve just made all these claims about psychology, but how do you know whether to believe them or not? Where’s my “evidence”? To truly know, you’d have to dive into the psychological literature, and even then your reading path, interests, and predispositions will most likely lead you to some pretty unique conclusions. Perhaps the Internet makes this easier, but again, which nodes to trust?

      Sorry, far too long, but yes, I agree with you that the scientific method should not be misappropriated. However I don’t think a lack of scientific evidence really tells us much about the possibility of aliens, but ditto for the existence of crop circles, magnetic particles, whatever.

      • anticultist says :

        “Essentially, science can’t say much about issues that are beyond its current capabilities to know.” I don’t ascribe to this as this is what the scientific method and experiment are all about, the whole process is one of learning and and understanding what is occurring exactly. You posit that these civilizations may have technology that is way advanced, I posit that irrespective of this factor if they existed they would exist in our environment, rendering them subject to our laws and our physics. Which would imply they were not so beyond our capabilities of comprehension as they would be as physical as we are if such things existed. If you are discussing invisible space thingies then we have nothing really to discuss here as those kind of things belong in the realms of ghosts, actually the entire discussion of aliens belongs in the realms of ghosts as it is mere conjecture and hear say.

        ” But we don’t have the mathematical precision of physicists when making inferences; we are dealing with more complex constructions (a conscious human being, many conscious human beings if we want our results to generalise). ” Absolutely, human beings are usually different under circumstances, but it can not be denied that there are trends and expected behaviours humans do, and all of us are limited to certain patterns that are dictated by our make up. We could say there will be one in a thousand who would not behave in such a manner based on the known trends and studies [but even their behaviour is known it's merely unlikely statistically speaking], this may well not be solid fact but it can be stated that it is extremely likely and known that certain behaviours and conditions arise under explainable circumstances.
        Psychology may well have been described as cargo cult by Feynmann a man who I admire, but just because he said this does not make his opinion on the matter any more relevant than yours or mine. You see the thing about psychology is it is not about the opinions or conclusions as much as it is about the conditions that are in place which might lead to particular outcomes. There is no definitive conclusion when treating a person or discussing a persons mental well being, but there is a possible expected set of outcomes and catalysts, and there are not unexpected outcomes that diverge away from the possible natural world we live in, all of them are based on existing factors in the world we live in and our physical make up. There is nothing magical about the notion of psychology, it is all based on current knowledge of the brain, social behaviour, and mental health conditions of people all of which exist as solid information although somewhat non physical.

        To try and explain psychology away as some meaningless art form to me is rather belittling of how the human condition and social well being of people is in our society should be taken. Peoples mental well being is as important as their physical, and psychology looks to explain and treat peoples illnesses through as well informed rationale as it can get to, to look at it as if it is mediocre fads seems a little trite.

      • drgibbon says :

        @anticultist: Not sure why there’s no reply button on your posts, so I have to post here. (I guess this is going to appear directly above the post I am replying to??).

        “You posit that these civilizations may have technology that is way advanced, I posit that irrespective of this factor if they existed they would exist in our environment, rendering them subject to our laws and our physics.” I understand what you are saying, and it’s a fair point of view, but I wasn’t suggesting they exist outside of reality. I was suggesting that it is feasible (not necessarily true) that there are alien civilisations so far evolved that their science seems to us as impossibility/magic (for example, accessing and interacting with a consciousness over great distances). Actually, it is even conceivable that “things” exist outside of what we know as reality. Science can’t really comment on such things right now (other than to set a reasonable probability level of belief), and none of this validates Thrive in any way. My only point is that there are certain questions that the scientific method is currently incapable of answering (e.g. does God exist, are there civilisations so evolved that they are incomprehensible to us, is the true nature of reality illusion, and so on).

        “We could say there will be one in a thousand who would not behave in such a manner based on the known trends and studies”
        If you can devise interesting psychology experiments where you get only 1 in 1,000 defying your theories on a regular basis, I suggest you take up a research career in psychology as you will be extremely successful :D

        But seriously, psychology experiments are often notoriously difficult to replicate. Yes, certain behaviours can be known to be likely. However, there is always a trade off between the controlled lab environment, and generalisation to the human population at large, across situations, across genders, across ages, across cultures, across genetic makeups, across family units, the list goes on. The more the theory deals with higher-order / whole-person thinking, the more difficult prediction becomes. If I posit a psychological theory about you (that appears to be plausible), must it necessarily be true because psychology is empirical? (There are a lot of theories out there =)

        “You see the thing about psychology is it is not about the opinions or conclusions as much as it is about the conditions that are in place which might lead to particular outcomes. There is no definitive conclusion when treating a person or discussing a persons mental well being, but there is a possible expected set of outcomes and catalysts, and there are not unexpected outcomes that diverge away from the possible natural world we live in, all of them are based on existing factors in the world we live in and our physical make up. There is nothing magical about the notion of psychology, it is all based on current knowledge of the brain, social behaviour, and mental health conditions of people all of which exist as solid information although somewhat non physical.”
        Clinical psychology is a branch of psychology at large. I was referring to the enterprise as a whole. The direction psychology heads in most definitely revolves around opinions, conclusions, biases, friendships, financial concerns, etc, as well as empirical data. I’m not sure why you are say that psychology isn’t “magical”. We were comparing arts and science, I wouldn’t say that the arts are somehow magical. My personal belief is that a psychology purely based on “hard science” techniques must necessarily be limiting, if it is indeed the goal of psychology to understand the human mind, then it must understand all of it, not just the parts that seem amenable to scientific study. Take some of Jung’s work for example, it’s extremely broad and a lot of his ideas I’m sure could would not be rubber stamped as “scientific”, but many people have found them influential, and they are a part of psychology nonetheless.

        By the way, you posited mental health as being “somewhat non physical”, yet you don’t allow our aliens friends this same partial non-physicality (j/k ;).

        “To try and explain psychology away as some meaningless art form to me is rather belittling of how the human condition and social well being of people is in our society should be taken. Peoples mental well being is as important as their physical, and psychology looks to explain and treat peoples illnesses through as well informed rationale as it can get to, to look at it as if it is mediocre fads seems a little trite.”
        I am not explaining away psychology, I do not find it meaningless, I do not say it is purely an art form, and I do study it. I am just giving you my opinion that it is not a hard science. I believe it incorporates elements of art and science (and that it should embrace not only lower levels of analysis, such as chemistry, but higher levels too, such as sociology).

        Psychology is much broader than just clinical psychology. The ideas about fads in the literature was not my own, but lifted from a paper by the 1962 president of the American Psychological Association (Paul E. Meehl). I agree with you 100% that mental health is important, it’s a research area that I am heading into. I just find your defense of psychological theories as being necessarily true because they are “based on empirical data and the scientific method” to be perhaps a little uninformed.

      • anticultist says :

        Perhaps my reading list in the subject is not as large as yours, perhaps my citations are less than yours, but uninformed? no.

      • anticultist says :

        “By the way, you posited mental health as being “somewhat non physical”, yet you don’t allow our aliens friends this same partial non-physicality jk ;)

        This actually brings me to a point, you seem to have an interest in aliens and crop circles judging by the fact you have only made posts in this particular blog entry, and by certain tell tale admissions you have made through out your posts, such as that above.

        Who says aliens are even my friends ? I mean you are ascribing emotional attachments to invisible and as yet unproven beings already. This is an indicator into your emotional stance on the topic, and in fact lets me know that you already consider the notion of friendly aliens visiting Earth to be a likable if not wanted occurrence.

        It seems to me you are more leaning towards them existing and being here than not, I may be wrong on that last part, but going on your own inadvertent ? admissions in your own posts it seems you are pro alien visiting Earth.

      • anticultist says :

        In continuation of that point of you being friends with invisible beings, do you also have the same emotional investment and kinship with big foot and the loch ness monster ? Are they your friends too ? Do you have a friendship with the ghost that lives in the basement of your house ?

        As I am willing to bet you may try and pass it off as if you were making a joke, which you prefixed the statement with above, rather pointlessly though because you made a plea in that joke for me to give credence to invisible beings, which to anyone with half a rational mind would see is clearly ridiculous.

      • Alan says :

        You make statements concluding that since you cannot see something it does not exist? What about radio waves / cell phone signal / satellite TV etc.? These wavelengths are obviously not in our visual spectrum yet you most likely do not question their existence. The topic of science becomes philosophical very shortly after acknowledging something’s existence based on whether or not you can or, in the case of extraterrestrials, big foot or nessy, have seen them.

        So, if you take for instance a radio wave, you know it’s there right? So how exactly do you measure that wave and make a coherent audible noise? You ‘tune’ into that frequency, thus making the “invisible” visible or in this case audible. It is a method of the exchange of energy or information. Some people are more sensitive to higher or lower frequencies often resulting in ‘extra-sensory’ abilities. What the process of science relies on is the external measurement of these frequencies, so the results can be reproduced and so on. But what scientists often exclude from their tools of measurement / sensing abilities is their own body, which may in fact dull their senses to these types of phenomenon thus causing their hypothesis to exclude the reproducibility of the results experienced by someone else who can sense some subtle type of energy.

        So basically, science is YOUR story, based on YOUR experiences of phenomenon that you witness. If it takes a certain level of sensitivity to experience that phenomenon then maybe that story is not true for everyone, but does that mean it isn’t true to you? Only you can decide what is true (that is meant for everyone). “The truth lies within” is a good quote to use here.

      • anticultist says :

        “You make statements concluding that since you cannot see something it does not exist? What about radio waves / cell phone signal / satellite TV etc.? These wavelengths are obviously not in our visual spectrum yet you most likely do not question their existence. The topic of science becomes philosophical very shortly after acknowledging something’s existence based on whether or not you can or, in the case of extraterrestrials, big foot or nessy, have seen them.”

        I had a feeling you would retort with this line of rhetoric, and quite frankly it is more transparent than aliens might be if they were as invisible as you are trying to posit.

        There are actually testable hypothesis to ascertain that radio waves exist, they can be seen to exist around us in the universe via pulsars and other such radio emissions from stars, and can be recreated through electronics which humans themselves created. We can actually conduct experiments to validate their existence, now show me the same for invisible alien life forms visiting Earth in their space ships. As I thought your line of argument is not only weak it falls apart on a brief view.

        Surely you could come up with a more reasonable and evidenced line of thinking than this one, it is almost juvenile.

      • anticultist says :

        “So, if you take for instance a radio wave, you know it’s there right? So how exactly do you measure that wave and make a coherent audible noise? You ‘tune’ into that frequency, thus making the “invisible” visible or in this case audible. It is a method of the exchange of energy or information. Some people are more sensitive to higher or lower frequencies often resulting in ‘extra-sensory’ abilities. What the process of science relies on is the external measurement of these frequencies, so the results can be reproduced and so on. But what scientists often exclude from their tools of measurement / sensing abilities is their own body, which may in fact dull their senses to these types of phenomenon thus causing their hypothesis to exclude the reproducibility of the results experienced by someone else who can sense some subtle type of energy.

        So basically, science is YOUR story, based on YOUR experiences of phenomenon that you witness. If it takes a certain level of sensitivity to experience that phenomenon then maybe that story is not true for everyone, but does that mean it isn’t true to you? Only you can decide what is true (that is meant for everyone). “The truth lies within” is a good quote to use here.”

        Your entire statement above literally says, woo woo woo, faith.

        Essentially you are saying that in order to know of the existence of aliens, we have to abandon the scientific method and simply trust our own intuitions and rely on faith. Figuratively speaking you must be a fan of the ‘dark ages’ are you ? Because that kind of reasoning is lifted straight from this period of anti academic thinking.

      • Alan says :

        Here’s something to think about regarding the full functioning of the brain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjQ8xIEyQlI&feature=endscreen&NR=1

      • drgibbon says :

        “Perhaps my reading list in the subject is not as large as yours, perhaps my citations are less than yours, but uninformed? no.”

        I imagine I would be uninformed compared to you regarding engineering and whatever your arts degree was, it’s no big deal. It was just my impression from what you had written. Undoubtedly there would be very well-informed people who would disagree with what I had written, but you didn’t seem to be aware of many of the issues surrounding psychology. But I could be wrong.

        “It seems to me you are more leaning towards them existing and being here than not, I may be wrong on that last part, but going on your own inadvertent ? admissions in your own posts it seems you are pro alien visiting Earth.”

        It was a joke (hence the j/k and smiley), but I was talking about possibilities that I think sound fantastic. But I wouldn’t say that “yes I believe they are occurring”. Only that they are feasible. Nothing different to what I already said.

        “This actually brings me to a point, you seem to have an interest in aliens and crop circles judging by the fact you have only made posts in this particular blog entry, and by certain tell tale admissions you have made through out your posts, such as that above.”

        I have no special interest in aliens and crop circles, I know very little about whatever information is out there on the subjects. Someone gave me Ancient Aliens to watch once, and it was pretty silly so I turned it off after about 10 minutes. I am posting in this thread because I looked up Thrive while I was watching it, and found this. I like to rant, but I don’t have as great an interest as yourself (and muertos) in the Holy War Against Thrive (although you all seem to be doing just fine) :P

        “Who says aliens are even my friends ?”

        Trust me anticultist, they are here and they ARE your friends ;)

        “you made a plea in that joke for me to give credence to invisible beings, which to anyone with half a rational mind would see is clearly ridiculous.”

        No, to give credence (however slight) to the possibility of invisible beings. The certainty of this is something that you (and I) likely cannot actually know. I’m not saying whether they do or do not exist. And besides, you already gave credence to non-physical aspects of a human being! (Argh, I knew it, WE are the invisible aliens!! ;P )

        “There are actually testable hypothesis to ascertain that radio waves exist, they can be seen to exist around us in the universe via pulsars and other such radio emissions from stars, and can be recreated through electronics which humans themselves created.”

        Of course, because we already know they exist. Before they were known to exist (and before technology was available to test), a theory could have been made about invisible things which science did not yet know about, and could not yet test. All it means is that science may uncover things we do not yet know about (and it will, whether invisible beings is one of them, we’ll see eh? :P )

        In my opinion, it’s fine to conjecture about things that are not yet testable, as long as they are presented as conjecture, and not statements of fact. I believe it is an acceptable scientific position to be able to entertain ideas and theories that are not yet testable, although this can be disagreed with (e.g. Popperian falsification). Although in terms of actually doing science, it wouldn’t be very productive to spend too much time on these things, unless you had some idea of a way to come up with a test, or the thing you couldn’t prove was producing useful results somehow.

        To take it back to Thrive, yes they are presenting the alien stuff as fact, but they believe they have evidence. I personally would be more inclined to go with the skeptics on that particular matter, but that doesn’t mean I discount the possibility of aliens.

        “Your entire statement above literally says, woo woo woo, faith.”

        Certainly. You have faith in the enterprise of science to tell you what is and is not possible in this reality/universe/life. I do too, I just see it as limited in certain areas and for certain questions (while being very powerful in others).

      • anticultist says :

        “Of course, because we already know they exist. Before they were known to exist (and before technology was available to test), a theory could have been made about invisible things which science did not yet know about, and could not yet test. All it means is that science may uncover things we do not yet know about (and it will, whether invisible beings is one of them, we’ll see eh? :P )”

        This point was to Alan, not sure why you are replying o that.

        Athough that isn’t how it happened with radio waves, but if you think speculating about invisible aliens will bring forth a new field of study to show they are here and tinkering about so be it, personally I see that as a little waste of time and energy.

        “Certainly. You have faith in the enterprise of science to tell you what is and is not possible in this reality/universe/life. I do too, I just see it as limited in certain areas and for certain questions (while being very powerful in others).”

        Also directed towards Alans post, but yeah it might be limited at ansering say philosophical conundrums such as, do invisible aliens exist ? But then science is not designed to answer those ambiguities in the first place, so to claim science is not good enough to answer those questions is actually a misnoma, because that is not it’s intention as you are already aware, at least i hope,

      • drgibbon says :

        “Athough that isn’t how it happened with radio waves, but if you think speculating about invisible aliens will bring forth a new field of study to show they are here and tinkering about so be it, personally I see that as a little waste of time and energy.”

        Agreed, that would likely be quite unproductive, and hopefully all our scientists are not doing this :P But relying on our science to tell you whether advanced alien civilisations exist (or not) in the universe would be similar to a discussion taking place (say before Australia was discovered) about what animals exist in the world. The kangaroo wouldn’t come up because no one had yet seen it. It’s the problem of induction. The universe is so unfathomably massive that there’s very little empirical data about what is out there. And what (if anything) is outside our universe? Who can say?

        I agree with you that there is probably wrong information being presented about alien visitations, but I don’t think it’s right to say that someone is crazy or irrational for entertaining the possibilities.

        “but yeah it might be limited at ansering say philosophical conundrums such as, do invisible aliens exist ? But then science is not designed to answer those ambiguities in the first place, so to claim science is not good enough to answer those questions is actually a misnoma, because that is not it’s intention as you are already aware, at least i hope,”

        I’m not sure it’s a misnomer, but I pretty much agree with what you’re saying. Although I don’t mean that science “isn’t good enough”, only that certain things can not be settled by appeals to current science (in my opinion). If it is not designed to answer certain questions, then we can’t trust it strongly for answers to those certain questions (many would argue against this though). But the point of this blog page (whether crop circles were made by aliens or people) seems to be fair game, I have no argument against that. As to the possibility of aliens (advanced immeasurably beyond our capabilities) somehow entering our atmosphere, minds, or whatever, I don’t see how present science could really know.

      • alysdexia says :

        Gosts are universal, consistent, observed, recorded, persistent, and determined.

        http://google.com/search?q=site:quora.com+saiwol

      • boswell says :

        Which means shit.

        Ghosts are either evidenced as being a real material phenomena that can be measured or they are not. Sad for you that they are not measured, therefore are not real. Bring forth measurable data sets for them and I can change my mind easy enough in favour of their reality, until then it’s just the imaginary beliefs of a society.

  26. Anastasio says :

    Greetings Muertos,

    Thank you for the work and effort you have put in to this debunking.

    Regarding the ‘strange magnetic particles’ found in crop circles, hematite (Fe203) and magnetite (Fe304), I would like to add that it is important to note that these two iron oxide minerals are primary ores of iron and are found in most soils throughout the world where they act as an essential micronutrient for plant growth.

    To NOT find these iron oxides inside a crop circle would be surprising.

    Although the chalky, alkaline soil of Wiltshire may not have a high iron oxide content, the industrial fertilizer (which is rich in powdered magnetite) used by farmers to increase plant yield most definitely does. The mysterious centrifugal force behind the spreading of these oxides can most likely be accounted for by the use of a centrifugal fertilizer spreader; a hell of a lot more palatable and practical than Levengood’s imagined plasma vortices?

  27. Alan says :

    Can I just make a recommendation? It’s a technique that has been used for thousands of years. Meditate. Find a nice guided meditation or just sit there on your computer chair and close your eyes. Pay attention to your breathing. Make it slower, deeper and more regular allowing your diaphragm to expand your belly as you inhale. Count the length of inhale for slow count of four seconds through your nose, hold it for seven seconds and slowly release through your mouth for eight seconds. Keep your tongue gently pressed to the area just behind your upper teeth while doing this for eight complete cycles. Once you complete the eighth cycle, just breathe normal while keeping your eyes closed for the next couple of minutes. Let your thoughts flow freely in your head, just observing them, allowing them to be there without paying any particular attention to any of them.

    Let me know how that goes for you. If you find it hard to keep a clear mind, try listening to some ambient noise like rainfall or waves and focus only on that noise once you complete the eight cycles.

    Sorry for never staying on the topic of crop circles…

    • muertos says :

      I’m quite familiar with meditation techniques, thank you. In fact I live with someone who practices meditation regularly. Curiously, I haven’t observed that the procedure makes this person more likely to believe in New Age mythology or conspiracy theories, nor does it seem to affect the capacity for critical thinking or reasoned inquiry.

  28. Alan says :

    I wasn’t trying to question your intelligence on the subject, nor trying to connect it to any kind of new age movement. Here’s a more ‘scientific’ explanation of what meditation does that I just stumbled on after that first post:

    • Hollywood Tomfortas says :

      @Alan

      Curious that you would link to a video on meditation by John Hagelin, undoubtedly the most political of all transcendental meditation teachers around today. Besides being professor of physics at Maharishi University of Management in Fairfield, Iowa, Hagelin has been a presidential candidate for the Natual Law Party in 3 election cycles. He’s like a New Age Ralph Nader. (Or maybe who Ralph Nader would be if Ralph would ever meditate ;=)

      In Georgia Kelly’s HuffPo article on THRIVE, a commenter brings up Hagelin’s paper on how to achieve peace through the Maharishi Effect.

      I’m actually surprised Hagelin didn’t make it into THRIVE. Maybe in the sequel he will. And he would make one hell of a good vice presidential running mate for Ron Paul.

      Check out here what Hagelin’s meditation will do for the world

      http://www.mum.edu/m_effect/hagelin.html

      Maharishi Effect
      Achieving World Peace: Theory and Research

      by Dr. John Hagelin

      Abstract

      We consider the implications of the latest advances in scientific knowledge for the areas of conflict resolution and world peace. We examine scientific evidence for a new technology of world peace based on the unified field of natural law and its practical utilization through extended, field effects of consciousness. We assess the practicality of this new technology using direct, experimental intervention studies in critical test regions, including the Middle East. We conclude that this technology of world peace offers a cost-effective, scientifically validated means of achieving and sustaining a stable state of peace in the international arena.

  29. Hollywood Tomfortas says :

    muertos,

    My sense is that the political agenda of THRIVE is far more compatible with the Natural Law ideas of John Hagelin than it is with the libertarianism of Ron Paul.

    Look up Hagelin’s Wikipedia entry and then also read the summary of the Maharish Effect here:

    http://www.mum.edu/m_effect/index.html

    Foster Gamble’s obsession with the millions of people who will view THRIVE and thus bring about positive action in the world is another version of the Maharishi Effect which says that if a certain threshold number of people in a given city practice TM (1% of the city population), then the crime rate drops precipitously and world peace is achieved — at least in that city.

    Other links on that page provide you with the irrefutable scientific proof of this peace-making effect that you always demand of the THRIVErs.

    • muertos says :

      I am skeptical of this “Maharishi Effect,” but I’m not surprised that it’s less than two degrees of separation from Thrive. It definitely sounds like something the Thrive crowd would fall for. I’m also not surprised that this Maharishi thing is a very successful business. While I do think meditation improves one’s mental well being (I have done it myself), reducing crime seems like a stretch.

      • Alan says :

        Here’s a bit more extensive list of research done on this subject of TM:

        http://www.davidlynchfoundation.org/scientific-evidence-that-the-program-works.html#top

        It’s being implemented in troubled schools and also with veterans who suffer from PTSD with very positive results. David Lynch is trying to get this out to people who need it with little to no cost while using his fame to get support from other actors. I haven’t actually found much of a connection between Thrive and TM, besides John Hagelin which I didn’t know was mentioned in Thrive, and just so happens to support TM. That connection is a stretch, not the reduction of crime through a collective peaceful consciousness.

      • anticultist says :

        “Buddhism, like the other great faiths, has not always lived up to its principles – there are numerous examples of Buddhists engaging in violence and even war.

        in the 14th century Buddhist fighters led the uprising that evicted the Mongols from China
        in Japan, Buddhist monks trained Samurai warriors in meditation that made them better fighters
        In the twentieth century Japanese Zen masters wrote in support of Japan’s wars of aggression. For example, Sawaki Kodo (1880–1965) wrote this in 1942: It is just to punish those who disturb the public order. Whether one kills or does not kill, the precept forbidding killing [is preserved]. It is the precept forbidding killing that wields the sword. It is the precept that throws the bomb.
        Sawaki Kodo

        In Sri Lanka the 20th century civil war between the mostly Buddhist Sinhalese majority and the Hindu Tamil minority has cost 50,000 lives.”

        Buddhists must meditate as a religious practice.

  30. Suzanne Taylor says :

    Omg, I have a life, so it is with trepidation I enter this world – which is paralleled on countless sites where crop circles are under siege. I can’t bear the thought of writing the long, complex report that the compilation of half-truths posted here deserves. Then again, I have data that no one else has, so, in some sense of obligation to be God’s eyes and ears on every scene, let me try to cut to some chases as briefly as I can..

    First of all, having been involved with the crop circle phenomenon for over 20 years, I was invited to a rough cut of THRIVE to check it for factual errors. Wait – let me back up and give you a “first” before this first. I am a Phi Beta Kappa, summa cum laude graduate of NYU. I have a bachelor of science degree. Granted, it’s not the be-all end-all that makes me an incontrovertible authority about anything, but hopefully it gets a foot in a door that won’t be slammed in my face.

    There were some gross misstatements about the circles in the rough cut, and a lot of my fixes did get implemented. Incidentally, I was not consulted about the circle material on the website, much of which is wrong. When I voluntarily re-wrote it, I could not get any buy-in to make the changes – they were too busy. It’s insult to injury, because when they are challenged about the movie’s gaps in logic – like how the early robber barons became the Illuminati who are conspiring to take over the world — they state that the website fills in gaps in the information in the movie (no matter that documentaries are supposed to document and not revert to websites to fix their illogic), but in fact the website echoes the movie and fills in no gaps.

    I was invited to have a credit in the movie, but I declined. The film is deeply disturbing to me, having nothing to do with the circles and everything to do with the preposterous claims it makes – the world according to Foster Gamble. See my blog, “Making Sense of These Times,” for my critique about THRIVE — and for material about the great shift of consciousness sweeping through humanity: http://TheConversation.org..

    Another thing of interest is that when I saw the rough cut I was concerned about the authorities they interview. I couldn’t believe they knew the nature of the movie they were going to end up in, and I told the THRIVE people they best check lest they be attacked by the participants for being deceived. They assured me they would check, but some of those people are friends of mine and they had not been contacted before the film came out. Those people indeed are shocked, but have not been vocal about it.

    But what concerns me the most about this blog is that while the film is eminently attackable, the attacks on the circles are as specious as is the content of the film. Shame on you, Muertos. What crap you are asserting in the name of “rebuttal presumption.” Throw Occam’s Razor in there, too.

    “Once we have evidence that there are human beings out there making crop circles, the conclusion that all crop circles are of human origin becomes what we can call a rebuttable presumption. That means, unless you can rebut it with specific evidence to show that something else is in fact true, you must conclude that the rebuttable presumption is the explanation.”

    Duh. Please educate yourself. Yes, hoaxers can flatten crop – no problem. But, hoaxers cannot create biological changes to the plants or chemical changes to the soil inside the circles. We run our reality by empirical science, and there have been studies employing strict scientific protocols that attest to changes that cannot be accounted for. See http://bltresearch.com for this work, with includes papers that have been published in peer reviewed science journals.

    I saw stars reading your dismissive account, which, while attacking the errors in the movie, made your own errors. No, there haven’t been 10,000 “crop circles.” That number showed up years ago – and there have been thousands since then. That early count was of each element in formations rather than being based on counting whole formations. As of now, a better guess – no totally accurate statistics exist – would be 5,000 worldwide. And 90% of them have not been in England – the count is more like half in England and the other half scattered through 40 to 50 other countries.

    I don’t want to go point by point with you, where I write as long a chapter and verse critique of your half-truths as you wrote. When all is said and done, what matters is that we have a mystery. You just can’t account for the whole phenomenon coming from people. Where does it come from? Who knows? We’ve never ascertained anything other than us that can function with the sort of intelligence that would be required, so is it from other planets? Other universes? Other dimensions? Who knows? Just “not us.”

    And why go to any lengths to debunk the possibility of other intelligence visiting us? If we are being visited it might be what gets us to transcend the oppositional reality in which we are so dangerous to each other and to the planet. If we knew we were not the only intelligence in the universe we would be one humanity in relation “the other,” and, as someone in my movie says, “That could be what saves this civilization.” Plus, mystery is good for us, as expressed in this lovely commentary from one of my favorite physicists, Brian Swimme:

    “Albert Einstein once remarked that for the human there is no more powerful feeling than that of the ‘mysterious.’ In fact, he was convinced this feeling for the mysterious was the cradle for all works of science, art, and religion. In light of Einstein’s conviction, one might ask: ‘What is the opposite of a feeling for the mysterious?’ The opposite would be the sense that one understands it all. The opposite would be the feeling that one is in possession of a system that explains all the phenomena in the universe. For such a person, the universe loses its appeal for it becomes something we don’t really need to pay attention to. The universe becomes an exemplification of a theory that one has already understood. No real surprises are possible, only the working out of a logical system through time. When a feeling for the mysterious is lost, one becomes vulnerable to the various fundamentalisms plaguing our planet, each one with its passionate certainty that it has all the answers while every other system is just superstition.

    “In moments of stress and breakdown, there is a powerful drive in us to acquire answers and explanations. Certainly in our own time when we are dismantling ecosystems around the planet and deconstructing the stable climate upon which our civilization is based, we feel a deep need to know what is real and what is good and how to proceed. This need can become so great we are liable to latch onto one of these simplistic pseudo-explanations just to quell the feelings of fear and doom surfacing in us. What on Earth? does not provide any such simplistic explanations. This restraint is one of its greatest achievements. By insisting that the Crop Circles are beyond any easy explanation, What on Earth? enables us to make peace with living in the ambiguity of not knowing. This ability to live with ambiguity is related to a sense for the mysterious and together these two may be the most important factors for deep creativity to take place. At the very least, we need to realize that an embrace of ambiguity is a form of humility when confronted by the magnificent complexity of nature.

    One of the great benefits of viewing What on Earth? is the feeling one can get of wading into the mysterious. Through its balanced and wide-open approach to the phenomena of Crop Circles, the film has the power to ease us out of some of the prior certainties we might have had. What on Earth? explores and celebrates the fact of the existence of these designs. And as we are guided into this reflection, we find ourselves considering new ideas about the nature of our universe. We begin to imagine that things might be different than we thought. We might even begin to release ourselves from some of the tired explanations lodged into our minds by the media. But most important of all, as we view the film we might even begin to feel stunned by the simple fact that here we are in the midst of this overwhelming mystery, the universe.”

    Suzanne Taylor
    Producer/Director
    “What On Earth? Inside the Crop Circle Mystery”

    http://CropCircleMovie.com

    http://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/what-on-earth/id430909932

    • muertos says :

      Suzanne:

      Thank you for your comment. While I certainly don’t agree with a lot of what you’ve said, I want to commend you for being one of the very few comments sharply critical of me and this blog that takes a rational and constructive approach. I wish more posters who disagree with me as sharply as you have would adopt your same style.

      There are a lot of issues you raise here that probably deserve to be dealt with in a separate blog post as opposed to an off-the-cuff comment. One point I can address right now, however, is the one you raise about people who are interviewed in Thrive. I’ve heard exactly the same thing, that some of the legitimate experts who appear in the movie are horrified at how it turned out and aghast that their words were used to support Gamble’s specious reasoning and conspiracy theories. I hope these people go public with their concerns and I expect someone eventually will.

      I may have more to say about the issues raised in your comment at a later time.

      • anticultist says :

        Interestingly after looking at this claim here, “See http://bltresearch.com for this work, with includes papers that have been published in peer reviewed science journals.” which is partially true and technically some of the papers do have some actual scientific testing carried out, you have to ask yourself who are the peer reviewers for crop circle articles ?

        Are they fellow crop circle afficianados ? or are they external scientific bodies who have no interest or affiliation in crop circles and are only interested in the scientific testing ?

        Likewise while some of the people participating do indeed hold qualifications that are relevant to the crop circle testing, their publications on the matter are not all peer reviewed on that site, in fact less of them are in respectable journals [PHYSIOLOGIA PLANTARUM , two published here in 94 and 99], than are in no journals [4 none peer reviewed] or less reputable journals [Journal of Scientific Exploration, one published here, MUFON one published in this online newspaper] .

        Here is a claim from one of the more “reputable” people who published articles on this site, C.W. Levengood:

        “Doctor Levengood is currently studying very low electrical pulses in the molecular structure of water and living systems. He has been also working on the secret of the Water of Life.

        He showed that a spring water treated by Michael El Nour acquires a different molecular structure and contains what he calls “free energy”. This energy is different from electricity.

        As he wrote to Michael El Nour during his experiements on the Water of Life: “In my laboratory, your water was examined for internal energy variations, or in thermodynamic terms, changes in free energy. the molecular water of liquid water is constantly changing; therefore, one must examine these free energy changes over time to determine if the if the overall patterns are different than those found in normal water with no induced enrgy patterns. For this purpose I use a method originating in my laboratory – published in the scientific literature under the title: “Evidence for Charge Density Pulses Associated with bioelectric Field in in Living Organisms”, W.C, Levengood & J.L. Geyde, Subtle Energies & Energy Medicine.”

        The very fact that these type of claims are being made just wreaks of pseudo science, and also Levngood has published and participated in pseudoscientific topics quite readily, which while it doesn’t remove his cientific abilities, it does reduce his credibility.

      • anticultist says :

        Levengood continues on to complete the previous quote with the following:

        “With this method, free energy changes in water are manifested as varaiation peak amplitude of the Charge Density Pulses (CDP) taken at specific time poitns. If a chemical compound is introduced into water, as for example ordinary table salt, the free energy is increased and this can be quantitatively observed in the dissipation characteristics of the CDP wave form.”

        While ingested, a water treated by Michael El Nour accorded to the Water of Life protocol, also triggers changes in the measurable level of energy of a human being. According to Doctor Levengood: “All the values (of the Peak Amplitude) statistically indicates significant changes in one�s model/cycle of energy”.”

        These kind of vacuous claims are not very comforting to someone looking for authors with intellectual credibility in the crop circle field. If he is willing to particpate with Michael El Nour aka Archangel Michael : http://www.archangel-michael.us/levengood/index.htm this sets him up as a cranks patsy.

    • Anastasio says :

      Suzanne,

      I wonder what your thoughts are on people at the same publishing journal (Physiologia Plantarium) dismissing Levengood’s paper as not worthy of scientific discussion and a regrettable motion to have published it in the first place?
      Let us all be aware that the doctor who carried out this research is not by any definition a doctor (Levengood has never completed his Ph.D) so one must ponder how detached from the mainstream scientific community must Levengood be to happily use psuedo-honorific titles. Note that in one of these peer-reviewed papers Levengood himself asserts that a biological change in the nodes of affected crops as a separate criterion is not enough to prove the circle is not man-made. So when we cut away the ‘magnetised particles’ theory, to which I have already regurgitated readily available information to demonstrate that this is an effect of spreading industrial fertilizer of which magnetised iron particles are a key component, then the science doesn’t look promising for your non man-made crop circles. We should also note that the ‘peer-reviewed science’ only extends as far to explain circular formations and not those containing complex shaped and patterns i.e. the pretty ones.
      I’d like to know, as someone with a science degree as you have stated, what’s your take on Levengood’s aversion to blind testing, the kind of method that is supposed to eliminate researcher bias? Surely we don’t pick and choose where to apply the scientific method Suzanne? Or is science of this standard acceptable to you? Have you actually read the peer-reviewed papers written the BLT and the rebuttals from Grassi and Andrews? Does it not sway you to learn that arguably the biggest detractors of BLT’s research are also paranormal crop circle researchers?

      You’re free to believe what you like Suzanne. But let’s not forget that all your ‘evidence’ comes down to hearsay when looking for the ET/non-human conclusion, and of course we all know science isn’t based on hearsay.

      On a side note, this has always been a bug bear of mine. I wish people would stop referring to these accomplished grain artists as ‘hoaxers’. Surely they deserve more credit than that?

      • Anastasio says :

        Ahh the penny drops..

        Suzanne,

        I have just noticed the links to your site plugging your film – with a 20% discount no less! Aren’t we lucky?
        I wonder what scientific methods could be used to eliminate your researcher bias from the question of crop circles?

        There is much profit to made from the ignorance of the lay wouldn’t you agree? And it’s no doubt an easier profit when one can laud a science degree or a fake Ph.D.

    • Anastasio says :

      @Suzanne

      “I don’t want to go point by point with you, where I write as long a chapter and verse critique of your half-truths as you wrote.”

      When you rely on the ‘empirical science’ of the BLT and your own emotional responses as the foundation to your understanding of crop circles then you are certainly ill-equipped to hand out ‘verse critiques’ Suzanne.
      ‘Don’t want to’ and ‘can’t’ can be taken to mean the same thing in this circumstance.

      “As of now, a better guess – no totally accurate statistics exist – would be 5,000 worldwide. And 90% of them have not been in England – the count is more like half in England and the other half scattered through 40 to 50 other countries.”

      No accurate statistics exist yet you can hazard a better guess? Perhaps you could share your statistics with us? Even if you claim you cannot speak to the accuracy of them it would be interesting to see source of your rebuttal.

      “You just can’t account for the whole phenomenon coming from people.”

      Well yes, I can. You might be monetarily inclined to think otherwise but we who are free of an agenda most definitely can. Otherwise please explain what you’re talking about.

      “Plus, mystery is good for us”

      At $25 dollars a pop for your film I’d say mystery it is rather good for you in particular Suzanne! Nobody else here is seeing a mystery though that’s your problem. Your charade is as opaque as water and your logic holds none.

      “In moments of stress and breakdown, there is a powerful drive in us to acquire answers and explanations. Certainly in our own time when we are dismantling ecosystems..blah blah”

      So what exactly? Buying your movie is the answer? You’re no better than the makers of Thrive. You are inextricably tying fabricated mystery and woo to negativity and shamelessly plugging your product as a cure to a problem that simply doesn’t exist. Just like Thrive have done with ‘free energy’.

      The act of profiting off someone’s uncertainty, gullibilty and fear is nothing short of parasitical. Wouldn’t you agree Suzanne?

  31. Suzanne Taylor says :

    You know, I could spend my life in these exchanges. They are all over the Net. I had some trepidation about entering this one, but with my involvement with THRIVE it seemed the right thing to do.

    Yes, there are more credentialed researchers than Levengood, and yes, there are higher quality journals. That said, there’s one meta-point I make, which is that after all is said and done no one can say that for all the time all circles can be accounted for. It’s just not true. And there many perspectives from which the all-people explanation doesn’t hold water. I just gave the science one, where you shouldn’t throw out with the bathwater, since the studies were not frivolously executed. To take the tear-down side isn’t supported as a black and white issue, and could precude discovering something valuable to us. Better to urge attention be paid by powers that be – whomever it is that at the end of the investigation could get CONTACT into headlines should that be their conclusion.

    One more thing to say is that it is characteristic of hoaxers (yes, that is presumptuous – as if there are formations of a mysterious origin) and debunkers that they exhibit a marked lack of civility. And, as an aspect of that, the idea of people being motivated by money from whatever they do with the phenomenon is ridiculous. No one supports themselves from devotion to the circles. What it cost me to make my movie was far more than I’ll ever recoup.
    I did it on my nickel for the passion I have for seeing ourselves in a bigger picture than the one in which we are so violent with one another and so destructive to the Earth. A problem that doesn’t exist, Anastasio? What world are you living in?

    You can see my movie on iTunes for $3.99, the cost of coffee at Starbucks, so at least you would be responding having been informed by what’s in it, which includes more indication of otherness than just BLT. As far as the numbers go, if you get into the archives of Crop Circle Connector, you can get some count. Or, just deal with the last few years of easily obtainable statistics, where there have been somewhere between 100 and 150 each year, with about half in England and the rest in other countries. So, go back to say 1975, multiply 125 times 37, and you get 4625.

    • Anastasio says :

      @Suzanne

      Of course there are ‘better credentialed’ researchers than Levengood Suzanne; actual doctors who earned their Ph.D before appending it to their title for example. I’m sure/hope most professionals are not in the business of using self-bestowed doctorates. I’m sure it’s illegal in some professions but I am not qualified to speak to the subject of law; perhaps someone else here could enlighten me?
      The fact remains however that you willingly used the BLT as an example of the ‘strict scientific protocol’ employed in studying crop circles, the findings of which can be found in the peer-reviewed papers of Levengood (Dr Hasselhoff also but he seemingly worked from the same samples/research as Levengood so it’s essentially the same argument).

      Are you now trying to distance yourself from your statement in light of receiving replies from two people here that have done more than to accept the ‘strict scientific protocol’ on face value?

      You claim to have been involved in the crop circle phenomenon for over 20 years, and you are also a Phi Beta Kappa, summa cum laude graduate of NYU and have a bachelor of science degree (which science exactly Suzanne? It makes no odds whether it’s a classical or a metaphysical discipline, you have every right to ‘put your foot in the door’. It’s how long you can keep it there that will draw on your understanding of strict scientific protocol).
      Perhaps we can draw on your wealth of experience to answer whether the strict scientific protocol employed by today’s croppies adequately discounts the effects of tropism and industrial fertilisers as causes of the mysterious changes you seemingly cannot account for? If so, where are the findings?

      You have done anything but give the ‘scientific explanation’. I cannot account for the all the graffiti or other authorless crimes in the world but my mind doesn’t automatically assume an extraterrestial causation. Does yours Suzanne? I think we have seen enough to conclude that it does.

      I wouldn’t be so presumptious as to conclude that all crop circles are man made. I believe the crude ones that we don’t see much of are the work of dust devils or a fungal infestation or whatever. We’re not concerned so much with them though are we? The elaborate designs are undoubtedly the work of human artists of whose skills and motivation you are not able/unwilling to comprehend as of yet. Most are unquestionably artists, not ‘hoaxers’ as you prefer to call them. I will cede that the formation at Crabwood Farm was a beautiful hoax, and one that is still deemed to be ‘genuine’ by some believers who still try to make sense of the decoded disc, even in light of the fact that Hasselhoff (peer-reviewed doctor of the balls of light theory) took one look at it and called it man-made.

      Playing the numbers game, most sites seem to show the majority (90% is a number passed around by believer and skeptic alike) of circles forming in England pre-early 90s. Presumably this is why you travelled there yourself a fair bit when you first started your research? If the statistics are now out of date, well neither of us can speak accurately to that question now can we? We are only as good as the internet site we stand by. The Wiltshire Crop Circle Study Group says 6,000 since 1980 for instance, but it’s neither here nor there is it? Ulitmately, crop circle numbers say nothing about the creators other than they are prolific.

      I’m sure you do have a sense of trepidation contributing to this thread, and remember that the source of trepidation in such matters stems from the likelihood that one could in fact be wrong about the whole thing. But as you are the self appointed ‘eyes and ears of God’ in possession of data that only you have analysed (is this your ace in the hole Suzanne?) and not shy to boast of your science degree then surely it is your duty to share your experience and knowledge? All you have managed so far is to call half truth and then refer us to the biggest half truth of all: Levengood and the BLT. I’m sure you can do better than that.

      I sat through forty-five minutes of your talk on What on Earth. You seemed to run the whole colourful gamut of social negatives from woman’s rights and anti-semetism to Al Qaeda and somehow manage to tie it all back to your movie; like Thrive do with free energy.
      Yes there are many problems in the world Suzanne, I never said anything to the contrary. What I meant was that I am not experiencing “moments of stress and breakdown” and therefore I am not in need of your ‘crop circle panacea’. Nor do I think awareness of pretty geometric shapes pressed into corn will do anything to stem the violence and destruction on this planet. What world are you living in Suzanne if you truly believe that crop cricles are the answer?

      Why are you plugging your film on a site that aims to combat the misleading woo that you are selling anyway? Call me cynical but I still think you’re in it for a buck. Hollywood doesn’t set out to make flops.

      Speaking to the question of civility Suzanne, and a marked lack thereof, if you peruse earlier posts in this discourse you will find that Meurtos has been more than patient with dealing with some of the ‘ripostes’ he has recieved regarding his debunking.
      Even those replies containing rich and abrasive vocabluary such as:

      “Omg, I have a life, so it is with trepidation I enter this world”,

      “Shame on you, Muertos. What crap you are asserting in the name of
      “rebuttal presumption.”

      and my favourite:

      “Duh. Please educate yourself”

      Notice how your childish soundbites fail to to incite anything but a civil response from Meurtos, and your petty insults are rightly left to wither and die on the vine.

      In short, we can be as civil as you like Suzanne.

      • Anastasio says :

        @ Suzanne,

        Sorry to keep on at you Suzanne, but you are the self proclaimed ‘eyes and ears of God’ on crop circles after all. One simply can’t pass up on such an opportunity to learn from the best.

        To start with, I’m not sure if you’re aware but regarding your ebooklet, ‘Why Real Crop Circles Can’t be Hoaxed’, there’s a couple of photographs therein belonging to a Mr Rodney Ashby which you have used to reinforce the supposed fact that magnetic spheres of iron in a crop circle mean it was not possible for the circle to have been created by a human (I note the use of BLT’s material in the same ebooklet. It seems Levengood’s word is good enough for you after all).

        One can only describe your use of these photographs as slightly confusing at best, given that Mr Ashby’s photographs reflects conclusions to this subject that are in no doubt entirely different to yours.

        The photographs in question can be seen here on the right hand page:

        http://theconversation.org/booklet2.html

        Now, besides the fact I have pointed out twice that iron is a micronutrient essential for plant growth and occurs naturally in soil AND is a component of industrial fertilizer, is it not also strange that by clicking on Mr Ashby’s photo we are hyperlinked to his report that also quite consumately debunks Levengood’s microscopic iron particles theory?

        If you’re trying to show both sides of the coin then hats off to you however I fear that is not the case here.
        I’m curious as to why you’d use this material to show something it was clearly not intended for?
        If you’re selling a film as ‘factual’ then surely you have a duty to be factual in the portrayal of your findings?

        Mr Ashby’s report can be found by clicking on the photo in your ebooklet or by following this link:

        http://www.xstreamscience.org/H_Glaze/H_Glaze_0.htm

        The addendum to the report is of particular interest as it deals with Burke’s and Levengood’s response to the effective, but unintended, debunking of their “Semi-Molten Meteoric Iron Associated with a Crop Formation” paper; just one of the ‘incontrovertible’ pieces of evidence that believers love to refer us skeptics to. A good example can be found in your first address to this thread.

        We are often led to believe that evidence of these magnetic iron particles serve as part of the criteria for ‘real’ crop circles, but just how many circles have these particles been found in? And can a ‘real’ circle exist without traces of them? How are they discerned from the naturally occuring particles and those found in industrial fertilizers?

        Please share your knowledge with us Suzanne.

        Surely you of all people are above half truths?

      • anticultist says :

        Looks like her moral duty to post on behalf of Thrive has been eroded now that it has been established the reason she posted here, which was to defend crop circles due the fact she has a movie to promote here about the topic.

        Self promotional people can’t help to get involved in these kind of blogs because they hurt their finances, they come here promoting their snake oil hoping people will be stupid enough to pay to watch it. Then after watching it they realise they have been fed the same crapola other movies have dished out, and have just sat through a few hours of new age woo, conspiracy theories and intellectually dishonest information.

      • Alan says :

        Here is a free copy of her movie to DL:

        [EDIT BY MUERTOS--LINK REMOVED]

        I really don’t understand why you felt it was necessary to talk down to this lady, she was simply offering her perspective. A daring move considering the crowd that trolls this blog. I would commend her for posting anything at all, but that’s just me.

      • anticultist says :

        Jesus Christ Alan you arse hole, that is copyright theft are you stupid ?

  32. anticultist says :

    First Alan what you just did was twice as rude as we have done, we disagreed with her and her methods, you on the other hand just committed an illegal act by sharing her movie illegally on this website without asking the permission of the owner of the site or the movie if it was ok to do.

    I would not download this movie out of an act of solidarity with the womans rights to make money from her product, I would also not download because I don’t want to watch it either.

    Your behaviour of sharing someone elses property online for free is way more insulting towards her than my disagreeing with her methods.

  33. Suzanne Taylor says :

    I posted here because I am very simpatico with the critiques about THRIVE, and given my involvement with it I could add info that no one else had. I usually avoid crop circle dialogues because they are like a black holes, where people prefer to play gotcha than to have real conversation. As I said, I am into the circles because they could make people think again about our arrogance, where we are so violent with one another and so abusive to the planet. If scientific materialism does not give way as our fundamental worldview, it does not bode well for humanity. That I am in this for the money is ludicrous, and yes, I’d like everyone to see my movie. I made it in hopes it would open the planetary mind, so to speak, which would be a very fine development.

    I just a got license to produce a TEDx West Hollywood event and I am working with the movie, so I have a lot on my plate and don’t want to continue posting here. However, one specific thing to respond to is that Rodney Ashby changed his mind after “Why Real Crop Circles Can’t be Hoaxed” was produced, but it’s in flash and the person who made it isn’t around. Although BLT does not accept Ashby’s evaluation, I found his report convincing and would have taken that page out if I had access to the site.

    And thanks, Muertos, for not passing along a rip off, which is the scourge of us little indie filmmakers who spend money to make movies and, as with everyone who makes things to sell, shouldn’t have our product stolen from us.

    Just one more thing is to suggest people check out my blog. I love postigng things that turn peopel on to good ideas and even good fun, and have been doing it far longer than I even knew there were crop circles: http://TheConversation.org.

    • muertos says :

      Suzanne, even though your views disagree with mine I’m glad you posted here, and I do not stand in lockstep agreement with all the commenters on my blog who disagree with Thrive. I don’t subscribe to the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” philosophy. Some things that some anti-Thrive people have said in comments here I disagree with and in fact make me uncomfortable.

      I certainly disagree with your characterization of my logical analysis of the crop circle phenomenon, which I believe is absolutely conclusive–I don’t think there is any rational basis on which to impeach the conclusion that human beings are responsible for all crop circles regardless of where they are or what they look like. I also suspect, without having seen your film yet, that I’ll probably take issue with various matters asserted in it as either fact or rational conclusions based on fact. However, with that said, at least you came here attempting to challenge my conclusions based upon facts that you say you can refute–specifically, the number of crop circles that have been recorded in the last 20+ years, and where they have been seen–and it’s that factual approach that I respect, as opposed to vague statements about how “I don’t get it” or “I’m misguided” for not accepting Thrive’s strange New Age conclusions at face value, which is the tack that most people here take.

      I invite rational criticism of my viewpoints. The key word in that sentence is “rational.” As much as I disagree with your conclusions and at least part of your approach in reaching those conclusions, there is at least in your comments room for reasoned debate, which I think we need more of these days. So, thanks for posting your views here.

    • Anastasio says :

      @Suzanne

      Before you leave I’d like to highlight a few points that you may wish to carry with you to avoid a ‘talking down to’ in future; this is for Alan’s benefit also as he seems to be having trouble interpreting the narrative that lead us to this juncture.
      I for one certainly can’t shake off this feeling that you’re trying to insult people’s intelligence with your disingenuous bemusement as to why we can’t discuss subjects like this with a degree of decorum. The contrasting tone of your subsequent posts are all too indicitave of someone who took a bite expecting to taste honey yet walked away with a mouthful of broken glass. Credentials mean nothing when one has little appreciation of the noetic value of their ‘research’ or when one lacks an ability to speak free of bias to such matters.

      Put simply, if you enter any discussion, as you did, with what can only be described as an arrogant appeal to authority and a brazen supplication for further education then you are guaranteed to raise heckles and invite reproach in a similar tone. If we are to believe that you genuinely thought the anticipated response would resemble anything that looks like a ‘real conversation’ then I have to say sorry, but I am not buying it.
      I know you are smarter than that, and I think you know that I am also smarter than that.

      You set off on the wrong foot. Plain and simple.

      If this is an example of talking down to you can anyone confidently argue it does not go without a modicum of deservedness?

      That said, a real conversation is always the better option, and an option I’d choose every time over ‘gotcha’ given the opportunity. With that in mind I will watch your film (legally), if only for the goal of further balancing my understanding of the subject. Against my better judgement I took someone’s ‘kind advice’ and ‘opened my mind’ to New Swirled Order. I wasted an hour of my life fidgeting through 10% BLT ‘science’ and 90% anecdotal prattle that I had been subjected to countless times before.
      I don’t profess to be psychic, but my list of predictions before watching this film would have made for a most entertaining parlor trick!
      If I find your production reflects those same predictions then you simply will not hear from me again. I will not make my own debunking blog nor defame your name or film anywhere.
      But you can most certainly take it as read that same silence speaks volumes about my ruing of the foregone Starbucks coffee.

      If your film changes my mind about crop circles then I’m sure a conversation from a much more humble Anastasio will ensue.

      We’ll say no more to the Ashby affair. The fact is, his report is more damaging to your ebooklet than anything. Perhaps rewriting it without his linked debunking included wouldn’t be a bad idea.

      It certainly does not defy belief to suggest you are monetarily inclined in sharing your ideas about crop circles, especially in light of the fact you have now admitted yourself that you ‘made something to sell’.
      I can appreciate you do have a genuine belief you are on to something (I personally think your passion and energy would serve bettter directed elsewhere) and while I certainly won’t argue that money is your sole impetus (I prefer not to make judgements I can’t back up with evidence) I will say that it is readily observable through your own words that money IS undoubtedly a factor, and propagating a belief in the ET/non human causation will only serve to profit you financially. If you do not feel you are going to recoup your investment why not bite the bullet and let everyone see your message for free? For the sake of keeping our friend Alan out of trouble if anything.

      Implying that it was parasitical to feed of people’s ignorance was perhaps a step too far in the wrong direction alas. It is never my intention to make personal insults and I will retract and apologise for the implication.

      All the best

      • Alan says :

        Anastasio, can I ask you if english is your first language? It seems like you can’t interpret your own tone in the way you type, you just have a demeaning a-hole way of trying to ‘discuss’ your point. You are probably not going to get a response from Suzanne especially since she has already stated she will not be posting on here anymore. Muertos has pointed this out as well, so don’t take it personal, just be more aware of how much emotion you have when trying to make a response.

        As far as making her film free to view, I agree that it would make a whole lot more sense to have this film shown on PBS, YouTube and whatever other open source site you can think of to get this information out for educational purposes. Then she could set up a non-profit donation box to receive support for the work she is doing. Not only do I think this would bring her much more support, it would get her many more viewers and support / critique where needed. I found an interesting charter better illustrating my point and applying this ‘free’ concept to the entire globe:

        http://www.freeworldcharter.org/en

        To make Muertos happy I will include something that has at least a little to do with Crop Circles. This film has a lot of irrefutable evidence that extra-terrestrials do in fact exist and that they have been visiting Earth for thousands of years. If no one can disprove these mens filmed footage, then do you think their story behind how they were allowed to film the crafts should automatically be discredited because you have a hard time processing how such extraordinary stories could be true? Pay attention to the details in this film before running off the the ‘skeptics’ debunking of this because you will notice mistakes in how the ‘debunking’ is worded.

      • anticultist says :

      • boswell says :

        ha ha ha ha.

        Besides all the observed evidence for them, and the scientific consensus on them, yeah you might of had a point 300 years ago. However today in the modern world your claim is ridiculous.

      • alysdexia says :

        There is none, and those scientists are liars. You are free to refute me in that link under my answer, but first you need to learn English: “might of”.

      • boswell says :

        The scientists are liars ? ha ha

        ok buddy. Seriously if you are going to call all scientists who provide evidence in support of black holes liars at least have the credibility to take it up with them directly. Instead of posting your pathetic little comments on an internet blog that has no bearing whatsoever on the scientific consensus.

        I don’t see any of your supporting peers, or reviewed documents that discredit them,.

        You seem like a butt hurt clown who lost out in the academic world, and now plays the victim due to their inability to ascend to academic circles.

        You talk about learning English, I retort, learn how the scientific method works, if you understood it you would make millions debunking black hole theories with your superior evidence.

        Oh but you won’t do that, because that would mean you would have to actually validate your claims in public. You wouldn’t want to become a household laughing stock would you.

      • alysdexia says :

        Those scientists do not. I gave you the chance to prove that they did or to disprove my argument, but you could not.

        You are good at trolling, here with a ad-authoritatem fallacy when it serves you; yet you betoken this of others when it serves you.

        This block is nonsense: “You seem like a butt hurt clown who lost out in the academic world, and now plays the victim due to their inability to ascend to academic circles.”

        The debunking of black holes is not worth any money, especially millions. You took this figure from your arse, and this is no argument against.

        My claims are already validated in public; I gave you the link, you retard.

      • conspiracykiller says :

        The only link you gave was a whack comment you made on Quora you clown. You expect me to take your claim seriously from some retarded comment you mad on a website ?

        Either you are a fool or you are confused about how the scientific method works, either way your clams are empty and have no substantive evidence. You expect people to take your word as opposed to hundreds of other scientists, who might I add make millions of pounds from funding, experiment, third party satellite building, articles, tv interviews.
        All of whom agree with one another that black holes at least have evidence for their existence.

        You might understand some scientific principles but it sure s shit doesn’t make you a scientist.

      • alysdexia says :

        The only retarded comments are from you.

        Those “hundreds of other scientists” don’t understand how the scientific method works, where they parrot this mýthical black hole without any maths or other proof. I used to believe in black holes and would blindly defend them against other internet denizens who were mostly relativity deniers, until I did the maths myself and saw they were forbidden by the same well-established laws. So as you cannot do anything here but handwave, cannot quote or dispute my materials, and it’s likely you are scientifically illiterate to help your case, it’s best you shut up lest you further embarrass yourself.

      • stratoblaster says :

        I’d love to hear more on the black hole theory, how did you come to this?

        if we’re all micro, torus filelds, if the earth is a micro torus field compared to that of the macro galaxy….it would follow that we potentially have tiny black holes at our core (as above so below). However I’m not aware of having one…..So I get you that far, but black holes seem to be a major part of starbirthing and transformation of matter in space…..

        a little armchair science googling for the irritable:

        interesting short read (it wont hurt Boswell, I promise) on black holes not existing:

        http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050328/full/news050328-8.html

        Black holes don’t seem to work within Einsteins’ general theory of relativity, but that is ok because many things related to GTR have been shown not to work.

        those saying black holes do exist:

        http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/26/star-eaten-by-a-black-hole-still-blasting-away/#.Ujsp2mTXjOs

        I like this one:

        http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/outthere/2013/08/20/the-baffling-simplicity-of-black-holes/#.UjstomTXjOs

        I was going to suggest killer boswell conspiracy prove their existence by visiting one, but according to the last link, were all inside one.

      • conspiracykiller says :

        You are a joke, enough said.

        You are just an internet nobody who has elevated himself to the position of superior to known academia. Must suck to have to listen to your irritating garbage in real life. Thank fuck I’m not one of your relatives i would end up disowning you.

        You have zero supporting evidence, and are a lone voice in the crowd, al nutcase.

  34. Hollywood Tomfortas says :

    Alan asked:
    Anastasio, can I ask you if english is your first language?

    ROTFLMAO!!!

    Of course it’s not his first language! He’s a Limey! You, Alan, are a Yank!

    (I’m worse than a Yank since I was born & raised (sic) in New Yawk City, but I regress.)

    “The Americans are identical to the British in all respects except, of course, language.” — Oscar Wilde

    “We (the British and Americans) are two countries separated by a common language.” —- G.B. Shaw

  35. Hollywood Tomfortas says :

    @Alan

    Instead of focusing on Suzanne Taylor’s movie for free Internet distribution, why not apply your freeware open source convictions to the THRIVE movie itself!

    That is so far the biggest sticking point for Foster Gamble and his crew of Thrivers. My God, think of how much energy they have expended over the last few months getting people to stop pirating their THRIVE movie and showing it free on the internet!

    I suggest that your start with their Facebook page

    http://www.facebook.com/ThriveMovement?sk=wall&filter=1

    There are always many commenters there who lament having to pay money for the film and they ask why not have it distributed for free. You could make your case for it right there on the THRIVE FB page.

    • Alan says :

      Given a single search for Thrive I can find about 50 different pirated copies, no problems there. You cannot create a digital piece of work and expect people not to distribute it for free. Thrive had about 110,000 views while it was on YouTube before being taken down and was on torrent sites about three hours after it premiered on 11/11/11. Film makers may not support open source, but it’s free advertising and distribution. If their purpose was to get this information out to as many people as possible, then what better way?

      The one’s who have money to spare are not going to be trolling around torrent sites waiting for someone to upload, they are going to fork over the $5. I did actually pay to rent Thrive and I recorded it as well so I could share it with my friends and family who are not so techno savvy. I didn’t turn around and start selling bootleg copies or even upload to any site, I just like sharing information. I’m sorry if that offends anyone.

  36. Sarah says :

    @Alan
    Irrefutable evidence?

    Here are an article and a video for you…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3638217/Common-sense-abducted.html (the author talks about George Adamski in the sixth paragraph)

    • Alan says :

      Someone’s opinionated response and someone remaking one of his videos is not debunking anything it just shows how creative people are. In a lot of Adamski’s footage there are multiple object in between the camera and the object, I’m not sure how you could recreate that, but maybe you can find another youtube video for me.

      And it’s not just his footage that is remarkable, the people interviewed in that video I posted are officials in their field of expertise who are verifying this stuff.

  37. Alan says :

    *Adamski*

    • anticultist says :

      LOL Adamski eh, nice story about some one armed dude and his camera talking to aliens on his own out in the middle of nowhere.

      I have studied this case and to be truthful his videos are repeatable, and his stories are all new age inspired end of worl rants about aliens being our salvation and humans being too stupid to manage on their own without killing themselves etc .

      The basic ufo and alien meme that you encounter from all the wanna be charlatans of the new age field. Stories of hope and good will from the other worlds.

      This level of gullibility to believe these claims and hang onto them like religious fanatics is what is ruining the very idea that aliens may exist. If aliens were to exists [slim chance, but possible], they would not be proven from some gimmicky claims and some cheap ass footage. They would be proven by much simpler technical proofs, such as them being on Earth for people to see with their own eye if they needed to, and the scientific evidence that they would give and show to validate their existence.

      If they were really here o help then they would in fact be here helping for all to see, rather than scurrying around in the night tinkering with peoples genitalia and back ends.

      religious fanatics have taken over the UFO field and made it into a complete profit driven religion.

      • Alan says :

        Where in your version of history does religion fit, if your understanding is not along the lines of extra-terrestrials speaking to earth bound humans (which every religion refers to some type of ‘light-being’ or craft in the sky or manipulation of gravity and weather and so forth) then what are your thoughts on that? It would seem like a rather important detail in history considering every country was founded with some common religion in mind. Religious beliefs have lead to more murdering and manipulation that anything else on this planet, but why? Could you just ignore ‘how’ people came to acquire these religious beliefs because that kind of stuff is not happening anymore? What would acquiring ‘religious’ beliefs even look like in ‘modern times’?

        I can answer that question pretty easily, and you have realized this yourself in your previous posts. It comes off as a ‘new age’ phenomena that you do not understand, so you are adverse to it claiming there is no factual data to back up a link between spirituality and science. For some reason information does not flow freely from your own physical experiences in life to your spiritual experiences so you have not managed to come up with a way to explain these more subtle energies in a scientific understanding due to some kind of blockage.

        David Wilcock may have some pretty far out theories, but he is a professional researcher and in the article I posted, he sites where he is getting the facts. You can take that for what it’s worth, but you probably didn’t even try to digest what that article is saying. He is simply using the same technique as Foster Gamble and is following the money. David just so happened to find where 16 Trillion of those dollars ended up through an audit of the IRS… Possibly 26 Trillion dollars if the full story is correct. Another hard to overlook detail happening in this whole debacle. You cannot ignore the whole system when studying the parts, or else you will find yourself in discussions like these where no one is on the same page.

      • anticultist says :

        That is pure interpretation Alan, there are no mentions of extra terrestrials as solid entities that interact with humans as the so called aliens do in modern mythology. All you have are vague references to things in the sky, angels and god. If you want to choose to interpret it as aliens and ufo’s so be it, but in reality all you are doing is looking at an old myth and applying the rules of a new myth to it. Either way they are both myths with no substance of science to them at all, feel free to believe in your myths though Alan.

  38. Alan says :

    Here is a very in depth article explaining the financial crisis happening all around the world for anyone who cares:

    http://www.divinecosmos.com/start-here/davids-blog/1023-financial-tyranny

    • Anastasio says :

      @Alan

      Ah thank you for the pep talk Al; I guess I needed that.
      In evaluating the automated, routine rejoinders I unemotively dispense these days to combat the crop circle blatherskite, I will admit that you’re not far off the mark in insinuating I’ve lost my libido for trying to make people ‘look at this way’ with the same degree of passion or empathy I used to enjoy. I’m not sure if I’m looking for a response from Suzanne or not. I don’t feel particulary proud that I might have picked away the seams of her twenty-year old fantasy – but how butt-hurt you intend on feeling over that notion is entirely up to you. I posted here because I felt I had something of merit to add to the conversation and also because I have nothing else better to do at this moment in time *stands up, scratches arse, yawns* Ah that’s better, now where were we?

      Language does in fact seem to be an issue with me. Where ever I go there seems to be a trend of people drawing over-consciousness to the style or tone of my opinions. Rest assured, you are not the first ‘a-hole’ nor will you be the last to play that game with me. For what it’s worth, I communicate in a manner I feel most comfortable with and I respectively try to align with the current ‘tone’ of the overall conversation and reciprocate accordingly to abrasiveness. Is that not fair Alan? In light of the fact you have failed yet again to comprehend why I have responded to Suzanne in such a manner, then I recommend you go to the top of this blog and peruse from top to bottom. Take a break, have coffee, go outside and feed the ducks and breathe in some fresh air. Whatever helps you think clearly, and then maybe you can finally see how this particular chapter was written.
      Rest assured, whatever your response is to this end, I certainly will not be so crass as to suggest English is not your first language; the sentiment is somewhat beneath me.

      Whatever value you think your generally innocuous ass-blabbering has to the effect of an adult discussion on crop circles I’ll leave to you figure out. However, I do not wish to be your excuse for you derailing this page to the gutter.

      I’ll quite happily indulge you in a real conversation about crop circles, if that is truly what you want Al?

  39. Hollywood Tomfortas says :

    muertos,

    the guy Alan links to above is David Wilcock, a person I would consider as a shoe-in to appear in the sequel to THRIVE. He is one of the more successful New Age hucksters around today and he believes himself to be the direct reincarnation of America’s “Sleeping Prophet,” Edgar Cayce. He also channels the Egyptian Sun God Ra which you can listen to here:

    • anticultist says :

      David Wilcock LOL, if ever there were a representative of quackery and deception in the new age forum this guy is it.

      Even when I was stupid enough to consider the plausibility of some of the new age claims, this guy rang alarm bells and doubt on every level for me.

      Those who consider this guy to be a credible person are dupes par excellence.

  40. complete says :

    Weird ass designs is language to someone else, moran. ;)

  41. Jody Dark Eagle Breedlove says :

    DID ALIENS MAKE THE CROP CIRCLES?

    The answer to that is an emphatic NO!! AND I HAVE PROOF!

    First of all, you must understand that these crop circles that show up all around the world are very intricate and complex.
    Most are done at night when visibility is nearly zero.
    In December of 2011, armed with tools, electronic compass,
    heat guns, and dark clothes I conducted an experiment in the countryside of England. What you will learn from this should end the controversy FOREVER!!
    First, let me tell you what led to this. After watching countless television documentaries, and reading many Internet cases of Crop Circle activity, I decided to confront my neighbors behind me. I decided to just ask them point blank if they thought they could pull one off. I jumped the fence between us and knocked on their back door that was nearly off its hinges. Loud blues music was coming from the living room. I knocked again a little harder and Bob came to the door and opened it. I could smell liquor on his breath so I figured they were having another party. He handed me a cold one and I told him that I wanted to talk to all of them (my girlfriend calls them “the boys”) about something important.
    The music went down and I sat on the couch and explained that I wanted them to go to England with me and make a crop circle in a field. My design was not too complex. It would only take one evening and I would pay for the expenses.
    You should have seen their faces! Crop circles!! Sure we can do it! So off to England we went.
    We arrived by private plane three days later. I made sure that everyone was sober. The tools were explained and the design was approved by all. At nine o’clock that night we entered the field.
    I set up six video cameras to record the event using infrared technology. There were seven men total who would do the work. At exactly ten o’clock, the work began.
    Once it started, I couldn’t stop laughing! Mind you-no one was drunk, but if you have ever seen an alien’s little spindly legs trying to walk on matted wheat… god, too funny for words!
    My girlfriend and I just kept cheering them on! They kept falling and getting caught in the measuring cord. Hours went by. I kept having to move the cameras because they couldn’t stay on course. I kept hearing “No light, No light!” and realized that the little aliens can’t see that well at night even with those big eyes.
    At one point the design ended up in another farmers field. He was growing pot. It got real quiet. Then we heard giggling. I called them over and you could smell the ganja on them. At that point I knew it was over. Besides the sun was starting to come up.
    So we packed it up and left. I had a friend fly over the next day to take a photo of the crop circle but it wasn’t much to look at. It looked like some drunks got in a brawl in a wheat field. So there! Proof. No way aliens are making these enigmatic designs!

    • alysdexia says :

      What proof?

      • boswell says :

        Are you really so dumb as to be unable to locate evidence for black holes on the internet ?

        Either you are addicted to quora, have never looked outside of Quora, or you are stuck in an intellectual black hole called Quora.

  42. DiscoPro_Joe says :

    I’d like to offer my own debunking of alien visits. (I have a Bachelor’s in geology, and have been interested in astronomy since childhood.)

    Consider the idea that Earth has been inhabitable for many kinds of extraterrestrial intelligent life for at least the last 500 million years (since the Cambrian Period). If aliens visited and/or resided on Earth at any time during the last half billion years (or more), then there’s a strong possibility that a significant portion of their civilization would have colonized Earth. And today, we’d most certainly find remains of them scattered throughout the fossil record.

    But of course, we find absolutely no geologic evidence of extraterrestrial life anywhere.

    And even if only a few aliens visited Earth briefly and moved on, wouldn’t they have had the intelligence to study Earth’s geology and atmosphere, and plant unmistakeable evidence for the sake of future aliens or Earthlings, which would have good chances of being discovered and recognized millions of years later? (For example, they could plant it near the center of continental plates, where it probably wouldn’t become tectonically subducted after millions of years.)

    Obviously, if extraterrestrials had the intelligence to get their butts all the way to Planet Earth, then they certainly would be smart enough as to how to leave strong evidence of their visits, which doesn’t easily become eroded, buried under a future shallow sea, or subducted.

    And as for traveling to Earth…well, that’s the next delightful subject.

    Let’s assume they can build spaceships with nuclear propulsion systems capable of accelerating a large ship at a constant 1G indefinitely without the reactors melting down, and with super-powerful radiation shields lining the ship throughout. In theory, they could travel hundreds, thousands, or even millions of light years in less than two years of travel time (i.e., from the spaceship’s perspective).

    (Basically, they could accelerate at 1G for the first 353 days of travel time, then switch off the engines for a few minutes while turning the ship around 180 degrees. While performing this maneuver, they’d be traveling at just under the speed of light, and at a relativistic speed of millions of times the speed of light. After a few minutes — and with incredibly absolute perfect timing — they could restart the engines, and *decelerate* at 1G for the next 353 days until reaching their beloved destination.)

    So then…after enduring at least 706 days of traveling within the confines of a space vessel, the friendly little creatures simply decide to play practical little jokes on the poor little Earthlings. Even though the cute little green men have the intelligence and technology to trek thousands of light years to Earth at 99.9999999999999% the speed of light in less than two years of relativistic travel time without dying, crashing, disintegrating, or morphing into Pee Wee Herman, they choose to show up with mysteriously obscure little messages they know the Earthlings can’t understand or decipher. They have their little fun bumbling around Earth and its solar system for a couple days or weeks without being detected by the Earthlings’ satellites, radar, or space telescopes. Then, they decide to scram, and spend another lovely 706 days heading off to the next star with intelligent life for another quick round of funny little farting-into-the-phone pranks. Ha Ha Ha

    And oh yeah…they’ll never get to see their families, friends, or communities ever again, because when they finally return home,…hundreds, thousands, or millions of years will have passed on their planet.

    I guess these cool and mysterious aliens must be pretty psycho to give up their whole lives for a few short chuckles, eh?

    Maybe that’s why they never visited Earth during the last 500 million years, and suddenly decided to show up in droves throughout the last 6,000: all for a round of little laughs.

    Damn psychos.

    • Hollywood Tomfortas says :

      Hey Joe, of course you realize that on the 8th Day, God created fossils as the first Practical Joke.

    • stratoblaster says :

      look up the monoliths, prehistoric laser cut square tunnels in south america, precision fitted stones in machu piccu and other sites around the world. Sumerian drawings of the solar sytem (6,000 years old). To name a few….enough to make you wonder.

    • alysdexia says :

      How could you know if something is alien when you see it?

      http://google.com/search?q=%22biological+SETI%22

      One travels (< travail < trepale) on foot or by oar; otherwise one fares.

      Type II aliens should know how Diametric Drives, Disjunction Drives, and Crasnicov tubes work to make time dilation a nonfactor.

  43. Former President Gerald Ford says :

    This seems like a never ending arguement between those who believe they understand what is already known and those who are looking to explore what is unknown/ not completely understood.

    There really isnt any difference between the two, because what is true is so because “we” have agreed it can be proven. It is only so until it can be proven wrong, or our knowledge of how this truth/scientific law/idea works changes and our understanding of it broadens. Then it becomes not so true or ‘part of it but not the whole story’. I guess the skeptics on this site will not take any type of speculation as an answer even though A) all science starts out as speculation and B) all science is true until proven false/ replaced with a more comprehensive theory. And even I’ll admit that speculation is just speculation, but the problem with this site is that you guys are hellbent on disproving things that havent yet been proven completely anyway. Whats the point?

    It is explained many times in the film that many of the more esoteric and out there ideas are for your consideration, you dont have to believe them (and being a skeptic, you would need some type of tangible evidence or experential knowledge to consider it fact).

    I guess to put it bluntly, you know what you know until you dont know it anymore. And because this is true and it always has and always will be true, you cannot disqualify possibilites for being possibilities. The possibilities could be wrong, but the truth could also be wrong as well.

  44. Hollywood Tomfortas says :

    I just received this urgent request from our favorite crop circle film maker, Suzanne Taylor. Anyone willing to help her out in her legal fight against Steven Bassett, the seemingly dastardly cad of UFO Disclosure fame?

    Hope you guys settle, Suzanne, because both you and Stephen belong in the sequel to THRIVE.

    If not, puh-leeze, . .. get a room!

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Immediate help requested from people who know Steve Bassett

    Steve Bassett is suing me – demanding a jury trial, no less.

    This public spectacle will make us the laughing stock of the skeptical world. I can see the headline: “The Weird ET Guy and the Crazy Crop Circle Girl Duke it Out on Planet Earth.”

    Please help to keep this out of court. Get Steve to drop his lawsuit.

    My movie is on a PBS station in Colorado on Thursday night. It’s a first broadcast on TV – a breakthrough, and in an auspicious place. This is what we need more of. Please help so as not to set me — and the world — back.

    I’d expect Steve would draft a rebuttal that says he offered settlements, and I am unreasonable in not taking them. That’s like the thief keeping the loot and suing the victim to get more. No, I won’t be issuing a check for $26,000 for which I’ll get that amount of value in Kim Carlsberg’s books; no, I won’t issue an apology to say I’ve blow the whistle on Steve in anger and by mistake; no, I won’t cover legal costs for his filings against me. These are the sorts of agreements he wants in order to drop the suit. I want him to drop it because he shouldn’t have filed it and instead should be apologizing and making good to me.

    The legal system is toxic to me — it’s torture to have to take part in it. I’ve found a lawyer — a gentle guy who knows his stuff — who will get retained tomorrow unless Steve agrees to drop the suit. Please help prevent this lawsuit from going further.

    Here’s where you can find the whole story:

    http://theconversation.org/steve-bassett-saga-part-two

    Suzanne Taylor
    Producer/Director
    “What On Earth? Inside the Crop Circle Mystery”

  45. Skepticalskeptic says :

    Okay…so these pranksters destroyed fields of farmers crops, unleashed a scare, hatched an elaborate plot which included littering pieces of iron amongst the crops….with the INTENT of scaring people….

    ….and they aren’t in jail for felony vandalism, at the very least (they did destroy a portion of people’s livelyhood afterall). British law must suck.

    • Anastasio says :

      @Skepticalskeptic

      British law views vandalism as a minor offence rather than a felony (which I believe is the equivalent of a major offence over here), which some might argue, given the nature or severity of the vandalism, does indeed suck.
      Of course the only thing that would suck more is to use hard-earned tax payers’ money to police the 1,346 square miles of the county of Wiltshire 24/7 in order to secure convictions for a minor offence which (going by the well known precedent) may or may not reap just £125 in fines and more than likely, given the severity of the crime, would not result in an incarceration. Given that the crop circle phenomena plays a integral part in contributing towards the £800 million a year Wiltshire receives by way of tourist cash kind of poses the question: which yokel wishes to carry the responsibilty for killing the Golden Goose?
      To offer an anecdotal comparison: I’ve never had a local business owner in Inverness tell me that the Loch Ness Monster doesn’t exist, and believe me, I have and do continue to ask!

      It seems that many farmers are happy to have crop circles in their fields; even recouping some of the damages by means of donations from visitors:

      http://www.wccsg.com/VisitingCropCircles/tabid/947/language/en-GB/Default.aspx

      And for one rather puiblcised example where the farmers found crop circles a nuisance:

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/8080315.stm

      In this case, take special note of the aggrieved farmer’s apathy towards seeking retribution, even in light of receiving £600 worth of damages to her livelihood:

      “She (the farmer) said she was not concerned about tracking down the culprits and the incident has not been reported to the police.”

      I don’t contend that this attitude is reflective of every affected farmer, but In these circumstances you have good footing to argue that there must be a crime and a perpetrator in place for British law to act, and then perhaps a fairer evaluation of its suckyness can be performed.

      I agree that the majority of formations being the work of hoaxers or pranksters is a rather simplistic view of the phenomena (I think this is what you were getting at?). Clearly a lot of modern formations are created by people with a keen eye for aesthetics (artists?), and who can rightfully say whether they’re out to hoax you or not?
      Whatever happened to Ars Gratia Artis, rebelling against society or the voice of subculture? They seem to work well for artists in every other medium that isn’t wheat.

      We should note that the people who use the term ‘hoax’ or ‘prankster’ (Muertos aside) are usually the same people who seek to conclude a non man-made hypothesis, and they are the very same people who feed us the blatherskite about mysterious magnetic particles and humans not able to bend stalks at a 90 degree without breaking them etc. blah blah blah ad nauseum…
      I think you would agree that when making sense of these claims espoused by biased, furtive individuals one does not necessarily need carry the label of ‘skeptic’ to point out that two plus two does not equal five.

  46. Jake says :

    Crop circles – what an amazing phenomenon, and one that continues to create a huge amount of heated discussion and debate. Some claim they’re all a clever hoax – that is mainly perpetuated by hobbyists in the UK who spend countless nights in the countryside creating massive geometric designs. Others claim they’re a creation of extraterrestrial intelligence, or somehow a manifestation of the intelligence of our planet – with a benevolent message or warnings for the future. Then there’s those people that recognise that both of these scenarios are potentially true – after all there is very strong evidence to indicate that a huge proportion of crop circles are certainly made by people, and just as strong evidence to indicate that many could not have possibly been created by hand.

    What really intrigues me that in all these debates there is very little mention of the artistic merits or unique symbolism and designs inherent in the crop circles. Whether you believe they’re a ‘hoax’ or not, no one can deny that they have given birth to a unique geometric artistic style that has no direct predecessor in 20th century art anywhere on the planet. Not even in ancient or modern ‘sacred geometry’ do we have examples that correlate with these often massive designs only visible from the air. If Doug Bower and Dave Chorley are the originators of this style – as they claim and your blog affirms – they should be celebrated as two of the greatest artists of the 20th century. Perhaps the fact they’re not is due to their claim that they invented the phenomenon in 1978, whereas in actual fact crop circles had began appearing decades before this (and were also documented to be appearing in other countries during and prior to 1978). Or perhaps the fact they’re not is due to them being (at the time they went public) two pint-loving watercolourists in their 60′s from Hampshire with little previous interest in geometric design or complex mathematical formulae! Interesting read here with a lot of info on ‘early’ crop circles: http://oldcropcircles.weebly.com/index.html

    Crop circles are appearing in their thousands all over the world, with widely varying degrees of size and complexity. Many of these could have been created by small groups of artists with a string and a board, but it is absurd to assume that hobbyists/hoaxers could regularly penetrate fenced off and guarded private land (including military installations) to create the more complex and intricate designs in a few short hours available in a summer evening.

    Then there is the issue of physical changes to the crops at the microscopic level, as well as electromagnetic/atmospheric changes associated with some crop circles. Again, explaining this away by stating that some hoaxers leave metal filings onsite doesn’t account for the unusual changes in many crop circles or explain the extent of this phenomenon. See this article for an interesting account of research by Michigan biophysicist W.C. Levengood on the subject: http://www.bltresearch.com/plantab.php

    Although I appreciate your efforts in the above article to simply and clearly explain the extent of crop circle ‘hoaxing’, this really doesn’t do the subject justice because its far from a simple issue! There are so many problems with the ‘Doug Bower/Dave Chorley’ story as an explanation for the whole phenomenon worldwide. Can we look forward to a more comprehensive and researched ‘debunking’ from you in the future?

    • muertos says :

      I agree with you that many crop circles are magnificent works of art. I also agree with you that Bower & Chorley should go down as groundbreaking artists. Although I believe they weren’t the first ones to invent crop circles, certainly they elevated them to an art form.

      Your argument in favor of the paranormal explanation for some crop circles ignores a very salient point–that there is not a shred of evidence anywhere, from anyone, in any form, in any instance, that extraterrestrials are creating these things. You can’t just line up what you believe to be discrepancies (like your point about “fenced off and private land”) and then presume that this must be “proof” that little green men from the Pleiades are swooping down in their flying saucers to press designs into fields of wheat.

      Nor did I ever say, or imply, that all crop circles on Earth are or have been created by Bower & Chorley. Obviously, as groundbreaking artists, they have inspired others all over the world to practice this form of artistic expression. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Whoever came up with the very first crop circle, in the 1940s or perhaps even earlier, Bower & Chorley obviously saw the artistic potential in this form of performance art, and they took it to the next level. Others have come after them. But ALL of the people who have ever made crop circles were born on planet Earth. Through the rules of logic you’re forced to reach that conclusion because there’s simply no other evidence for any other explanation.

      I find it very interesting that not a single Thrive fan, nor a single believer in the paranormal origin of crop circles, has ever addressed the argument in this blog that goes: if 90% of crop circles are in England (which we know to be true), and crop circles are made by UFOs, how come it is not true that 90% of UFO sightings are in England? Are Zorky and Bloopblop from the planet Galinka only interested in making crop circles when their flying saucer is hovering over old Blighty? Is it something in the beer, or do the bangers and mash they eat in those quaint English pubs create an aura that inspires them to make crop circles here in particular, while largely neglecting the rest of the world–which I might add sports fields of grain that vastly dwarf the pitiful amount (by comparison) of acreage under cultivation in England?

      Do you, Jake, have an answer for this? Can we look forward to a more comprehensive and researched answer from you on this in the future?

      • suzannetaylor says :

        Blessings on Jake. He has spelled out the particulars in such a compelling way that I’d think it could end this war of black and whites about real or hoaxed. And Muertos, you don’t even have your data right, which makes your smug tone particularly irksome. You need some manners, and some humility.

        You’ve set up a straw dog, citing things no one holds to be true, and then proving there’s no phenomenon by shooting holes in these fallacious arguments. First of all, there is no sighting of craft that is part of the phenomenon. All we can say about origin of the mysterious ones is “not us.” UFOs have nothing to do with it. Perhaps another dimension? Who knows. But no UFOs, plus wrong statistics anyway — about half of the circles every year are in England, with the other half scattered through about 50 other countries.

        Regarding no other evidence for any other explanation…grrrrrr…there’s scientific evidence of something mysterious affecting plants and soil, which is beyond our scientific capacity to produce. The logical conclusion is that some otherness is doing it. Why not be open to what could be such a propitious track? Worst case it isn’t. Best case the world wakes up to there being a bigger reality than the one in which we are so violent with one another and abusive to the Earth.

        Check out “What On Earth?,” for reinforcement of this perspective: http://CropCircleMovie.com

      • muertos says :

        Suzanne, whatever your personal tack is on crop circles, let’s not lose sight of the assertions Thrive is making–which are the subject of this article and this blog. The unmistakable conclusion that the makers of Thrive want their audience to reach is that crop circles are created by aliens visiting us in UFOs. The context of the crop circle section of Thrive, as well as the content itself, makes this extremely clear. This conclusion is totally untenable. You may be out there in the wilderness arguing “no UFOs” or “another dimension” (another baseless supposition with absolutely zero evidence to support it, by the way), but the Thrive people clearly aren’t arguing that. They want little green men and flying saucers–presumably the same little green men and flying saucers that built the pyramids and which are giving us the blueprint for unlimited energy through this “torus” design with which Mr. Gamble is obsessed.

        “All we can say about the origin of the mysterious ones is ‘not us.'” No, we can’t say that at all. You’re jumping to this conclusion with the wild abandon of an Acapulco cliff diver and then pretending as if it is a settled fact (it isn’t) or that it comports with some form of rational analysis (it doesn’t). My point in this article is that crop circles, beautiful and amazing as they are, are not of unexplained origin. We know where they come from: people make them. We know for a fact that people make them. Yes, even the ones with magnetized stalks or soil–which I pointed out in the article how that’s done. This, combined with the total lack of evidence for any other explanation–yes, let me make that clear again, the total lack of evidence for any other explanation–makes it mandatory, under the rules of logic and reason, to arrive at the conclusion that all crop circles are of terrestrial origin. This is deeply offensive to the average viewer of Thrive, but unfortunately for them it happens to be the truth.

      • suzannetaylor says :

        You really are insufferable, tossing out apples when the subject is oranges, and ignoring any logic that is contrary to yours and any accurate information that contradicts your errors. You were talking about crop circles and not about how they were used in THRIVE. That’s what I commented on. And http://bltresearch.com is full of scientific evidence for the mystery.

        PS: I was the instigator of the declaration by the ten people who disaffiliated themselves from THRIVE. The recent John Robbins rundown of what is even more distressing than the claims of the movie is eye opening, not only about the misguidedness of THRIVE but about misguided people that many folks are enchanted by.

      • anticultist says :

        @Suzanne:

        “And http://bltresearch.com is full of scientific evidence for the mystery.”

        The insufferable one here is you, repeating this bullshit claim ad nausea when the website and it’s content has been refuted/disputed and outright shown to be unreasonable above.

    • Anastasio says :

      @Jake

      “What really intrigues me that in all these debates there is very little mention of the artistic merits or unique symbolism and designs inherent in the crop circles. Whether you believe they’re a ‘hoax’ or not, no one can deny that they have given birth to a unique geometric artistic style that has no direct predecessor in 20th century art anywhere on the planet. Not even in ancient or modern ‘sacred geometry’ do we have examples that correlate with these often massive designs only visible from the air. ”

      Well be intrigued no more.

      Sorry to break it to you Jake, but before we had Mandelbrot and Julia sets, well..we had Mandelbrot and Julia! What do you find so suspicious or mysterious about it?
      Note that it was Benoit Mandelbrot that coined the term ‘fractal geometry’ and that fractal geometry didn’t show up in crop circles until a full 23 YEARS AFTER the world was given its first 2D view of a Mandelbrot Set on a computer screen.

      The chicken did indeed come before the egg in this case.

      If this “unique geometric artistic style” was evident in crop circles before it was being studied by mathemticians all over the world, then you would no doubt convince yourself that you have a stronger case. But it didn’t and you can’t.

      Let us look again at the link that YOU provided:

      http://oldcropcircles.weebly.com/index.html

      Now then Jake, can you see any of your “unique geometric artistic style” shown or described in any of those circles you brought to our attention? I didn’t think so.

      There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that the complexity of the circles has increased with man’s understanding of fractal geometry, although one does need be versed in geometry to create fractals in a formation.

      All you need is a little understanding of Photoshop:

      http://psd.tutsplus.com/tutorials/tutorials-effects/how-to-simulate-fractals-in-photoshop/

      ———————————————————————————————–
      “Many of these could have been created by small groups of artists with a string and a board, but it is absurd to assume that hobbyists/hoaxers could regularly penetrate fenced off and guarded private land (including military installations) to create the more complex and intricate designs in a few short hours available in a summer evening.”

      Yes it is absurd to assume things Jake. But who is doing the assuming? Have you got examples of hobbyists/hoaxers ‘penetrating’ fenced-off and guarded land? Especially with regards to military installations and the guarded aspect? I would be most impressed if a formation appeared on a firing range (without the military’s knowledge) or perhaps a minefield. How about in the opium fields of Afghanistan? How about on a lawn outside of the Pentagon?

      Also, did you know that fenced-off private land usually comes with a point (or more) of access and egress otherwise known as a gate?

      Let’s have a look at what can be created within a ‘short, few hours':

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpZKu5lu5w

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

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

      In the Jellyfish formation the downed crop is ruined and unsalvageable, which according to the croppies points to it as being man-made – not aliens or balls of light or anything else you are incapable of further explaining.

      Here’s one that took three whole days to materialise (scroll to bottom of page for the 2009 Milk Hill Formation that was completed in three phases):

      http://www.asherahart.net/wordpress/tag/crop-circles

      Let us all know once and for all that here in the UK we only experience four hours of darkness for a very short period during the summer. Four hours of darkness is not typical or average of the British Summertime.

      ———————————————————————————————–
      The integrity of the BLT has been discussed before in this very same comments section, especially with regards to Levengood’s professionalism and clearly biased approach to a foregone conclusion. It’s pure comedy that you predictably de-mummify the tired twenty-year-old research that has proven nothing and impressed no one simply because EVERY mystery it creates can be explained away as natural biophysical processes.
      Funny how biophysicist Levengood fails to understand his own disipline isn’t it? And to grant himself a doctorate in it just offends all sensibilty.

      Comprehensive and research. Maybe you should look up their definitions before you bandy them about.

  47. Anastasio says :

    @Suzanne

    Well look who’s back!

    Hello Suzanne, I’m glad you have presented me with this rare opportunity for us to discuss crop circles again, but first of all I have to say; I thought you were adverse to these kind of discussions? My own aversion to bullshit was exemplified in my previous questions to you, most of which remain discourteously unanswered by the way!

    Some authority you are on the subject! All those credentials and years of research and yet you suspiciously remain tight-lipped about the whole affair!

    Let’s see if you can redeem yourself by answering these very simple questions about the BLT and Levengood:

    1. How has tropism been adequately discounted for as causative effects of biological changes in plant stems? i.e How many scientific studies were conducted using man-made control circles in different types of plant of different ages and moisture content to sufficiently discount this natural process for ALL ‘genuine’ crop circles?
    (I know the answer, and even if I had only one hand missing three fingers I could still answer it!)

    2. What have you to say about these ‘anomalies’ which were found in a man-made formation? (scroll halfway down the page to the Olympic Games insignia)

    http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5639358

    3. Regarding the above question, what do you have to say to Levengood’s comment in his peer-reviewed paper ‘Anatomical Anomalies in Crop Formation Plants’, the comment that the believers tend to glance over?:

    “Taken as an isolated criterion, node size data cannot be relied on as a definite verification of a ‘genuine’ crop formation”?

    Levengood kind of rains all over his own parade huh?

    4. The BLT assurses you that some types of crop cannot be bent or downed by man without damage to the crop, especially canola (this idea is beyond stupidity).
    What scientific studies have been performed to observe this?
    In light of their claim, what have you to say to the rather human process of ‘canola pushing’?

    Note the last picture in the linked PDF:

    http://css.wsu.edu/biofuels/presentations/2011_Workshop/KevinLyle_Canola_Harvest_Pusher.pdf

    I’m sure any biophysicist could tell you more about the relationship between a plant’s moisture content and its elasticity. Any biophysicist that isn’t Levengood that is.

    5. Regarding the ‘Mysterious iron particles in the soil’, particulary the prime constituents of iron ore: magnetite and hematite.
    What scientific studies have the BLT performed to discount the widespread naturally occuring particles of these two mineral ores and those particles refined and added to industrial fertilisers?
    See below links if you need proof of what goes into fertliser:

    http://www.ehow.com/list_7589509_important-uses-magnetite.html

    http://academic.emporia.edu/abersusa/go336/talkingt/index.htm

    (I know the answer, and even if I had only one hand missing all my fingers I could still answer it!)

    6. With regards to the BLT, earlier in this blog you mentioned the “studies employing STRICT SCIENTIFIC PROTOCOLS that attest to changes that cannot be accounted for” then you said “the studies were not frivolously executed” and “there are better credentialed researchers”.
    You have now cited the BLT yet again as if they are a reputable source of scientific research.
    What keeps changing your mind as to the integrity of the BLT’s research?
    What does your capricious understanding of the BLT’s work say about your authority to lecture others on crop circles?

    7. Levengood lied time and time again about having a doctorate. Observable fact.
    Is this the trait of a professional scientist/biophysicist/anybody in your opinion?

    8. When the BLT’s work is criticised, as is common place in the scientific community, Nancy Talbot retorts with this:

    “And if some of the lay-people involved in the crop circle situation are themselves raising questions about the scientific work, such questions are basically insignificant…precisely because these lay-people do not have the academic or scientific training needed to correctly understand what the published material actually says.

    With all the previous questions I have raised in mind, do you consider this a professional scientific statement? Are my questions insignificant? Why is Talbott so touchy about the science she herself admits to not understanding?

    9. It is claimed that Levengood unwittingly reported anomalies in two
    man-made circles (apparently he was told the samples were from genuine circles):

    http://www.colinandrews.net/Crop-Circles-BLT-Wrong.html

    Where is his reply (and your opinion) to this accusation?

    10. Dr Vaughan Hurry, a real doctor and subject editor at Physiologia Plantarum, had this to say about Levengood’s papers:

    “After serious consideration I believe that to “continue this discussion”, when clearly from the citation record there is NOT A SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION IN PROGRESS, only gives gives it (the BLT’s findings) substance and credibility IT DOES NOT MERIT”.

    Even the people who work at the same journal that reviewed and published Levengood’s work can’t stomach it. What’s your opinion on this Suzanne?

    11. This section of the blog aims to examine Thrive’s claim that crop circles are made by aliens. Why do you find it irksome and illogical, that given the context, Meurtos is doing just that in response to people like Jake who we can safely presume to favour the alien hypothesis over the man-made explanation?
    Many people favour the alien hypothesis; you are clearly out of touch in this respect.

    I’m really not expecting a reply to my questions Suzanne.
    Mainly because I know you are incapable of answering them and partly because they can’t be answered without casting doubt on the phony organisation you keeping running away and hiding behind.

    I do hope you’re willing to prove me wrong about something though.

    • suzannetaylor says :

      It’s almost comical that you would use James Randi as an authority on anything. That said, I’m not going to be in a passing match with you. God, don’t you have anything better to do with your time? Or are you being funded so your time is covered?

      I’m too busy trying to get the world to see a bigger picture than the one in which we are so violent with one another and so destructive to the earth to get into this with you to match your zeal. Jake did a good job. No matter what nitpick you have, all you can do is arrive at a bottom line where there are indeed hoaxed formations and some of them have fooled people. Why you try to convince people that all the formations over all the years in all the countries in which they have appeared have been made by people, which no one can know, beats me.

      • Anastasio says :

        @Suzanne

        What’s more comical is that you choose to open your mouth before fully digesting what is being said to you! Now be fair, did I actually use THE James Randi as an authority, or did I use a knowledgeable circlemaker who posted on a forum bearing Randi’s name as an authority? Can you tell the difference Suzanne? Did you even look at the pictures of the man-made anomalies the guy had posted?

        The fact is, my points are not just nitpicks Suzanne; they’re a full head to toe delousing of your entire argument! Stick your fingers in your ears and bury your head in the sand but I guarantee my questions will still be right here when you choose to come back to reality. As will the ones I posted in response to Jake’s ‘good job’. It seems you both share the same unawareness and ignorance of the history of crop circles.

        It seems you’re quite willing to creep out of the woodwork to play ‘Gotcha!’ when it suits you. You were quick to correct Meurtos on the amount of crop circles that appear in England – about half of the world’s total every year was your smug riposte.
        Well the thing I can’t work out, is that in your very own film, I definitely heard you say something to this effect:

        “Although crop circles appear in many countries, THE VAST MAJORITY appear in southern England” – Suzanne Taylor

        Now given that the ‘vast majority’ is a much larger portion than ‘half’ I have to ask, how the hell do you intend on explaining that one away? It seem you’re definitely not afraid to contradict yourself! For what purpose, I’m not sure.

        Here’s another example – you clearly asserted to Muertos that:

        “UFOs have nothing to do with it”

        – yet even your own goddam film mentions and shows footage of the mysterious balls of light phenomenon!

        ‘What On Earth’ indeed Suzanne!

        How are we supposed to take you seriously? Especially when you claim to have the advantage of eighteen years’ of research among other glitzy credentials?
        Jesus Suzanne, I might actually buy it if your façade was as opaque the dense cerebral matter you choose to employ when attempting to lecture us on crop circles!
        But as it stands your reluctance to answer any of my questions speaks volumes about your understanding of crop circles and the meagre science that accompanies it.

        I literally paid you the courtesy of watching your film, perhaps you should pay me the same courtesy by answering the questions that it casts up?

      • suzannetaylor says :

        The “courtesy” you’ve done me is of course sarcastic.One thing about circle debunkers is they are fairly universally unkind. Everything I do is in the interest of making this a world where people treat each other differently. It’s hard to breathe reading your assaults.

        “Vast majority” in my mind meant half in England and a small smatter in each other country. I wasn’t trying to give a statisitical anaysis but to indicate that England is where they concentrate.

        And, like most people, although you could lump balls of light and ufos together, I think of them as two categories. When you say UFO you think craft.

        It really turns my stomach to deal with your mendaciousness, and hopefully you wont say anything so wrong about my work that I feel the need to get back into this.

  48. Anastasio says :

    @Suzanne

    If you wish to (erroneously) define ‘half’ as the ‘vast majority’ then I can equally argue that the vast majority of crop circles do not in fact appear in England each year, which is at direct odds at what YOU said in your own film.

    ‘half’, ‘the largest concentration’ and the ‘vast majority’ are not analagous terms Suzanne, perhaps you should have had someone fact-check the language in your film before its release – although I doubt that a person who surrounds themselves with ‘YES! WHAT A FANTASTIC IDEA!’ people is ever going to be told they are incorrect though are they?

    You might shrug this off as a semantic nitpick, but the negative implicaton of your error is that people who have watched your movie are now under the impression that the ‘vast majority’ of crop circles appear in England each year, because of something YOU have said.

    When Muertos simply repeated (in essence) YOUR assertion to Jake, you haughtily pounced on him suggesting punitive reciprocal measures be taken! Not to mention how irked you were!
    Should all people who watched your film and now as a consequence suggest that, in your own words, “the vast majority of crop circles appear in southern England” be taught some humility as well?

    The irking is of your own making, and unfortunately it’s forever immortalised on film…

    I’m sure we can all agree that UFO = UNIDENTIFED Flying OBJECT.

    For those that don’t know: http://www.answers.com/topic/unidentified-flying-object

    Mysterious floating balls of light (as depicted in your own film) fall quite comfortably into this definition. Why did you lend so much credence to the UFO theory if it irks you so Suzanne?

    When we identify a UFO as a craft, then that generic entity has a name and we can no longer define it as simply an unidentified object. It’s an Flying Craft!
    If Meurtos defines a UFO as a flying saucer and you as a ball of light (is it a craft? Who knows?!), then it is a moot point to debate, and certainly not one where either participant needs to learn the value of humility!

    “And, like most people, although you could lump balls of light and ufos together, I think of them as two categories. When you say UFO you think craft.”

    And when you bring your own unidentified definitions into the equation, I think we can agree that you are always going to run into problems.

    The right thing to do would be to at least offer Muertos an apology Suzanne. If you’re as logical and reasonable as you make out, then this should be no mean task?
    —————————————————————————————————————————-
    You paint quite a picture of me I must admit. Call me what you will, but each night I will go to bed and I will sleep quite happily for the recommended 8 hours, content that anything I have done in the interests of others is tangible and does not pivot directly on some mysterious, unexplained or unproven phenomenon.

    Your film is exactly like every other crop circle film I have watched – 90% anecdotal prattle and 10% BLT science, just as I predicted. I almost fell off my chair laughing at the gentleman who proudly boasted “my advantage is…not having a scientific education!” Scenes of new agers chiding the scientific method and identifying its limitations don’t sit well with scenes of that very same science ‘proving’ that anomalies exist in crop circles. More contradiction Suzanne.

    I won’t keep pointing it out if you don’t keep throwing it under my nose!

    You can’t protect the spurious content of your film just by simply contending your ulitmate ambition is to use it as a tool for world peace.
    Your motive will not give credence your beliefs, and your beliefs will not legitimise the science of crop circles. That’s not how it works.

    As someone who has watched your movie I have given you a set of perfectly legit and pertinent questions.
    Please do “get back into this”. If not here, somewhere else, I don’t care.
    Stand up for your film and answer the questions, that’s all I ask

    • stratoblaster says :

      I’d like to pose a question to the person who runs this site. What energy spins the earth? Spins the planets around the sun, forms planets, powers the sun, spins galaxies? Could that energy be utilized instead of the stored sun energy in bio organic fossil fuel, or toxic Nukes? What is Magnetism, gravity, do you understand these forces? Science has pursued these answers for centuries, and still has no conclusive holistic explanation. Why not help the pursuit of these answers? I have no problem saying “I don’t know” or “its a mystery.”

      Re: the crop circles: guys with boards…. are you serious? No mention of the rearrangement of the cellular structure and node forming at the bends in the plant material….do more research, be willing to be baffled. The universe is WAY more complex than we understand, we are ants in comparison to the intelligences operating in many dimensions outside our perception. If ultraviolet light is beyond our field of vision, couldn’t there be more that is beyond us?

      Look at Tesla’s research and the response it garnered from US government….. your computer is powered by AC, a Tesla invention… so are you prepared to debunk the rest of his research into wireless clean ambient universal power? Why was all of his research confiscated after his death which incidentally occurred a couple of days before he was to meet with the president (FDR).

      Electric power is everywhere, present in unlimited quantities and can drive the world’s machinery without the need of coal, oil, gas or any other fuels.
      NikolaTesla (1856-1943)

      If society had followed up on the inventions Nikola Tesla envisioned at the turn of the century, said Trombly,

      “we wouldn’t have a fossil-fuel economy today. And J. P. Morgan, Rockefeller and a number of others wouldn’t have amassed extraordinary fortunes on the basis of that fossil fuel economy.”

      I can’t wait to participate in the new ideas that will preserve humanities stay on this magic ball called earth. There is something better than Nukes and Oil, and I wont rest until they have been replaced.

      Get in on it.
      Help.
      Debunk what is truly false, celebrate the mysterious, and seek to understand new concepts, put up a website that explores these ideas without restraint.

      Guys with boards making crop circles??? Really?

      maybe they are the result of something besides UFO’s, or human tech, have you considered that we may not be the only life form in the only visible frequency range or dimensionality? If I wanted to convincingly communicate with a species without terrifying them, what better way than to send them pretty pictures infused with universal concepts like math and sacred geometry?

      It’s easier for me to imagine they are the result of something I don’t understand than for me to assume they are solely the creation some beer filled gits with string and boards, theirs are visually clunky, and lack the molecular restructuring.

      • muertos says :

        You haven’t read the whole site. For a thorough debunking of the film’s ridiculous claims regarding Tesla, you should look at this article:

        http://thrivedebunked.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/the-second-partial-debunking-of-the-full-length-thrive-movie/

        I love how conspiracy theorists and pseudoscience believers, whenever they find it convenient to assert the existence of some nonexistent technology, always claim that Nikola Tesla invented it. Then again perhaps it’s not so surprising. He’s dead, so he can’t dispute that he never invented these magical machines, and it’s quite convenient to claim that the evidence that he supposedly invented these things was suppressed by those evil conspirators. This is what’s known as a “self-reinforcing delusion.”

        If you had watched the video embedded in this article, you would see quite clearly that the crop circle made by these “beer filled gits with string and boards” is not “visually clunky” at all–it’s every bit as magnificent as the crop circles Foster Gamble insists must have been made by Zorky and Bloopblop from the planet Galinka, or wherever the hell he thinks they came from.

        Thanks for your comment.

      • Anastasio says :

        @stratoblaster

        “Look at Tesla’s research and the response it garnered from US government….. your computer is powered by AC, a Tesla invention…”

        Actually, my laptop is powered by a DC battery. In any case, your assertion that ‘AC’ was Tesla’s invention is incorrect and thusly demonstrates that further education is required on your part. To quote stratoblaster; “do more research”.

        And what is so unusual about the response that Tesla’s work garnered from the US government? The US military knocked back several of Tesla’s inventions, including the fabled death ray, so they were undoubtedly aware of what Tesla was working on at any given time. The government only took an real interest when they learned that Tesla had been trying to sell his work to Russian and German scientists during a period of heightened tension (namely the 2nd World War).
        What kind of response were you expecting when national security is potentially threatened?

        ———————————————————————————————

        “Re: the crop circles: guys with boards…. are you serious? No mention of the rearrangement of the cellular structure and node forming at the bends in the plant material….do more research, be willing to be baffled.”

        (Note that your wording is evidence that you do not fully understand what exactly is being accounted for in the studies of nodal alteration. Bends form at the nodes, not the other way around)

        I’m deadly serious, and admittedly I was baffled – until I did more research. That’s usually how it works. Did you know that the research conducted into “rearrangement of the cellular structure and node forming at the bends in the plant material” was actually conducted using funding from a member of the Rockefeller family?

        Anyway, here is what the psuedo-doctor who headed the peer-reviewed studies (that you presumably refer to) had to say about it:

        “Taken as an isolated criterion, node size data cannot be relied on as a definite verification of a ‘genuine’ crop formation”.

        I do not have the will to repeat the volumes that I have spoken about this topic. Hit crt+f and search ‘Anastasio’ on this page and peruse my responses to the lunacy that covers everything from plant alteration and stem breaking to sacred geometry…if you’re prepared to do more research that is.

        If there is something you’d like to further discuss in detail, please do not hesitate to reply.

  49. suzannetaylor says :

    Muertos — You are so mean-spirited. There was something bigger than Tesla in stratoblaster’s post, and you missed it entirely. Just as Foster is stuck on his conspiracy, you are stuck in your debunking. Neither side is propitious. Where we can meet is in the mystery — in awe of this miraculous universe. Go from there. Look into the unknown together.

    This actually is a weird blog. Why are you the policman of the universe, here to do a hatchet job on crop circles? No matter what barbs you throw, they will not obliterae the mystery, so it’s not even a potentially winning game..

    • muertos says :

      Actually, the real mystery here is why people continue to believe in the myth that crop circles are of anything other than terrestrial, human origin.

      I find it bizarre that you claim I’m “mean-spirited” for giving away the truth for free on this blog, considering you are selling a movie regarding crop circle myths for $19.95 a pop on your website. I’ll leave it to the readers of this blog to appreciate the irony of that situation.

      • suzannetaylor says :

        There you are, in your dualistic absolute, as if there is no other side. And then some ridiculous implication, that hoaxers love to make, that people who do talks and books and conferences and movies about the circles are in it for the money. For god’s sake, come out of that corner and put your dukes down. You ignore all evidence that contradicts your position and are the great know it all who is the truthful bottom line. It is a ridiculous blind arrogance. Just saying you know and others don’t, over and over, doesn’t make it a powerful truth.

        So here’s a new paper by an independent investigator with academic credentials, who was engaged to determine whether there was anything mysterious about the circles. Here’s link to my blog post about his piece: http://theconversation.org/blog/legitimacy-of-crop-circles.org

        Here’s an excerpt from his last paragraph:

        “Rigid adherence to any principle does little to facilitate understanding. Science rolling its collective eyes at the prospects of radically unknown forces operating within their careful construction of the physical realm is the height of intellectual arrogance and a fundamental betrayal of the essential curiosity driving discovery. Conversely, those who would indiscriminately accommodate unsubstantiated perspectives fostering their own subjective inclinations are no better. Worst of all are any whose individual certainty is so pronounced and entrenched as to preclude serious consideration of conflicting evidence or opinion. Commitment to position instead of the process of truth serves the interests of none.”

      • muertos says :

        I’m aware that you oppose Thrive in general and have been active in trying to expose the deceptiveness and harmfulness of this ridiculous, toxic and dangerous film for what it truly is. For those efforts I thank you. I guess I can understand why you’ve chosen to dig in your heels and give battle on the issue of crop circles, because what I’ve said in this blog threatens the credibility of your own film. For what it’s worth, I really don’t give a damn about your movie. I have no intention of going out of my way to debunk it. So long as you assert a paranormal explanation for crop circles, you’re as wrong as Foster Gamble is about that particular issue, and I have no hesitation in saying so; nevertheless, my suggestion to you is that we agree that Thrive is a bunch of garbage, and you go about your business spreading myths about crop circles and I go about mine in debunking conspiracy theories, and leave it at that. You suggested in an earlier post that we find a place “where we can meet.” That’s my suggestion. Let’s both condemn Thrive for the utter pap that it is, and leave well enough alone. How does that strike you?

      • DiscoPro_Joe says :

        Suzanne Taylor quoted, “Rigid adherence to any principle does little to facilitate understanding.”

        This sounds like Postmodern B.S.

      • stratoblaster says :

        Well I was hoping you were an actual skeptic, which I would applaud, because it is so necessary to sift through all the silly ideas and scams found on the internet. I watched the video prior to my first posting….sorry, mystery still wins here. Their circle is simple, small, based soled on circular geometry which is easy to achieve with a stick and string. I concede there are man made circles (like the hello kitty). Kudos to those artists for taking the time… but that is not the whole story. Molecular restructuring of living plant stems (still alive and un-crushed post formation)…massive symmetry, giant size, and rapid formation support my claim that there is something here we have yet to understand. A true skeptic leaves room for the unknown, as does true science. I’ll leave it at that.

        You brought 911 into it. Oh man…….Thermite, Building 7 collapsing, tons of eyewitnesses hearing/experiencing explosions throughout the towers, no large plane debris on the lawn of the pentagon, stock options being placed in the days preceding, bin ladens and family ferreted out of the country, bush reading my pet goat as the attacks occur (where’s cheney?)….do more research if you’re buying the commision’s report. Your credibility is at stake here.

        Dingle (phillipines) made cars run on water (hydrogen electrolyzed out of water), I installed in my Rover, burns good, less emissions, more power, more efficient. Not offered yet as far as I know on the market….hmmmm why? World bank told Philippine govmt if they instituted his request to install his device in all govmt vehicles, they would lose funding and aid. that’s how that works.

        So Tesla? I don’t know, I’m too young to have been there. But we make good use of his other concepts (AC). Enough to make me suspect he had more up his sleeve. Where are his research papers….why were they seized for national security reasons, and have not been able to be accessed using the FOIA rights?

        Earth=GIANT MAGNET
        Sun=HYDROGEN
        OIL/Nukes=STUPID

        lets work together and find something better.
        I’m a penetrating mind and a yaysayer. I say YES!
        There is something better, maybe there’s clues out there to find it. I see clues in the crop circles vis a vis the Torridial field which is found around every living system in the universe (including Galaxies and YOU!). This is where our Clean power will come from. very soon. despite your benefactor’s (David Rockefeller?) best efforts to squelch it.

        I wish you an open mind and the freedom to enjoy it.

        As mr George Clinton said:

        “Magnets, Magnetize
        HO!
        Starchild here……..”

        as above
        so below

      • muertos says :

        So you’re a 9/11 Twoofer as well as a believer in crop circle nonsense. This in itself demonstrates that you have a serious defect in your ability to evaluate evidence and think critically. You say that my “credibility is at stake here.” Anyone who believes that 9/11 was an inside job has no credibility whatsoever–because 9/11 conspiracy theories are completely unsupportable.

        Arguing with 9/11 Twoofers is largely pointless, as I stated in a blog I made last fall.

        http://muertos.blog.com/2011/11/30/the-truth-about-911-truth-and-debunking/

        Since you seem to be a Twoofer or at least sympathetic to Twoofer nonsense, I don’t see the point in debating you on crop circles. I’ve presented the evidence. You and other believers in this nonsense are desperately trying to wish it away, but it will continue to exist nonetheless.

    • Anastasio says :

      @Suzanne

      “You ignore all evidence that contradicts your position and are the great know it all who is the truthful bottom line. It is a ridiculous blind arrogance. Just saying you know and others don’t, over and over, doesn’t make it a powerful truth.”

      Now you’re just being an arse Suzanne, and a sanctimonious one at that.

      Why don’t you courteously answer the questions I put to you and then you can get back on your pedestal and preach about ignorance and arrogance?

    • Anastasio says :

      @Suzanne

      http://theconversation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Crop-Circles-Legitimacy.pdf

      This is incredible. Not only have you linked to a document that contradicts your own work but it also makes a good effort at contradicting itself! So kind of the author to provide his email address. I will be forwarding him the same questions that you are unable to answer, just to determine his real agenda.

      Let me just raise a couple of points here after my first skim through Vigoda’s article:

      1. “Circles have formed in over forty countries with the vast majority emerging in southern England” – R.J. Vigoda

      “plus wrong statistics anyway — about half of the circles every year are in England, with the other half scattered through about 50 other countries” – Suzanne Taylor

      You claim Vigoda and yourself to be authorities on the crop circle phenomenon yet one of you is clearly wrong. Which of you is it Suzanne?

      2.”The above factors represent the most dramatic anomalies uncovered by the BLT team. BLT’s findings were compiled using fundamental scientific procedures, evaluated in accordance with statistically accepted levels of confidence and presented in a coherent, detailed fashion in peer reviewed publications.”

      “Rigid adherence to any principle does little to facilitate understanding. Science rolling its collective eyes at the prospects of radically unknown forces operating within their careful construction of the physical realm is the height of intellectual arrogance and a fundamental betrayal of the essential curiosity driving discovery” – R.J. Vigoda (re-quoted by Suzanne Taylor)

      “We run our reality by empirical science, and there have been studies employing strict scientific protocols that attest to changes that cannot be accounted for” – Suzanne Taylor

      More pick and choose Suzanne? Simple question: is science a valid tool for testing for the authenticity of crop circles?
      It either is or it isn’t; which is it?

      Now I haven’t the time nor patience to read through the rest of Vigoda’s report. I can see from the first few pages that it proves nothing and offers nothing new to the debate. I do not require an “anthropologist specializing in the assessment of transpersonal phenomena and the critique of transpersonal theory” to prove the non-human hypothesis of crop circles to me any more than I need a muslim to prove to me the existence of Allah. You’ve sure scraped the bottom of the barrel with this one Suzanne, and you ran out of feet to shoot a long time ago.

      I get the impression that you do not fully appreciate the intellectual weight of your contributions to this debate, and it’s becoming apparent that your posts carry little more noetic value than that of a child’s reading book. You are either shackled by your nescience or you are in it for the money, perhaps a combination of the two I don’t know. Either way your opinions are fast becoming comedy gold; a testament to your ass-backward ignorance chronicled for all time, for all to see.

      And you can’t say I haven’t made good effort to help you out of your predicament. I’m a good guy like that.

    • stratoblaster says :

      Phew, the above article is pretty long-winded, but the essential statement supports my concern about this debunking site. What does it serve to just say no no no no no?

      His conclusion (abbreviated by me):

      It’s quite apparent there is adequate evidence and circumstance to suggest the crop circle phenomenon can’t be blithely dismissed as an obvious or calculated fraud. At this stage I believe there remain profound questions and mysteries surrounding the existence of some of these unusual creations. Obviously, should the origin of any of the circles lie outside human agency there is within this phenomenon a staggering amount of potential knowledge and insight to be gained on both scientific and humanistic levels. This by itself makes the issue worthy of much greater levels of investigation and evaluation. However, for our understanding to advance there needs to be a constructive reframing of the topic more in line with the current reality. As long as the crop circle phenomenon remains defined by the either/or mentality of competing extremists any progress towards accurately assessing this issue is difficult. While intellectual detachment is not completely unknown within this field it nevertheless remains in pitifully short supply. It’s time for all to admit the degree of our ignorance and refrain from wild speculation or flat denial.

      Commitment to position instead of
      the process of truth serves the interests of none. The history of all human knowledge within all fields is the product of constant evolution and refinement despite the hard certainties of the time. It’s time for all to get a grip, embrace the other and together move cautiously forward towards a clearer, mutual understanding.

  50. stratoblaster says :

    Ok lets discuss just one of my 911 smoking gun facts.

    THERMITE!!! only found around building demolitions… used to cut steel… found by many private researchers (well documented…look it up) in the dust all over NYC. Fema allowed no official forensic study of the debris, which burned for weeeeeks!! What debris was able to be collected was quickly ferried to a ship which took it to china…..look at pictures of the rubble in which you see steel girders cut at an angle (common demo methodology).

    Abstract

    “We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic. ”

    http://911review.com/evidence/wtc_explosives.html

    http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

    (my favorite of these links because of its exhaustive scientific support)

    danish news report : researchers find thermite in dust and study)

    your link about 911 is silly and philosophical ,

    ….debunking conspiracy theorists by calling them ahem…conspiracy theorists…

    wow, not very convincing. no details, no facts, no testimony, no address of smoking gun details left un discussed by Commission report. That must have taken you hours to assemble with deep research and critical thinking…. (yes, sarcasm)

    I’m done here, debating this is a waste
    but perhaps I saved others from falling into your dribble

    i hope they pay you well

    • DiscoPro_Joe says :

      Well, Stratoblaster…guess what? Muertos, I, and several others on this board are getting paid $1.5 million per year to put out disinformation, in exchange for verbally protecting our benefactors! You can catch us driving our Lamborghini s by the beach and partying at expensive nightclubs. For awhile, I used to believe 9/11 was an “inside job” — back in the mid 20-00s. But then, someone (whom I must keep secret) came to me and made an offer I couldn’t refuse. So I changed my beliefs about it, and since then, have been devoted to occasional disinformation campaigns to protect my cash flow and keep everyone else in the dark!

      If you’d like some more…uh…information, then maybe you can talk to some of our colleagues. Trust me…they’re getting paid a heck of a lot more to talk smack than Muertos and me! Here they are:

      ————————————————————————-
      CIA agent Larry Mitchell for meeting with bin Laden in the months before 9/11, and everyone else in the CIA who knows they’re not actually trying to capture him after all
      GW Bush and various family members (if you’re to believe the relevance of Bush family members being involved with the WTC security company Stratesec)
      Condoleezza Rice (if you believe she had enough knowledge to warn Willie Brown that he might be in danger)
      John Ashcroft (if you believe he had enough knowledge to decide not to fly commercial flights)
      Larry Silverstein (if you believe he knew 9/11 was coming and that there were explosives in WTC7)
      The 19 people who played the part of the hijackers, if you believe they were just their to play a role and were never on the planes
      Enough senior people at the FBI to block progress in the Moussaoui case, ensure the Phoenix memo was ignored, and more
      Ahmad Umar Sheikh for funding the hijackers, General Mahmoud Ahmad for ordering him to do so, and enough of the ISI to get the money and cover up that they were doing this for the US
      Everyone who found out about the attacks in advance, and chose not to go into work rather than warn anyone else, and didn’t mention this after the fact (thousands of Israelis in the towers, and so on), and everyone who warned them
      Everyone responsible for the insider trading before the attacks, the CIA for supposedly monitoring these transactions but doing nothing about them, and enough of the SEC and FBI to ensure that the report was a whitewash
      The members of Bush’s secret service team on 9/11 (who presumably either knew in advance that he was safe, or haven’t spoken out about their surprise about what happened subsequently)
      The five “dancing Israelis” who filmed the attack “as it happened”, and presumably many others in Israeli Intelligence, and enough people in the police or FBI to cover up the details of the case and get them shipped out
      Everyone responsible for planting evidence in the hijackers cars, bags and so on
      Everyone responsible for planting evidence in the WTC wreckage (passports etc), or removing it (WTC black boxes)
      Air Traffic Control and flight schedulers at the takeoff airports (to cope with the double flights), and to make sure they didn’t follow procedure in reporting the hijackings promptly
      Whoever prepared the “special” planes swapped for the real flights, complete with “missile pod” for firing into the towers just before impact, and the ATC and Norad staff who didn’t mention the swap
      Norad and senior officers working at the day (so they could lie about the war games and their lack of response)
      Fighter pilots who deliberately flew too slowly so they wouldn’t reach the aircraft in time
      Whoever shot down Flight 93, and the senior officers who helped cover it up
      Everyone who researched the passengers, then all the actors who used that research to make fake mobile calls to their relatives, and either the phone company or the FBI for covering up the phone records
      Everyone involved in killing hundreds of passengers, assuming they didn’t die in the crashes and were killed later
      Everyone involved in transporting their bodies to the various scenes if they did, or faking the DNA evidence if they didn’t
      The people who researched the WTC to find out the best place to place explosives
      The people who planted the explosives through the WTC towers and WTC7
      Whoever detonated the WTC explosives at various different times of the day
      Enough of the New York Fire and Police Departments to shut up everyone else and make sure they didn’t try to investigate why all their friends and colleagues died
      Everyone who prepared the remote control plane that really flew into the Pentagon, and whoever remote-controlled it, and the Washington Air Traffic Controllers who aren’t allowed to talk about the extra radar blip they saw over the Pentagon (if Flight 77 really flew over it)
      The Sheraton hotel staff who reportedly saw the video of the plane as it flew past to the Pentagon, but have never said that it wasn’t the “official” flight
      The people who ensured the Pentagon missile defence systems were disabled to the plane could hit
      The people who planted the fake Pentagon evidence, from body parts to black boxes, and those who prepared it
      The people who faked additional evidence around the Pentagon, bringing down lampposts etc in an effort to make it look like a large winged plane carried out the attack
      Rudolph Giuliani for having advance knowledge that the WTC was going to collapse, and for helping to ensure that the steel was disposed of quickly
      Enough people at American and United Airlines to keep quiet about the absence of the hijackers names from the passenger manifests
      Enough people at CNN not to question the absence of the hijackers names from the flight manifests, if you believe that’s what their victims lists really are
      Enough people at FEMA and NIST to ensure any reports and analyses produced were whitewashes
      Enough senior officials at the many WTC insurance companies to ensure the doubts were ignored and claims were paid
      Everyone involved in producing the fake bin Laden “confession” video(s)
      Khalid Al-Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Bin Al-Sheeba for discussing how they planned 9/11 on audio tape even though this didn’t happen, and perhaps al Jazeera reporter Yosri Fouda for getting the interview (if we assume he knows it isn’t true)
      All the other Al Qaeda members who’ve either implicitly or explicitly accepted responsibility for 9/11, even when they know it was carried out by someone else
      The staff of the 9/11 Commission for deliberately obscuring the truth

      ————————————————————————
      And here’s another list of special colleagues of ours. We’re in good company!

      (Please note that “P.E.” means Professional Engineer, and “S.E.” stands for Structural Engineer.)

      1,500 people who worked the flight 93 crash scene
      40,000 people who worked the piles at Ground Zero
      55 FBI Evidence Response Teams at Fresh Kills in New York
      7,000+ FBI Agents
      8,000+ people who worked the scene at the Pentagon
      Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E. / Aine M. Brazil, P.E., S.E. / Alan Rosa, P.E., S.E. / Alfred D. Barcenilla, Sr., P.E. / Allan Jowsey, Ph.D. / Allyn Kilsheimer, P.E., S.E. / Amit Bandyopadhyay, S.E. / Amy Zelson Mundorff / Anamaria Bonilla, S.E. / Andre Sidler, P.E., S.E. / Andrei Reinhorn, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. / Andrew Coats, P.E., S.E. / Andrew McConnell, S.E. / Andrew Mueller-Lust, S.E. / Andrew Pontecorvo, P.E. / Andrew Whittaker, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. / Anthony Kirk US&R Structural Specialist / Anthony W. Chuliver, S.E. / Antoine E. Naaman, Ph.D. / Antranig M. Ouzoonian, P.E. / Arlan Dobson, FEMA Region 2 DAS / Arthur Schuerman, FDNY (ret.) / Asif Usmani, Ph.D., B.E. / August Domel, Ph.D., S.E., P.E. / Ayhan Irfanoglu, P.E., S.E. / Barbara Lane, Ph.D. / Bernie Denke, P.E. US&R Structural Specialist / Bill Cote / Bill Coulbourne, P.E., S.E. / Bill Crowley, special agent, FBI / Bill Daly, senior vice president, Control Risks Group / Bill Scott (Capt. USAF, Ret.), / Bill Uher, NASA Langley Research Center / Bob Gray (I.U.O.E.) / Bonnie Manley, P.E., S.E. / Boris Hayda, P.E., S.E. / Brian Lyons, Tully / Brian McElhatten, S.E. / Brian Smith (Col.), Chief Deputy Medical Examiner, Dover AFB / Brian Tokarczik, P.E., S.E. / Charles Hirsch, M.D. / Charles J. Carter, P.E., S.E. / Charles Thornton, P.E. / Charlie Vitchers / Christoph Hoffmann, Ph.D., Purdue University / Christopher E. Marrion, P.E. / Christopher M. Hewitt, AISC / Christopher N. McCowan / Chuck Guardia, S.E. / Conrad Paulson, P.E., S.E. / Curtis S.D. Massey / D. Stanton Korista, P.E., S.E. / Dan Doyle (IW 40) / Dan Eschenasy, P.E., S.E. / Dan Koch Jr. / Daniel A. Cuoco, P.E / Daniele Veneziano, P.E. / David Biggs, P.E., S.E. / David Cooper, P.E. / David Davidowitz, ConEd / David Hoy, S.E. / David J. Hammond, P.E., S.E. / David Leach, P.E. / David M. Parks, ME / David Newland Sc.D., FREng. / David Peraza, P.E., S.E. / David Ranlet / David Schomburg / David Sharp, S.E. / David T. Biggs, P.E. / Dean Koutsoubis, S.E. / Dean Tills, P.E. / Delbert Boring, P.E. / Dennis Clark (IST) / Dennis Dirkmaat, Ph.D. / Dennis Mileti, Ph.D. / Dennis Smith / Dharam Pal, M.E. / Dick Posthauer, S.E. / Donald Friedman, P.E. / Donald O. Dusenberry, P.E. / Ed Jacoby Jr., NYSEMO / Ed McGinley, P.E. / Ed Plaugher, Chief, Arlington FD / Edward A. Flynn, Arlington Police Chief / Edward M. DePaola, P.E., S.E. / Edward Stinnette, Chief, FCFD / Eiji Fukuzawa / Fahim Sadek, P.E., S.E. / Farid Alfawakhiri, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. / Frank Vallebuono, FDNY Battalion Chief / Anthony Varriale, FDNY Captain / Frank Cruthers, FDNY Chief / Frank Fellini, FDNY Chief / Joseph Callan, FDNY Chief / Daniel Nigro, FDNY Chief of Operations / Nick Visconti, FDNY Deputy Chief / Peter Hayden, FDNY Deputy Chief / Sam Melisi, FDNY Firefighter / Forman Williams, Ph.D., P.E. / Francis J. Lombardi, P.E. / Frank Gayle, Sc.D. / Frank Greening, Ph.D. / Fred E.C. Culick, Ph.D., S.B. / Fred Endrikat, FEMA USAR / Gary Keith, V.P. NFPA / Gary Steficek, S.E. / Gary Tokle, Asst. VP, NFPA / George Tamaro, P.E., S.E. / Gerald Haynes, P.E. / Gerald Wellman US&R Structural Specialist / Glenn Corbett / Graeme Flint / Guy Colonna, P.E., NFPA / Guylene Proulx, Ph.D. / H.S. Lew, P.E., S.E. / Hal Bidlack, Lt. Col. USAF (ret.), Ph.D. / Harold E. Nelson, P.E., FSFP.E. / Harry Martin, AISC / Howard R. Baum, Ph.D., M.E. / J. David Frost, Ph.D., P.E. / J. David McColskey / Jack Brown Deputy Chief Loudoun County (Va.) Fire Rescue Department / Jack Messagno, WTC project Manager (Tully) / Jack Spencer, P.E. / Jacques Grandino, P.E., S.E. / James A. Rossberg, P.E. / James Chastain US&R Structural Specialist / James H. Fahey, S.E. / James J. Cohen, P.E., S.E. / James J. Hauck, P.E., S.E. / James Lord, FSFP.E. / James Milke, Ph.D., P.E. / James Quintiere, Ph.D., P.E. / Jan Szumanski, IUOE / Jason Averill, FSFP.E. / Jeff Rienbold, NPS / Jeffrey Hartman, S.E. / Jim Abadie, Bovis / Joel Meyerowitz / John Fisher, Ph.D., P.E., / John Flynn, P.E. / John Gross, Ph.D., P.E. / John Hodgens, FDNY (ret.) / John J. Healey, Ph.D., P.E. / John J. Zils, P.E., S.E. / John L. Gross, Ph.D., P.E. / John Lekstutis, P.E. / John M. Hanson, Ph.D, P.E. / John McArdle NYPD/ESU (DTC) / John Moran, NYPD/ESU (NTC) / John O’Connell, Chief FDNY / John Odermatt (NYC OEM) / John Ruddy, P.E., S.E. / John Ryan, PAPD / John W. Fisher, P.E. / Jon Magnusson, P.E., S.E. / Jonathan Barnett, Ph.D / Joo-Eun Lee P.E., S.E. / José Torero, Ph.D. / Joseph C. Gehlen, P.E., S.E. / Joseph Englot, P.E., S.E. / Jozef Van Dyck, P.E. / Juan Paulo Morla, S.E. / Karen Damianick, P.E. / Karl Koch III / Karl Koch IV / Kaspar Willam, P.E., S.E. / Keith A. Seffen, MA, Ph.D. / Ken Hays / Kenneth Holden / Kent Watts / Kevin Brennan, OSHA / Kevin Malley, FDNY (ret.) / Kevin Terry, S.E. / Kurt Gustafson, P.E., S.E. / Larry Keating (IW 40) / Lawrence C. Bank, Ph.D., P.E. / Lawrence Griffis, P.E. / Lawrence Novak, P.E., S.E. / Leo J. Titus, P.E. / Leonard M. Joseph, P.E. / Leslie E. Robertson, P.E., S.E. / Long T. Phan, Ph.D., P.E. / Lou Mendes, P.E., S.E. / Louis Errichiello, S.E. / Manny Velivasakis, P.E. / Mark Blair / Mark Kucera, USACE / Mark Pierepiekarz, P.E., S.E. / Mark Stahl / Mark Tamaro, P.E / Mark Volpe, IW 40 / Marty Corcoran / Matthew G. Yerkey, P.E., S.E. / Matthew McCormick, NTSB / Melbourne Garber, P.E., S.E. / Merle E. Brander, P.E. / Mete A. Sozen, Ph.D., S.E. / Michael Burton, P.E. / Michael Dallal / Michael Fagel, Ph.D., CEM / Michael Hessheimer, S.E. / Michael K. Hynes, Ed.D., ATP, CFI / Michael Tylk, P.E., S.E. / Michel Bruneau, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. / Mike Banker, FDNY Capt. (SOC) / Mike Marscio, P.E. / Miroslav Sulc,, P.E., S.E. / Mohammed Ettouney / Mohammed R. Karim, Ph.D. / Morgan Hurley, FSFP.E. / Nestor Iwankiw, Ph.D., P.E. / Nick Carcich / Norman Groner, Ph.D. / Pablo Lopez, P.E., S.E. / Patrick McNierney, P.E., S.E. / Paul A. Bosela, Ph.D., P.E. / Paul F. Mlakar, Ph.D., P.E. / Paul Sledzik / Paul Tertell, P.E. / Pete Bakersky / Peter Chipchase, S.E. / Peter Rinaldi, P.E. / Phillip Murray, P.E. / Pia Hoffman / Rajani Nair, S.E. / Ralph Castillo, P.E., F.P.E. / Ralph D’Apuzo, P.E. / Ramon Gilsanz, P.E., S.E / Randy Lawson / Raul Maestre, P.E., S.E. / Raymond F. Messer, P.E. / Raymond H.R. Tide, P.E., S.E. / Reidar Bjorhovde, Ph.D., P.E / Richard Bukowski P.E., FSFP.E. / Richard G. Gewain, P.E., S.E. / Richard Gann, Ph.D. / Richard Garlock, P.E., S.E. / Richard J. Fields, Ph.D. / Richard Kahler US&R Structural Specialist / Robert Athanas (thermal imaging specialist, FDNY) / Robert C. Sinn, P.E., S.E. / Robert Clarke, S.E. / Robert F. Duval (NFPA) / Robert Frances US&R Structural Specialist / Robert J. McNamara, P.E., S.E. / Robert L. Parker, Ph.D. / Robert Ratay, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. / Robert Shaler, M.D. / Robert Smilowitz, Ph.D., P.E / Robert Solomon, P.E. / Robert Wills, AISC / Ron Dokell, president, Demolition Consultants / Ronald Greeley, Ph.D. / Ronald Hamburger, P.E., S.E. / Ronald J. LaMere, P.E. / Ronald Rehm, Ph.D. / Ronald Spadafora, FDNY D.A.C / Ruben M. Zallen, P.E. / Russell “Rusty” Dodge Jr, Asst. Chief, Fort Belvoir FD / Ryan Mackey / S. Shyam Sunder, P.E., S.E. / Saroj Bhol, P.E. / Saw-Teen See, P.E. / Shankar Nair. P.E., S.E. / Shawn Kelly, Arlington County Fire Marshal / Skip Aldous, Lt. Col., U.S. Air Force (Ret.) / Socrates Ioannides, P.E., S.E. / Sonny Scarff / Stan Murphy, P.E. / Stephen Cauffman / Stephen W. Banovic, Ph.D. / Steve Douglass, image analysis consultant / Steve Rasweiler, FDNY B.C. (SOC) / Steve Spall, P.E., S.E. / Stuart Foltz, P.E. / Terry Sullivan, Bovis / Theodore Galambos, P.E. / Theodore Krauthammer, Ph.D., P.E. / Therese P. McAllister, Ph.D., P.E. / Thomas A. Siewert / Thomas Eagar, Sc.D., P.E. / Thomas Hawkins Jr, Chief, AFD / Thomas R. Edwards, Ph.D / Thomas Schlafly, AISC / Timothy Foecke, Ph.D. / Todd Curtis, Ph.D / Todd Ude, P.E., S.E. / Tom Scarangello, P.E. / Tom Stanton (IST) / Tomasz Wierzbicki / Tony Beale, P.E. / Valentine Junker / Van Romero, Ph.D. / Venkatesh Kodur, Ph.D., P.E. / Victor Hare, P.E. / Victoria Arbitrio, P.E. / Vincent Dunn, FDNY (ret.) / W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. / W. Lee Evey / Wallace Miller / William Baker, P.E., S.E / William E. Luecke, Ph.D. / William Grosshandler, Ph.D., ME / William Howell, P.E., S.E. / William Koplitz photo desk manager, FEMA / William McGuire, P.E. / Willie Quinlan, IW / Won-Young Kim, Ph.D / Yates Gladwell pilot, VF Corp. / Yukihiro Omika / Zdenek Bazant, Ph.D., S.E. /
      ACE Bermuda Insurance / AEMC Construction / AIG Insurance / Air Traffic Control System Command Center in Washington / Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue / Allianz Global Risks / American Airlines / American Concrete Institute / American Institute of Steel Construction / American Red Cross / Applied Biosystems Inc. / Applied Research Associates / Arlington County Emergency Medical Services / Arlington County Fire Department / Arlington County Sheriff’s Department / Arlington VA Police Department / Armed Forces Institute of Pathology / Armed Forces Institute of Technology Federal Advisory Committee / ARUP USA / Atlantic Heydt Inc. / Bechtel / Berlin Fire Department / Big Apple Wrecking / Blanford & Co. / Bode Technology Group / Bovis Inc. / Building and Construction Trades Council / Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms / C-130H crew in D.C. & Shanksville / Cal Berkeley Engineering Dept. / California Incident Management Team / Carter Burgess Engineering / Celera Genomics / Centers for Disease Control / Central City Fire Department / Central Intelligence Agency / Cleveland Airport control tower / Columbia University Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics / Congressional Joint Intelligence Committee / Consolidated Edison Company / Construction Technologies Laboratory / Controlled Demolitions Inc. / Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat / Counterterrorism and Security Group / CTL Engineering / D.H. Griffin Wrecking Co. Inc. / DeSimone Consulting Engineers / Dewhurst MacFarlane &Partners / DiSalvo Ericson Engineering / District of Columbia Fire & Rescue / DOD Honor Guard, Pentagon / D’Onofrio Construction / E-4B National Airborne Operations Center crews / Edwards and Kelcey Engineering / Engineering Systems, Inc. / Environmental protection Agency / Exponent Failure Analysis Associates / EYP Mission CriticalFacilities / Fairfax County Fire & Rescue / Falcon 20 crew in PA / Family members who received calls from victims on the planes / FBI Evidence Recovery Teams / Federal Aviation Administration / Federal Bureau of Investigation / Federal Emergency Management Agency / Federal Insurance Co. / FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams: Arizona Task Force 1, California Task Force 1, California Task Force 3, California Task Force 7, Colorado Task Force 1, Fairfax Task Force 1, Florida Task Force 1, Florida Task Force 2, Maryland Task Force 1, Massachusetts Task Force 1, Metro Dade/Miami, Nebraska Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, New York Task Force 1, Pennsylvania Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Texas Task Force 1, Utah Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, Washington Task Force 1 / FEMA Disaster Field Office / FEMA Emergency Response Team / FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Incident Support Team-Advanced 3 / Fire Department of New York / Fort Myer Fire Department / French Urban Search & Rescue Task Force / Friedens Volunteer Fire Department / Gateway Demolition / Gene Code Forensics / Georgia Tech Engineering Dept. / Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP / GMAC Financing / Goldstein Associates Consulting Engineers / Guy Nordenson Associates / HAKS Engineers / Hampton-Clarke Inc. / HHS National Medical Response Team / HLW International Engineering / Hooversville Rescue Squad. / Hooversville Volunteer Fire Department / Hoy Structural Services / Hughes Associates, Inc / Hugo Neu Schnitzer East / hundreds of ironworkers, some of whom built the WTC / Hundreds of New York City Police Department Detectives / Industrial Risk Insurers / Institute for Civil Infrastructure Systems / International Association of Fire Chiefs / International Union of Operating Engineers Locals 14 & 15 / J.R. Harris & Company / Johnstown-Cambria County Airport Authority / Karl Koch Steel Consulting Inc. / KCE Structural Engineers / Koch Skanska / Koutsoubis, Alonso Associates / Laboratory Corp. of America / Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory / Leslie E. Robertson Associates / LIRo Engineering / Listie Volunteer Fire Company / Lockwood Consulting / M.G. McLaren Engineering / Masonry Society / Mazzocchi Wrecking Inc. / Metal Management Northeast / Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit / Miami-Dade Urban Search & Rescue / Military District of Washington Search & Rescue Team / Montgomery County Fire & Rescue / Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers / Murray Engineering / Myriad Genetic Laboratories Inc. / National Center for Biotechnology Informatics / National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States / National Council of Structural Engineers Associations / National Disaster Medical System / National Emergency Numbering Association / National Fire Protection Association / National Guard in D.C., New York, and Pennsylvania / National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) / National Institutes of Health Human Genome Research Institute / National Law Enforcement and Security Institute / National Military Command Center / National Reconnaissance Office / National Response Center / National Science Foundation Division of Civil and Mechanical Systems / National Security Agency / National Transportation Safety Board / National Wrecking / Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center / New Jersey State Police / New York City Department of Buildings WTC Task Force / New York City Department of Design and Construction / New York City Department of Environmental Protection / New York City Office of Emergency Management / New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner / New York City Police Department Aviation Unit / New York City Police Department Emergency Services Unit / New York Daily News / New York Flight Control Center / New York Newsday / New York Port Authority Construction Board / New York Port Authority Police / New York State Emergency Management Office / New York State Police Forensic Services / New York Times / North American Aerospace Defense Command / Northeast Air Defense Sector Commanders and crew / Numerous bomb-sniffing dogs / Numerous Forensic Anthropologists / Numerous Forensic Dentists / Numerous Forensic Pathologists / Numerous Forensic Radiologists / NuStats / Occupational Safety and Health Administration / Office of Emergency Preparedness / Office of Strategic Services / Orchid Cellmark / Parsons Brinckerhoff Engineering / Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection / Pennsylvania Department of Health and Human Services / Pennsylvania Region 13 Metropolitan Medical Response Group / Pennsylvania State Funeral Directors Association / Pennsylvania State Police / Pentagon Defense Protective Service / Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team / Pentagon Medical Staff / Pentagon Renovation Team / Phillips & Jordan, Inc. / Port of New York and New Jersey Authority / Pro-Safety Services / Protec / Public Entity Risk Institute / Purdue University Engineering Dept. / Robert Silman Associates Structural Engineers / Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc / Rosenwasser/Grossman Consulting Engineers / Royal SunAlliance/Royal Indemnity / SACE Prime Power Assessment Teams / SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams / Salvation Army Disaster Services / several EPA Hazmat Teams / several FBI Hazmat Teams / several Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams / several Federal Disaster Mortuary (DMORT) Teams / Severud Associates Consulting Engineers / Shanksville Volunteer Fire Company / Silverstein Properties / Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Engineers / Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP / Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire / Society of Fire Protection Engineers / Somerset Ambulance Association / Somerset County Coroner’s Office / Somerset County Emergency Management Agency / Somerset Volunteer Fire Department / St. Paul/Travelers Insurance / State of Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency / Stoystown Volunteer Fire Company / Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE) / Structural Engineers Association of New York / Superstructures Engineering / Swiss Re America Insurance / Telephone operators who took calls from passengers in the hijacked planes / Teng & Associates / Thornton-Tomasetti Group, Inc. / TIG Insurance / Tokio Marine & Fire / Transportation Safety Administration / Tully Construction / Twin City Fire Insurance / Tylk Gustafson Reckers Wilson Andrews Engineering / U.S. Army Corps of Engineers / Underwriters Laboratories / Union Wrecking / United Airlines / United States Air National Guard / United States Fire Administration / United States Secret Service / United Steelworkers of America / University of Sheffield Fire Engineering Research / US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County / US Army’s Communications-Electronics Command / US Department of Defense / US Department of Justice / US Department of State / Virginia Beach Fire Department / Virginia Department of Emergency Management / Virginia State Police / Vollmer Associates Engineers / Washington Post / Weeks Marine / Weidlinger Associates / Weiskopf & Pickworth Engineering / Westmoreland County Emergency Management Agency / Whitney Contracting / Willis Group Holdings / WJE Structural Engineers / Worcester Polytechnic Institute / World Trade Center security staff / XL Insurance / Yonkers Contracting / York International / Zurich Financial / Zurich Re Risk Engineering

      ————————————————————————-
      (FYI: I obtained these lists from 911Myths, and from Mark Roberts’ site. I hope you enjoyed them!)

      • stratoblaster says :

        Anastasio: ac charges your dc battery
        ok now lets spit the hairs

        “Biography of Nikola Tesla, inventor of alternating current, or AC power”

        from

        http://www.essortment.com/nikola-tesla-biography-inventor-alternating-current-21579.html

        also:

        http://www.teslascience.org/pages/tesla.htm

        learn what you want. Hay Tesla said he was in communication with and inspired by ET’s not me. Im not your professor.

        Still all I hear from you guys is no no no no no no

        Of course I noticed the Rockefeller funding ….that’s why I mentioned it, ie: fund it, debunk it publicly, shelve it. I don’t understand the molecular restructuring of the plants, or the magnetized particles, or the radiation, neither do you, NOBODY DOES. That’s why it’s mysterious. That’s why I care. Its so baffling-ly cool. Have you looked at the pictures? Does nothing in you move in response to at least a few of them? If humans are capable of this, than that gives me lots of hope. I can’t say as much for you. Your rigidity concerns me, but I’m compassionate, I really hope you get through it.

        Muertos put up a debunking site. Not me. I want it to be accurate, fair, and not dismiss the unknown. Y’all are incapable apparently. New Ideas will not pass through you, and thusly you stand firmly (ignorantly) as a barrier to progress. We will collectively succeed or fail. I’m for success.

        Seriously, listen, pay attention! because my overall point keeps getting lost in trivia and know-it-all dogma philosophy accusatory conspiracy theory crap….we need to be inspired to get through the hazards we face collectively. Open to the mystery! We need Mystery, We need new inventions, new ideas, new vision. YES! I say YES!

        Look at Fukishima reaktor no 4. Oh F*&K!! Serious stuff. Are you in the northern hemisphere? Your milk, beef, fish, and leafy greens are already contaminated with fallout, stromium 90 cesium and more….I think we need to be willing to be open to new ideas at this point.

        BTW, as for 911, still no word on the many WTC thermite samples, or any other odd details. oh well,

        Disco pro Joe: don’t bother asking that “someone” you must keep secret about it. It’s below your clearance apparently. That’s alot of names on your fancy list… impressive. I guess the US government told the truth. Nothing weird here, lets move along.

        PNAC-Halliburton/Cheney/Blackwater-Carlyle-Bush-Bin Laden, Rumsfield SARS vaccine manufacturer, Chertoff TSA body scannner, Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission, World Bank, Federal Reserve, WTO, RothschildRockefellerMorganHitlerBushStalinPrivatePrisonsDrugWarsCIACrackHeroinTrade AspartameCornSyrupGMORoundupMonsantoCancer
        NOT FOOD
        Disco
        Fluorescent lighting (Tesla again?…Dammit)
        um….

        I love a compelling list

        and uh
        smarten up
        we need you

        till then:

        Have fun in that Lamborghini

  51. Anastasio says :

    @stratoblaster

    “Anastasio: ac charges your dc battery”

    And if it didn’t then DC power would. My point is that DC power was lighting up homes, shops and industry long before Tesla arrived on the scene, thanks to Edison. With or without Tesla or AC the world would still be using computers, thanks to people like Pixii who were experimenting with AC years before Tesla was even born. You could even argue that the courts wrongly credited Tesla over Ferraris for the invention of the first polyphase AC motor. It is of little consequence though, the world would still have AC power without Tesla.Fact.
    DC came first and is still instrumental in today’s generation and use of electricity. It’s besides the point but I still hope you get it this time.

    “ok now lets spit the hairs

    “Biography of Nikola Tesla, inventor of alternating current, or AC power”

    from

    http://www.essortment.com/nikola-tesla-biography-inventor-alternating-current-21579.html

    also:

    http://www.teslascience.org/pages/tesla.htm

    Oh woe is me! An authorless, one page web biography that makes the same error as you did and another that says nothing about Tesla inventing AC!

    Shall we really split the hairs or would you prefer to admit you are wrong? Stop me anytime when you finally get a grip.

    If we are to discuss the history of AC then we must first make mention of pioneers such as Pixii, Duchenne, Ferranti, Gaulard, Ferraris, Stanley, Westinghouse, Shallenberger and Thomson among others before we arrive at Tesla.

    Tesla DID NOT ‘invent AC’. You are wrong and your internet education won’t cut it here. Time to own up to it don’t you think?

    “learn what you want. Hay Tesla said he was in communication with and inspired by ET’s not me. Im not your professor. ”

    Learning what you want is not really learning though is it? I read and watch a lot of stuff I don’t necessarily agree with in pursuit of a more comprehensive understanding of the subject. Learning what you want can only lead to a naive understanding of events going on around you. It’s a poor philosophy at best and not one to be recommended.

    Tesla said he received radio signals from Mars, true, but it has been amply demonstrated in Seifer’s biography of Tesla (Chapter 26: Contact) that it was more than likely that Tesla was intercepting Marconi’s three pips (morse code for the letter ‘S’) while demonstrating his wireless apparatus between ships in mock battle manoeuvers between the British Admirality and the French Navy in 1899. Another mystery laid to rest.

    The point being; just because Tesla said it doesn’t mean it is true, nor is it particulary worth mentioning.

    ————————————————————————————————

    “I don’t understand the molecular restructuring of the plants, or the magnetized particles, or the radiation, neither do you, NOBODY DOES.”

    Ah an admission of ignorance! (and I didn’t even have to try very hard to get that out of you!)

    Do not make the arrogant presumption that everyone has the same level of comprehension as yourself or only looks as far as the end of their nose when it comes to understanding the ‘anomolies’ in crop circles.
    We certainly don’t.

    I understand that plants respond to external stimuli (the sun, gravity etc.) and displacement by means by means of ‘molecular restructuring’ such as photosynthesis and the various types of tropism (of which bending at the node is one reaction). You do not need a degree to understand it, just a degree of sensibility.

    The problem is, as you have admitted, you don’t understand.

    I understand that the magnetised particles (hematite and magnetites) are primary ores of iron, which incidentally, is found in soils all over the world. Plants and crops would simply not grow without the presence of iron. Hence why in the chalky, alkaline (iron deficient) soils of Wiltshire (where the majority of crop circles appear) hematite and magnetite are added to industrial fertiliser to act as a micronutrient. Centrifugal fertiliser spreaders are commonly used which I summise are responsible for the centrifugal force that spreads these particles.

    Regarding the H Glaze that Levengood and Burke wrote about (that occured in ONE crop circle) here’s a good explanation:

    http://www.xstreamscience.org/H_Glaze/H_Glaze_0.htm

    Hardly mysterious.

    Regarding the radiation, have you a reputable study that backs up your claim or are we just laying trust in the word of dupes who have proved incapable of working out for themselves the points I have made above?

    “That’s why it’s mysterious. That’s why I care. Its so baffling-ly cool. Have you looked at the pictures? Does nothing in you move in response to at least a few of them? If humans are capable of this, than that gives me lots of hope.

    I have looked at many pictures yes. In fact the 2nd and 3rd pictures on Vigoda’s article have defintely proved to be man-made. ‘Baffing-ly cool’ to you perhaps, but it would be as you clearly have an immature approach to this subject and a nascent understanding (thanks to me) of some very mundane explanations behind the phenomenon. Had you have read any of my posts on this page, as I requested, then you could have saved some face rather than be the umpteenth conspiritard here to drag up this crap.

    What was it you said about research again?

    “Muertos put up a debunking site. Not me. I want it to be accurate, fair, and not dismiss the unknown. Y’all are incapable apparently. New Ideas will not pass through you, and thusly you stand firmly (ignorantly) as a barrier to progress. We will collectively succeed or fail. I’m for success. ”

    This statement is a front row ticket to the ass clown show and you are the star attraction.
    Can you explain how debunking and dismissing the crop circle horseshit conspiracy relates to standing in the way of progress and new ideas? If you can answer that without making yourself look like an utter numbnuts then I’ll give you a new strawman to beat up on.

    “I can’t say as much for you. Your rigidity concerns me, but I’m compassionate, I really hope you get through it. ”

    Don’t worry about my rigidity; it’s borne from looking at both sides of the coin and determining the wheat from the chaff. If something ever comes to light that convinces me otherwise about crop circles then I shall be the first to admit I was wrong.

    You are not compassionate, just wrong, naive and deluded. Do not hide behind vaccuous statements; try actually doing something compassionate once in a while that amounts to more than the slacktivist trait of posting how compassionate you are to everyone on the internet.
    I guarantee it is infinitely more rewarding.

    For now just worry about your naiveness, dupable nature and insistence to continue arguing when you are wrong. That is unarguably your greatest concern.

    • stratoblaster says :

      that was AWESOME
      I love you
      we should call this blog, “The Unknown Mystery Really Pisses Us Off!”
      because there’s no Debunking going on here, just vitriol and insults.

      Maybe I’m a scientist at CERN, maybe I’m an 11 year old who’s been held back a grade…..insult away. Doesn’t help the blog, just makes you sound like a dick.
      Thrive Debunked ? not yet. Keep trying..

      AC ….yup yer right, lots of the Tesla info out there is apparently misleading, here’s a list of his patents I found for anyone interested

      http://customers.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/tesla.htm

      Thanks for the correction.

      I’m not convinced you’ve explained away the mystery of crop circle formation… not even close
      I tried, looked at the link you provided on H glaze.

      I remain Amazed,

      I still think most of them are baffling-ly cool. Not hello kitty tho… it looks like humans made it. As does the result of guys with string and boards. There are obvious and different effects in the omniscient view and especially close up.

      Clunky

      The more giant and complex ones are what I focus on. In all the debunking efforts so far…their rapid formation is never addressed. Though I’ll concede for rational minds that eyewitnesses could be lying. But further…their symmetry, the gentle unmolested, untrampled lay of the stalks, the formation all over the world in different mediums (tho most are discovered in England and this part does make me suspicious/curious, its odd, and it’s the most compelling pointer to possible hoaxing, but not yet conclusive), the elongation and molecular change of the stalks (yea I sorta get that the nodes have been heated, plant matter steamed and bent with…. um… portable levitating microwave ovens…?) Sorry staying rational… uh

      the addendum in your H Glaze link is especially interesting and only serves to add to my amazement at whatever tech is being employed to make these designs. Re-aquaint yourself with sections 7.6 -9 in the Addendum. I think based on that info, I have more questions than answers.

      This doesn’t shut the book by any means, because to take it to its final conclusion we get: The formations potentially are the result of a natural process related to plasma and static electricity? Natural? wow! go artsy Gaia ! or:

      some guy sprinkles a mysterious powder which contrary to his claims is not iron shavings, and then what? Maybe he hoovers over a field with a big microwave oven and makes perfect circular and linear inspired shapes in the crop. Maybe he works at HAARP?

      HAARP! oh yay, another wacky internet conspiracy to argue about. con-s-piracy…..piracy…. con PIRATES arrrrrrrr

      how the hell did the big fancy crop circles get made? That’s my uneducated (or perhaps extremely educated…no matter) CONSPIRITARD point (very creative insult BTW).

      you don’t know. you don’t know, you don’t know. I don’t know, We dont know. Somebody knows … but its not you or me.

      Show me how its done, and I’ll disappear,
      till then Im gonna flood this debunking site with nifty unknowns. You have to explain it to debunk it. Otherwise, like me, you’re a Conspiritard on the scale of denialist non-explanational No NO NO ism.

      My game?

      YES YES YES
      MYSTERY
      WOW

      its fun try it

      What did you think of the MANY independent WTC thermite studies BTW,
      genuinely curious? We would love to know how it got there and why.

      perhaps it was put in the fertilizer for the decorative office plants throughout the towers?

      keep grasping at straws guys (or wheat stalks)

      in this pond (blog) the bigger rock is still Mystery and the ripples from it’s splash are beyond our comprehension. Perhaps sometime soon we’ll actually know something on the subject.

      That’s nothing to be angry about. Celebrate it.

      • stratoblaster says :

        BTW you mentioned Vigoda’s article…. did you read it?

        “Given the conventional scientific community’s eagerness to “debunk” the circle phenomena it seems providing alternate explanations to the opposition’s fundamental evidence would be the most effective avenue of attack. I’ve yet to see anything within the vast mountain of critique offering any plausible explanation for these anomalous features. I was also disappointed in those linking the veracity of the circles with the credibility of Levengood’s plasma vortex theory. Clearly the two subjects have no relation. That many may assail Levengood’s speculations as to how such phenomena may occur has no bearing on the fact such phenomena has occurred. Any inability to assemble a working theory regarding the circles creation does nothing to negate the existence of attendant unknowns within those same circles. Such theoretical deficiencies only suggest better or more comprehensive explanations are needed.”

        and his conclusion:

        “Regardless of their ultimate origin or meaning the crop circle phenomenon remains emblematic of the inherent problems associated with expanding or moving beyond existing paradigm. Rigid adherence to any principle, whether it be conventional dogma or a conviction to the unknown does little to facilitate understanding. Science rolling its collective eyes at the prospects of radically unknown forces operating within their careful construction of the physical realm is the height of intellectual arrogance and a fundamental betrayal of the essential curiosity driving discovery. Conversely, those who would indiscriminately accommodate unsubstantiated perspectives fostering their own subjective inclinations are no better. Worst of all are any whose individual certainty is so pronounced and entrenched as to preclude serious consideration of conflicting evidence or opinion. Commitment to position instead of
        the process of truth serves the interests of none. The history of all human knowledge within all fields is the product of constant evolution and refinement despite the hard certainties of the time. It’s time for all to get a grip, embrace the other and together move cautiously forward towards a clearer, mutual understanding.”

        Ah HO!

  52. stratoblaster says :

    From:

    http://www.cropcirclesecrets.org/education.html

    go to the link to see pics

    this one is informative and has picture samples relating to the crop stems and bio-magnetic fields

    CROP CIRCLES EXPLAINED.
    Crop circles are organized harmonic forms that manifest around the world, the result of an energy interacting with the physical world – in this case plants. This energy is comprised of light, sound and magnetism. To date, crop circles have been reported in 29 countries, and have appeared in mediums such as wheat, barley, canola, trees, ice, rice paddies, even linseed.

    Contrary to popular perception, crop circles are not a modern phenomenon. They are mentioned in academic texts of the late 17th Century, and over 200 cases have been reported prior to 1970. Some eighty eyewitnesses – as far flung as British Columbia and Australia – have reported crop circles forming in under twenty seconds; these witnesses describe sightings of incandescent or brightly-coloured balls of light which either precede a crop circle or are actively involved in its creation; in some cases shafts of light have descended onto a field and swirled the crop into a geometricshape in less than fifteen seconds. Such reports are often described by farmers.

    Only around 1980 was serious attention was finally given to the phenomenon, primarily in southern England, where 90% of designs are reported. The designs appeared primarily as simple circles, circles with rings, and variations on the Celtic cross. By the late 1980s they had developed straight lines, creating pictograms not unlike the petroglyphs found at sacred sites thoughout the world. After 1990 the designs developed exponentially in complexity, and today it is not unusual to come across crop glyphs mimicking computer fractals and elements expressing fourth dimensional processes in quantum physics.

    Crop circles have also increased increased in size, some occupying areas as large as 200,000 sq ft. To date there have been over 10,000 reported crop circles.

    If you happen to buy the media-fed misrepresentation that all crop circles were originated by two sexagenarians called Doug and Dave, you are not in the minority. Once in a while, governments like to control public interest in unexplained phenomena they cannot control by ‘debunking’ – a technique developed by the US government after WWII for the sad purpose of controlling mass opinion (as stated in the 1953 Robertson Panel, details of which are obtained under the US Freedom of Information Act). This method is very effective because it makes use of two extraordinarily simple tools of mass control – ridicule and fear. But only if you are prepared to believe everything you are told on television and newspapers, particularly when TV programmes suppress scientific or factual data with which the public can form an educated opinion on the subject. This absence of evidence is then replaced by ridiculing the subject through association with other ‘fringe’ topics; so-called ‘experts’ are brought-in to explain away all events as tricks of the imagination – freak weather conditions, drunk students, even sexually excited animals!

    According to many media reports, all crop circles up to 1992 were made by two simple, elderly men called Doug and Dave. However, it has since been discovered that the D&D story appears to have originated at the British Ministry of Defense. Evidence supplied by a high-ranking informant in that government institution suggested that the British government had every intent of discrediting the phenomenon by putting forward two pranksters in an effort to quell growing public interest in crop circles (the full story appears in Secrets In The Fields). But when later confronted to provide evidence of their alleged creations, Doug and Dave changed their story, even reversing previous claims; they could not even explain the unusual features found in the genuine phenomenon.

    When they claimed making all the formations around the English county of Hampshire, for example, it was pointed out that the majority of known formations had actually occured in another county – “Er, no, we didn’t do those either,” they replied. In the end, not even Doug and Dave knew which ones they had made. And although they claim to have made hoaxes since 1978 – at the time the published date of the first design – unpublished evidence revealed how crop circles had been manifesting since the 1890s. The public has never heard D&D’s retractions, nor been given the opportunity to compare the mess created by D&D with the mathematical elegance and anomalies of the real phenomenon.

    In 1998, however, the surviving member of the deceptive duo did make an incredible admission to British newspapers that he’d been “guided by an unknown force”.

    Prior to 1989 the hoaxing problem was virtually unheard of. Yet since Doug and Dave’s inauguration, many copycat hoaxers have appeared on the scene. That people with a good amount of training can go into a field and eventually create a coherent pattern has never been the issue in crop circels research – in 1998 a group of hoaxers called Team Satan/circlemakers was paid to go to conveniently out-of-the-way New Zealand to make an elaborate formation for The Discovery Channel. The deceptive tactics used to trick a viewing public into accepting that crop circles are human made are dealt with here.

    A hoax is a forgery, and forgers require a genuine from which to copy. So, what exactly lies behind the genuine crop circles?

    In genuine formations the stems are not broken but bent (right), normally about an inch off the ground and near the plant’s first node. In special cases, the stems are bent six inches from the top of the seed head. Such features defeat the hoax argument, since a plank or garden roller is required to flatten the crop to the ground, resulting in clear damage to the plants.

    The plants appear to be subjected to a short and intense burst of heat which softens the stems to drop just above the ground at 90º, where they reharden into their new and very permanent position without damage. Plant biologists are baffled by this feature, and it is the singlemost method of identifying the real phenomenon. Research and laboratory tests suggest that infrasound (sound below 20 Hz) is capable of producing such an effect: High-pressure infrasound is capable of boiling water inside the stems in one nanosecond, expanding the water, and leaving tiny blowholes in the plants’ nodes. The pressure applied also causes the water to steam, and it is reported by farmers that when they stumble upon a new crop circle they see steam rising from within the design. This process creates surface charring along the stems.

    The tremendous application of local heat is also responsible for altering the local water table, as millions of gallons of surface and sub-surface water is evaporated. With the heat and electro-magnetic frequencies applied, it has been scientifically documented that soil samples taken from within crop circles show changes to its crystalline structure and mineral composition. Expert analysis concludes that such a process requires temperatures of 1500º C and sub-soil pressure typically found in strata thousands of years old. Evidence even exists of four non-naturally occuring, short-life radioactive isotopes in the soil inside genuine crop circles (these dissipate after three or four hours, causing no adverse side effects); in fact, the soil in and around them appears to have been baked. Hardly the kind of anomalies created by pranksters with planks!

    Crop circles also show existence of ultrasound –sound above the human hearing range – and such frequencies are known to exist at ancient sites such as stone circles, long barrows, tumuli, dolmens and menhirs. And like all sacred sites, temples and places of worship – such as Gothic cathedrals – the crop circles appear at the intersecting points of the Earth’s magnetic pathways of energy; thus the size and shape of a crop circle is typically determined by the area of these ‘node’ points at the time of their appearance.

    This electric and magnetic energy can interact with brainwave patterns, and because the human body is itself electro-magnetic, crop circles are known to affect people’s biophysical rhythms. Consequently, it is not unusual for people to experience heightened states of awareness and healings in crop circles – a situation also common to sacred sites and holy spaces. People may also experience dizziness, disorientation and nausea. All these effects can be caused by prolonged exposure to both infrasound or microwaves, which also interact with the water in the body.

    Biophysical evidence shows the plants’ nodes (its knuckles) are drastically extended (right); also observed are distortions of seed embryos, and the creation of expulsion cavities in the plants as if they have been heated from the inside. In genuine formations there is also a reorganization of the plant’s crystalline structure – in these microscope photos (below right) the top image of a control sample of wheat radically differs to the one below taken from a crop circle.

    Other evidence from crop circles shows how the floors of laid plants are swirled in mathematical proportions relative to the Golden Mean, the fundamental vortex used by nature to create organisms such as shells, sunflowers, galaxies, even the spatial relationship of the bones in the human hand; the floor of crop circles can have up to five layers of weaving, all in counterflow to each other, with every seed head intact and placed beside each other as if arranged in a museum case.

    Genuine crop circles are not perfectly round but slightly elliptical (a hoax, requiring a fixed central rope, cannot achieve this adequately). Their edges are crisply defined from the flattened crop as if drawn with a compass, and incised with surgical precision. Hoaxes, by comparison, bear a stylistic resemblance to tuffs of greasy, uncombed hair – and, of course, all their plants have been trampled, bruised and crushed.

    Crop circles are sometimes accompanied by trilling sounds, since captured on tape and analysed by NASA as being artificial in origin, and bearing a harmonic frequency of 5.2 kHz.

    Mathematically, genuine crop circles encode obscure theorems based on Euclidian geometry. So far, the designs have yielded five new mathematical theorems. They are also invisibly encoded with sacred geometry – those harmonic ratios that govern the relationship between the orbits of planets in our solar system.

    Crop circles alter the local electromagnetic field; often compasses cannot locate north, and cameras and cellular phones malfunction. Whole packs of fresh batteries are drained in minutes, and the frequecnies involved have been known to affect helicopter and aircraft equipment. Radio frequencies are markedly different inside their space; local farm animals avoid the crop circles or simply act agitated hours before one materializes; and car batteries in entire villages fail to operate the morning after one is found nearby. In some major events, entire towns have been left without power.

    Since genuine crop circles materialize at crossing points along the Earth’s magnetic energy currents, they are influencing the energy patterns of local phehistoric sites, which were built upon identical principles. They reference local Neolithic sites in size/shape/direction, and are dowsable upon entry, with as many as 150 concentric rings of energy radiating beyond their physical perimeter, like ripples in a pond. In fact, a year after they have been harvested and the field ploughed and re-sown, the energy imprint of the formations will still be dowsed, long after their physical traces have vanished.

    This area of research has allowed for the possibility of crop circles as a healing force, and their images are already being successfully employed in radionics, flower essences and resonance therapy, both for people and environments in distress. Some of these protocols have been scientifically validated.

    Crop circles generally form at night between the hours of 2-4 am, traditionally during the shortest evenings of the English year when darkness lasts but four hours. A lucky few have witnessed large balls of incandescent colour project a beam of golden light into a field which next morning displays a new crop circle. During surveillance project in 1989 a Japanese TV crew filmed a crop circle manifesting in the early hours of the morning, showing a swirl motion of energy lasting less than fifteen seconds. Such a rapid rate of creation confirmed the unpublished eyewitness reports.

    At Stonehenge in 1996 (below), a pilot reported seeing nothing unusual while flying above the monument at 4:15pm, yet 15 minutes later a second pilot reported this huge 900 ft formation resembling the Julia Set computer fractal. Comprising 149 circles and aligned along a spiral curve, it lay within view of the well-patrolled monument. It took a team of 11– including myself – no less than five hours just to survey the formation.

    Still not convinced that a genuine phenomenon is at work around the world? This web site contains a sampling of the on-going research dedicated to enlightening the public. Look at the pictures, study the research or better still, visit a genuine crop circle or read my comprehensive book. You’ll get the message pretty quickly.

    And when you do, share this extraordinary phenomenon with your best friends. For it is indeed the most important event taking place in our lifetime.

    • stratoblaster says :

      http://www.circlemakers.org/new_documents.html

      These guys have been hired to make circles for years,
      even they admit that there is legitimacy to the unknown aspects of the phenomenon. Theirs are the best man made designs I’ve seen but still not on the scale of those that are unexplained. Even they aren’t trying to debunk the phenom, but instead, participate in it.

      great site. Interesting chaps.

      • Anastasio says :

        @stratoblaster

        You’ve just realised you were being insulted? Forgive me, I forget that that things tend to click post hoc with you. I’d slow it down a little but that would spoil the fun of guessing what buffoonery you’re going to serve up next.

        I realised a long time ago that trying to convince you people of anything is like trying to swallow nails and shit corkscrews. I’ll simply lay the facts out for you and take great amusment from watching you try to convince us you’ve the faintest idea of what you’re talking about.

        You see, your problem is, that I once argued the origin of crop circles from your position, albeit a long time ago. That’s why I know you will never be convinced of my argument until you’ve figured it out and experienced the enlightenment for yourself. Despite your pleas and efforts, I will also never return to the intellectual darkness that is believing in conspiracy theories.

        I’ve visited most of the sites and watched most of the movies regarding crop circles and I’m not ashamed to say that I once enjoyed the mystery and argued with much vehemence that man was not responsible for all crop circles. And I did it with just a tad more eloquence than you’re capable of. Like you I would copy and paste veritable tomes of text from sites such as cropcirclesecrets and believed I really understood the crux of what was being said within. At least you admitthat you don’t.
        Fortunately, I was taken rather more seriously as I knew that bends occur at the nodes in wheat and such. If you can’t even get that straight how can I trust you to speak at length at what happens at the molecular level and how it conflicts with what you expect to happen at the molecular level? Oh wait, you haven’t hit us with that yet and I won’t hold my breath waiting.

        Much as I dislike anecdotal evidence (and your copy and paste job is rife with it) I will say that I have stood in a field of wheat and seen many ‘exploded nodes’ and stems bent at all kinds of angles and not a damn crop circle in sight. That is why you’re pissing against the wind with your ‘mystery is good!’ mantra. I’ve witnessed first hand that the BLT’s explanation is wrong, dated, and dare I say, deceitful.

        Take a look at how I put my case out there now stratoblaster. Read my previous posts and how I can speak at length, copying and pasting from my own mind information that no one spoon fed to me in the manner I am courteously doing for you. Trust me, if you have a brain, you will thank me for it one day.

        No one told me that even the most brittle of crops (canola, rape) is pushed and bent by man without breaking at the stem systematically every year.

        http://css.wsu.edu/biofuels/presentations/2011_Workshop/KevinLyle_Canola_Harvest_Pusher.pdf

        Note the picture captions, especially as in “tightly inter-twined”. Sounds like weaving does it not?

        Ergo, broken stems in a crop formation is not a litmus test that the formation is man-made.

        No one told me that hematite and magnetite is added to fertiliser and spread systematically on to crops or even that these particles naturally occur in all soils as primary ores of iron. Hence the strange magnetic particles found in the soil! Is it any coincidence?

        Any study or counterclaim to disprove this? No?
        Then strange magnetic particles in a crop circle is not a litmus test that the circle is man-made.

        Besides my own anecdotal evidence of witnessing ‘exploded’ nodes and stalks bent at angles in an ordinary crop-circleless field, despite Levengood’s own admission that (do I really have to remind you of this?):

        “Taken as an isolated criterion, node size data cannot be relied on as a definite verification of a ‘genuine’ crop formation”,

        the natural phenomenon of tropism that has not been adequately discounted in any way or form for the bending of nodes. Ergo, nodal alteration is not a litmus test that a formation is man-made.

        Watch these two videos; they have been posted here before but you seem to have a problem reviewing previous material before thinking you’re hitting us with the news:

        Now consider that if the size of the formation increases, then the size of the crew increases exponentially to suit. i.e. for formations twice the size of those seen in the above videos, a crew twice of the above videos would be needed (I’m sure this level of math is not beyond your grasp?). Man can create large crop formations in a few hours in darkness. It has been proven. Here’s another impressive man-made formation made in one night:

        Have you a video or any kind of proof showing a crop circle made in seconds? Well here’s one you probably haven’t heard of:

        And herein lies the rational explanation:

        http://www.andrewcollins.com/page/news/777.htm

        I’ll save what I think of King’s exploitation of the crop circle phenomenon for a rainy day. The only people pushing the non man-made hypothesis are the people making money off it (listen up Susan!) and the dupes dumb enough to buy it.

        You are living evidence of how easily people are fooled into believing that crop circles can appear in seconds. You can always call me out and prove me wrong though?

        Until that time, the ‘made in seconds’ criteria is not a litmus test that a formation is man-made.

        Speaking of criteria, can you show us a non man-made circle that displays all of the above traits in both of our posts? Just so we hoaxers know what we’re aiming for?

        N.B. The fact you are incapable of seeing beyond the hoax vs authentic argument also shows you don’t know. Oh wait! –

        “you don’t know. you don’t know, you don’t know. I don’t know, We dont know. Somebody knows … but its not you or me. ”

        You don’t know, I’m with you on that one stratoblaster, trust me. I don’t know? I have made good effort to know, and I know first hand for definite that the mystery of the nodes is bullshit.

        What I can say for sure, and no one here would disagree, is that I know more than you – and that’s good enough for me. You can flood this site with ‘nifty unknowns’ all you like (I nearly laughed tea through my nose when you posted the page from cropcirclesecrets as if it were hot off the press!) but I shall remain here, full of vitriol and insults, and only too eager to tear enough strips off of you until you’re small enough to crawl back in to the safety of your father’s nutsack.

        A couple of days ago you came here quoting gems from stratoblaster’s book of life such as “Tesla invented AC” and “nodal forming at the bends”. It’s good to see you’re taking an interest in researching both topics further in light of my corrections to your ineptitude of regurgitating readily knowen facts, but I also worry that you’re simply scavenging the web for sites that support your argument. You know, kind of the like the site that supported your argument that Tesla invented AC. I appreciate you admitted you are wrong on that one, but please, why stop there? You were on a roll.

        “the addendum in your H Glaze link is especially interesting and only serves to add to my amazement at whatever tech is being employed to make these designs. Re-aquaint yourself with sections 7.6 -9 in the Addendum. I think based on that info, I have more questions than answers. ”

        Are we on the same page, the same document even? Are you aware that the sections in the addendum you have asked me to “re-aquaint” myself with are a continuation and a point by point refutation of Burke and Levengood’s insistence that the H-Glaze was caused by a plasma vortice hence the reason I brought it to your whimsical attention?

        Tell me, what is so amazing about a man making a crop circle and spreading iron particles over it?

        Do yourself a favour stratoblaster. Go away, recompose yourself and think deeply before you open your mouth again. Until you can actually say something that wasn’t lifted word-for-word from someone else’s opinion then you’re going to be treated for what you are; someone punching a bove their weight in a world they don’t really belong.

      • Anastasio says :

        @stratoblaster

        Great site, interesting chaps and a fantastic exposé of the mentality of Freddy Silva (the guy whose site you copied and pasted from):

        http://www.circlemakers.org/freddy3.html

        Seems like they’re not adverse to a little debunking afterall.

    • Anastasio says :

      @stratoblaster

      “BTW you mentioned Vigoda’s article…. did you read it?”

      I partially read Vigoda’s article and have already given my brief opinion based on what I had elicited from a few pages of his limp grasp on the subject. (Is it really that difficult to read back a few posts so you can get a good handle on what has been discussed and laid to rest already?)

      I am of course, all too willing to expand on what I said earlier by showing you how a lack of substance in Vigoda’s opinion cannot be readily compensated for with volumes of verbose and cringeworthy rhetoric. While Vigoda’s unctuous prattle might impress the likes of you and Suzanne, remember what I said about being on the same level of comprehension, and that there are those of us here that can see through the flowery veneer and realise that he’s taken a long-winded approach to saying absolutely nothing cerebral at all:

      ———————————————————————————————–
      ““Given the conventional scientific community’s eagerness to “debunk” the circle phenomena”
      ———————————————————————————————–

      The conventional scientific community? And which one would that be? The common complaint is that the conventional scientific community does not go far enough to investigate crop circles, never mind waste its time ‘debunking’ myths that are simply propagated through the web through uneducated compassionates like you. This is why pseudo-doctors like Levengood pick up the task – because real scientists have bigger fish to fry.
      Please note that I do not represent any scientific community, nor would I be surprised if most other people who stand diametrically opposed to your inane babbling voice their opinions without such affiliation.
      Do you or Vigoda have a cite or an example of the conventional scientific community’s eagerness to debunk the phenomena?
      No? Then Vigoda’s statment is misinformed and meaningless.

      ———————————————————————————————–
      “it seems providing alternate explanations to the opposition’s fundamental evidence would be the most effective avenue of attack.”
      ———————————————————————————————–

      No shit! You say strange magnetic particles I say fertiliser! You say bent nodes I say tropism! You say crop stems cannot be mechanically flattened without breakage I say lies, lies, lies!
      You don’t have to put on the lab glasses to call bullshit where you see it.

      ———————————————————————————————–
      “I’ve yet to see anything within the vast mountain of critique offering any plausible explanation for these anomalous features.”
      ———————————————————————————————–

      Vigoda’s ignorance, incredulousness, bias and lack of education of the subject does not mean that anomalies exist by default. Like you, he simply hasn’t looked into it far enough and/or is blinkered in his view and/or has an agenda. You do not simply wish anomalies/phenomena into existence, and when considering Vigoda’s complete lack of proof, it is obvious this is all he is capable of; wishful thinking.
      See the perfectly reasonable explanations I have offered regarding tropism, stem breaking, time limits, fertiliser etc. Vigoda hasn’t researched the subject as well as he would like to think he has, or, he has and the links to his studies that discount and refute my above explanations are forthcoming. So where are they?
      Vigoda’s statement is arrogant, uneducated and biased. No wonder you’re experiencing such an infinity with it.

      ———————————————————————————————–
      I was also disappointed in those linking the veracity of the circles with the credibility of Levengood’s plasma vortex theory. Clearly the two subjects have no relation.
      ———————————————————————————————–

      This is just brilliant! So here we have an admission straight from the mouth of yours and Suzanne’s new champion that Levengood’s theories (and therefore consequently the work that supports his theories) CANNOT relate to whether a crop circle is authentic or not. And let us not forget that all roads concerning anomalies in crop circles lead back to the BLT.
      This is what I have been trying to tell you all along! Perhaps you’ll believe it now you’ve heard it from the mouth of your guru but thanks for bringing it to my attention; you literally gave me that one.

      So what does speak to the authenticity of crop circles?

      Well now we have dismissed (on both sides) “the cornerstone for the “alternate agency” argument” there are no peer-reviewed studies or any kind of sampling that can disprove anything other than man makes crop circles.
      All roads lead back to the BLT, remember? Vigoda has royally fucked you, Suzanne and himself over on this one.

      To quote stratoblaster: “Vigoda’s report…did you read it?”

      Perhaps it would have worked out better for you if you didn’t mention it..

      ———————————————————————————————–
      That many may assail Levengood’s speculations as to how such phenomena may occur has no bearing on the fact such phenomena has occurred.
      ———————————————————————————————–

      And it’s purely because of people like Meaden and Levengood that chumps like you believe that such phenomena has occurred in the first place. This is called a circular argument and no amount of florid prose can disguise it from the discerning eye.

      Out of curiosity, just how does Vigoda prove that such a phenomenon has occured in his article? Even after discounting the BLT’s plasma vortex theory he still seems pretty convinced. I hope he’s not just parroting the stuff he reads on the internet. We all know how much trouble that can get you in e.g. Tesla invented AC!

      ———————————————————————————————–
      “Any inability to assemble a working theory regarding the circles creation does nothing to negate the existence of attendant unknowns within those same circles. Such theoretical deficiencies only suggest better or more comprehensive explanations are needed.”

      “and his conclusion:

      “Regardless of their ultimate origin or meaning the crop circle phenomenon remains emblematic of the inherent problems associated with expanding or moving beyond existing paradigm. Rigid adherence to any principle, whether it be conventional dogma or a conviction to the unknown does little to facilitate understanding. Science rolling its collective eyes at the prospects of radically unknown forces operating within their careful construction of the physical realm is the height of intellectual arrogance and a fundamental betrayal of the essential curiosity driving discovery. Conversely, those who would indiscriminately accommodate unsubstantiated perspectives fostering their own subjective inclinations are no better. Worst of all are any whose individual certainty is so pronounced and entrenched as to preclude serious consideration of conflicting evidence or opinion. Commitment to position instead of
      the process of truth serves the interests of none. The history of all human knowledge within all fields is the product of constant evolution and refinement despite the hard certainties of the time. It’s time for all to get a grip, embrace the other and together move cautiously forward towards a clearer, mutual understanding.”
      ———————————————————————————————–

      This statement works on the assumption that Vigoda is correct in his non man-made hypothesis. And what does he offer as proof? Nada. His article is nothing more than an assemblage of information any learned person in the subject will already be familiar with and it’s presented as an arrogant, wordy, philosophical jerk fest. Vigoda’s musings are superfluous, weightless, laughable and from yesterday’s newspaper. Have you just hooked yourself up to the World Wide Web or something? There must be a beginners class for this kind of thing somewhere; try starting there with your “nifty unknowns”.

      Remember what I said about wishing anomalies/phenomena into existence? Well how far has Vigoda gone in his pursuit of understanding anomalies in crop circles?
      Tell me stratoblaster; do you think the guy left his computer even once when he wrote his piece? I would bet my life he stood up a couple of times take a piss, walk to the fridge to get a beer and to scratch his balls; probably about the closest to intellective endeavour this article ever came.

      Now let’s address an issue you have shied away from:

      ———————————————————————————————–
      “Muertos put up a debunking site. Not me. I want it to be accurate, fair, and not dismiss the unknown. Y’all are incapable apparently. New Ideas will not pass through you, and thusly you stand firmly (ignorantly) as a barrier to progress. We will collectively succeed or fail. I’m for success. ”
      ———————————————————————————————–

      I’m still waiting for an explanation for this indignant outburst. There are no unknowns in crop circles apart from the identities of the humans that make them, as far as I and others here are concerned. Am I allowed a difference of opinion compassionate one? Why should it mean I stand as a barrier to progress and that I am incapable of accepting new ideas? What kind of ass-backward logic goes into arriving at that kind of conclusion?

      Insults come in many shapes and forms. I certainly won’t contend that my posts are flattering, but I advise that one in particular should certainly familiarise himself with propriety when he can insult without knowing and simultaneously convince himself he is compassionate.

      Like butter wouldn’t melt.

      • Anastasio says :

        Infinity, affinity.

        Mrs Malaprop has dropped in for tea.

      • stratoblaster says :

        You see what you want, obviously. Most of us doo.
        I’ll cut n paste the conclusion from a link you provided re: circles forming in seconds…(remembering that that’s what I’m good at)

        “There is a clear moral here. As much as we would all like evidence that some crop formations are made by a supernatural agency, there are those that clearly aren’t. Think carefully before accepting claims that crop formations appear in bursts of light, and be careful of those promoting such ideas, especially if they are film makers who produce expensive DVDs for you to buy.

        There are real crop circles out there, and maybe even simple formations as well. I have investigated the Tully saucer nests of Queensland, Australia, for two books, and discovered that similar swirled circles had been occurring also in North Island, New Zealand, and that the region was noted for its strange lights, seen as ancestral spirits by the native aboriginies. I have found evidence of swirled circles of wheat corn in the fields of Oxfordshire during the 1940s, when they were known as Fairy Rings and Devil’s Circles. Then we have the Mowing Devil story of the 1600s, while accounts of crops being trampling into circles by celestial visitors is found also in native American myth. Something in the fields of southern England might be genuine, and as long as that possibility remains we should continue looking for answers. My own research into crop circles is found in two book THE CIRCLEMAKERS (1992) and ALIEN ENERGY (1994).”

        yes, he’s selling books too. Should I be mad at him?

        I’m enjoying the info you share, tho the tone betrays some evidence of personality issues.

        You act as tho it’s tidy and explained. I’m just not convinced. Call me names, have fun. The evidence you provide is thin. The canola harvest pusher pics don’t explain anything relating to the bent nodes etc…They are broken. Simple. The guy sprinkling (not iron) shavings…..cmon. Fertilizer….again cmon, floating microwave ovens… ? whatever. I can acknowledge that humans make some of them. easy. But there’s more. As said above, centuries of more…

        You’ve got it summed up for you, but not debunked for me, and perhaps not for others. Call us gullible. I don’t mind. Feel better.

        Here’s a link that ties many of the subjects we’ve rattled on about: 911/Thermite, Tesla, energy, and possibly an tangential explanation of a non-benign use of a similar type of tech related to the circle formations.

        Human? probably… If its new tech, its pretty sad that this is what they did with it.

        She’s got more degrees than you n me put together (yup I only have one) BS,MS, PhD~Virginia Tech. Try not to get angry o.k. ?

        and another (I know coast to coast is only for crazies)

        and her website:

        http://drjudywood.com/new.html

        maybe it relates to those pretty pictures in the grass. Maybe not. We aren’t suited to contemplate the mysteries universe together, it seems. But I’ll keep trying.

        I don’t preach to the converted. That’s what is making this interesting for me.

      • muertos says :

        Judy Wood? Are you kidding me? You actually propose JUDY WOOD as a credible source?

        Judy Wood believes the World Trade Center towers were destroyed with super duper beam weapons from outer space. Yes, that’s right–beam weapons from space. Just think about how far detached from objective reality you have to be to believe in super duper beam weapons from outer space.

        Of all the Twoofers who stank up the Internet in the mid-2000s with their ridiculous theories, Dr. Judy Wood is easily the craziest. Even Steven Jones, who believes that exploding paint was applied to the World Trade Centers before 9/11–yes, that’s right, exploding paint–wants nothing to do with Dr. Judy Wood and her space beams. When even someone who has gone as far around the bend as Steven Jones thinks you’re a nutcase, that’s pretty extreme.

        It’s funny that you bring her up. Two years ago I had the occasion to “debate” one of Judy Wood’s most devoted sycophants, who invited me to comment on her (the sycophant’s) blog. It resulted in one of the most amusing blogs I ever had the occasion to write. Here it is:

        http://muertos.blog.com/2010/05/12/debunking-by-invitation-star-wars-beam-weapons-and-911/

        I was personally challenged by another of Dr. Wood’s sycophants, a fellow called Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez (read about him here: http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/people/pookzta/) to email Dr. Wood with questions about her 9/11 theories, which he assured me she would be able to answer with complete candor and mountains of evidence. I sent Dr. Wood a very respectful email raising two, and only two, issues about 9/11. She never responded. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez continues to spam the Internet with space beam weapon nuttery. Everyone who runs any sort of debunking site has encountered him.

        Stratoblaster, by asserting that Judy Wood is anything other than a raving lunatic, you’ve willingly abandoned any shadow of a chance that anyone would take your arguments or your material at all seriously.

      • The Locke says :

        Judy Woods??? Most conspiracy theorists (especially truthers) want nothing to do with this woman or her theories! And now people are going to think you’re crazy. Although some conspiracy theorists will probably think you’re a dis-information agent…

      • alysdexia says :

        The speed of solid sound is much swifter than the eye can see, so there should be no pancake delay.

        A scale mockup cannot conserve cubic-quadratic conditions for load and heat transfer. Otherwise one can build any shape indefinitely great and expect it to stand up.

        The Hutchison effect is diathermy, magnètostriction, and self-induction. Iron is softer than steel.

        When one object strikes another, both may be shattered despite their relative strengths. Likewise, softer materials may scratch harder materials, wherefore Newton.

  53. Anastasio says :

    Corrections to my above post:

    “Then strange magnetic particles in a crop circle is not a litmus test that the circle is man-made. ”

    should read :

    “Then strange magnetic particles in a crop circle is not a litmus test that the circle is NOT man-made. ”

    and

    “Ergo, nodal alteration is not a litmus test that a formation is man-made.”

    should read:

    “Ergo, nodal alteration is not a litmus test that a formation is NOT man-made.”

    • stratoblaster says :

      http://muertos.blog.com/2010/05/12/debunking-by-invitation-star-wars-beam-weapons-and-911/

      This is from Muertos’ blog on 911, it says:

      Osama never confessed (false; he did) and is not wanted by the FBI for 9/11 (also false, but there is a reason why 9/11 does not appear on his wanted poster);
      PNAC predicted a “New Pearl Harbor” in 2000 (absolutely meaningless);
      The towers were “dustified” (they weren’t);
      The whole thing was trumped up to put an oil pipeline in Afghanistan (debunked in 2002);
      The tired-and-true “the hijackers couldn’t fly a Cessna” argument (quote-mined);
      No 757 wreckage at the Pentagon (absolutely false);
      WTC7 was “pulled” (absolutely false, based on a quote-mine);
      Mohammed Atta’s passport couldn’t have survived the collapse (although many other small items, such as pieces of mail, did); and, my personal favorite
      The hijackers are still alive (ludicrously false, and itself probably the subject of an upcoming blog).

      is “they weren’t” a method of debunking I’m unfamiliar with?

      then goes on about how stupid everyone is…

      call me crazy, but I watched a few things on Dr Wood.
      I find her evidence to be….interesting, seemingly well supported by pics and facts. Impressive even, not conclusive, but enough to make me wonder. I don’t know if she’s a quack, she is a materials expert way beyond myself, I don’t know about you guys, I do however, see why very few academics will touch this. People get mean, weirdly mean, outraged, violated….. I suppose it gets to world view and more core issues about their perception of and participation in reality.

      It seems that this population would suggest Wood is wrong because thinking new technology could vaporize material or cause unknown anomalies (similar to those found after tornadoes) is …….idiotic. Which gets back to that barrier to progress thing…. I’m getting a tiny feeling for what Galileo must have had to endure….

      All Im hearing from the editorial tone on this blog is;
      It can’t be true, you’re stupid for thinking so….
      I haven’t said anything about what I believe or think, I have only questioned your collective abilities to support the claim: Thrive Debunked….

      not yet.

      • muertos says :

        “I do however, see why very few academics will touch this. People get mean, weirdly mean, outraged, violated….. I suppose it gets to world view and more core issues about their perception of and participation in reality.”

        No.

        Academics won’t touch this because Judy Wood is insane, her theories are absolutely false, and even acknowledging them is not worth their time.

        Super duper beam weapons from outer space. Seriously. Just read that sentence over again. This is what she’s saying. Super duper beam weapons from outer space did 9/11. How is anybody who is not certifiably insane supposed to take that notion even remotely seriously?

  54. stratoblaster says :

    please, debunk away

    do a super duper job

    I do see WTC beams disintegrating mid air, whoa, what’s this wood lady talkin?

    gimme somthin …anything with ideas n stuff.
    what do you think, (?)
    what is your idea of how it goes, crops, buildings disintegrating…universal power to spin galaxies by… etc…

    show me your supported research (not name calling, please)
    I will read it all with a happily, absurdly, open
    mind.

    • muertos says :

      If you actually believe there’s the slightest shred of value in Judy Wood’s insane space beam theory, there’s very little I can do for you. I’m not qualified to treat the mentally ill.

      These days I usually refer Twoofers to an article I wrote back in 2010 that explains why we know what we know about 9/11.

      http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/911/what-do-we-know/

      If this does not convince you, I really couldn’t care less. After all, you think Judy Wood might be right about beam weapons from outer space, so there’s little chance that anything in the way of rationality will make an impression on you.

  55. stratoblaster says :

    So “mission accomplished” as some credible hero once said…..right?

    Ive looking at hours of research done by people offering lots of nifty detail on various subjects. Phew….shoot waste of time….must be a lot of crap.

    cause you think/say so.

    ok, cool, thanks for saving me from….

    well almost,

    those steel girders are disintegrating on video in mid air, leaving a trail of dust.
    Thats weird… never ever seen that before.

    I haven’t finished researching her material yet, she could be really good with CGI but so far I haven’t come across anything about space beams, nor any specific conclusions, rather, a rigorous attendance to some of the details that are strange, and some suggested theories about how they may have been achieved (i.e. the Hutchison experiements) The emphasis is on the questioning from what I’ve experienced so far, not conclusions. Questioning.

    direct from wood:
    “Our critics have accused us of insisting that beam weapons did their damage from outer space, yet we make no claim about whether the directed energy weapon operated from a space-, air-, or ground-based platform. Nor do we make any claim about what wavelength(s) was used, what the source(s) of energy was, whether it involved interference of multiple beams, whether it involved sound waves, whether it involved sonoluminescence, whether it involved antimatter weapons, whether it involved scalar weapons, whether it was HAARP (more here and here), whether it involved a nuclear process (e.g. NDEW, more info), whether it involved conventional directed energy weapons (cDEW), whether it involved improvised directed energy weapons (iDEW), nor what kind of accelerator was used, nor do we claim to know what the serial numbers of the parts that were in the weapon(s).

    What we do claim is that the evidence is consistent with the use of energy weapons that go well beyond the capabilities of conventional explosives and can be directed.”
    From

    http://drjudywood.com/new.html

    I’ll finish looking thru tho, maybe I’ll agree that she’s unworthy of you guys. For now I don’t have my own concrete conclusions (or website) on the matter. Just questions, more and more of them progressively, and a sense that the official cover story was off.

    now on to your link :
    Skeptic Project
    lets hope they’re better at this. I’d like to learn something with my entertainment.

    and this:

    http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/05/architects-and-engineers-for-911-truth_9853.html

    disintegrating steel indeed.

    • muertos says :

      As I said earlier, I really couldn’t care less. If you’re still misguided and irrational enough to still be a Twoofer years after every single one of the 9/11 conspiracy tropes have been debunked, that’s your misfortune, not mine. Good luck studying the lunatic rantings of Judy Wood and Richard Gage and grainy YouTube videos looking for that ever-elusive “smoking gun.” Maybe in 20 or 30 years you’ll realize what the rest of the world has known since 2001–that 9/11 was not an “inside job” and that you’ve fallen for a load of bull. I really don’t care whether you believe this or not.

      • stratoblaster says :

        lots of video of spires disintegrating… = weird
        just sayin.

        centuries of more = historical indicators/writings/artwork of circles going back to 1600’s

        again, I don’t believe anything on these topics, just have an open mind to possibilities outside the box. If you guys can convince me of details pertaining to a solid debunking. Great! your site has validity. If not, you’re coming across as close minded and irritable.

        Anastasio, I’ll look at all the node material again. And the h-glaze, again. not for you, but for me. Id love to close the book on this crop circle phenom as you folks have. But so far, it’s not seeming that simple.

        If we are to advance and come up with new tech, I think we would benefit from being exposed to nifty unknowns. Im not interested in convincing you guys.

        I’m interested in new possibilities. Maybe some folks are reading along, making up their own minds, and questioning your certitude. Maybe.

        Muertos, how are you so sure about 911?
        There’s vast admission from the military that they have developed various kinds of Directed Energy Weapons.

        These engineer/architect folks are still committed for some reason. I find that interesting.
        Why didn’t NIST test for explosives in the debris? why did it look like a demolition? Why did people hear explosions, why did the steel grids and supports disintegrate before my eyes….so much to ask questions about…. still.

        http://www.ae911truth.org/


        this one is almost 2 hrs long.

        it just goes on and on.
        and you guys say no no no no

        ok,

        no

        happy?

      • muertos says :

        The standard playbook of conspiracy theorists and woo believers when confronted with sites like this is:

        1. Spam the target site with links from conspiracy sites and YouTube videos that rehash the theories or divert attention from the ones that have already been refuted.
        2. Cite “experts” (Judy Wood, in your case, but others often use Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Jeff Rense, Alex Jones, etc.) who are typically celebrities in the conspiracy world and who have elaborate web sites from which you can draw links and videos in #1. Stress that they are supposed to know more than the critic does.
        3. When said “experts” are exposed as charlatans, liars or simply insane, claim that you don’t really endorse their work, you’re “just asking questions,” even though you do not wish to ask any question that leads to an answer other than “OMG it’s a conspiracy!”
        4. Complain about the fairness of the debate. Accuse the critic of logical fallacies. Especially “ad hominem.” Use the words “ad hominem” as often as possible.
        5. Accuse the critic of being closed-minded. Try to shift the moral context of the debate so the critic looks like a closed-minded naysayer. Evidence is meaningless.

        And, when all else fails:
        6. Accuse the critic of being a paid disinformation agent.

        You’re 5 for 6 on these so far, Strato. Do you want to go for #6 just to say you covered all the bases?

      • DiscoPro_Joe says :

        @ stratoblaster

        Check out the following video:

        http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC_Not_A_Demolition

        If you still think explosives or controlled demolition brought down the towers on 9/11 after seeing this video, then you must be retarded.

      • stratoblaster says :

        ok, disco joe

        i’ll look at it

        butt
        my questioning seems to have hit a nerve…

        why the “retarded” comment?
        why so hostile/dickish?
        It makes me think you’re either getting paid to distort this stuff ….
        (yes #6 Muertos),

        (but not really because
        it is very unlikely given the unprofessional diction and tone)

        ….or y’all need some vegetables and sun….(more likely)

        just share the info
        it strengthens your point to be courteous

        Muertos:
        nice list, tho I don’t think you’re qualified for number 6 frankly.

        are you gunna debunk wood’s WTC spire videos-theories or not? So far her’s is a more engaging portrait. I have yet to see a good explanation for disintegrating steel, beyond just calling her names….. the winning approach of this community so far… It’s just not working for me.

        Cut n paste some more research please that explains this phenom.. I’m looking at other debunkers sites, some of them have at least some physics acumen, and some relevant thoughts on some of the materials and engineering issues.

        this guy is doing a better job at debunking Wood, tho when he gets to the vaporization evidence videos he resorts to y’alls approach
        “It simply didn’t happen.”
        Then why am I seeing it happen?

        http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics1.HTM

        most skeptics when confronted with the idea that there may be tech we are unaware of, that we may be not alone in the universe, that we don’t know how the giant monoliths could have been cut and moved, fitted stones in sites in Peru, 6000 yr old Sumerian tablets that correctly display our solar system, etc…..just get mad.
        i.e. this blog linked below is full of jerky tone and insults, with a tiny bit of shared information:

        http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=14942

        This one is full of quacks that discuss material that will I think get you guys going pretty good. It’s the History channel so the cheese is piled pretty high….check it at 14 mins for fitted stones and cuts that raise eyebrows.

        Then there’s this stuff:

        I’m thinking most of these are man made but using what? more energy tech?
        Lot’s of people saw em.


        this one is pretty funky.

        I myself have heard very strange sounds lately in the remote mountains and in urban areas, this I can claim from my own experience…. My wife and I were awoken in the middle of the night by a loud very unfamiliar white noise thrumming/generator sound recently…..and in the mountains, far from civilization and engines, I heard a loud generator running, coming from all directions, possibly earth crust movement is what the local public radio station postulated. It was weird.

        Lastly, as a teen, 2 of my friends and I experienced strange lights in the Maine forest (it’s a long story), suffice to say it was chilling and affected us all for life. Perhaps that’s why I’m less inclined to be afraid or angry at unknowns… these were not normal experiences. You’ll have to take my word for it. or not.

        I’m getting progressively amused by this irate community of debunkers.
        I dig the science tho.
        Got Science?
        or attitude?

      • DiscoPro_Joe says :

        @ stratoblaster:

        Dude…you ***are*** retarded.

      • stratoblaster says :

        dude
        you called me dude!

  56. Anastasio says :

    @stratoblaster

    ————————————————————————————————
    You see what you want, obviously. Most of us doo.
    I’ll cut n paste the conclusion from a link you provided re: circles forming in seconds…(remembering that that’s what I’m good at)
    ————————————————————————————————

    And what have I told you about speaking for other people? Seeing only “what I want” makes no account for the absolute fuckwittery you are subjecting us to.
    Let me make this easy for you so you at least have a fighting chance for scraping back some of that dignity you lost as soon as you picked up your keyboard and started regurgitaing information that you read five minutes beforehand on a conspiracy website.

    ————————————————————————————————
    “There is a clear moral here. As much as we would all like evidence that some crop formations are made by a supernatural agency, there are those that clearly aren’t. Think carefully before accepting claims that crop formations appear in bursts of light, and be careful of those promoting such ideas, especially if they are film makers who produce expensive DVDs for you to buy.
    ————————————————————————————————

    Did you actually read this part or were you hoping that I was to glean something from it?

    ————————————————————————————————
    There are real crop circles out there, and maybe even simple formations as well. I have investigated the Tully saucer nests of Queensland, Australia, for two books, and discovered that similar swirled circles had been occurring also in North Island, New Zealand, and that the region was noted for its strange lights, seen as ancestral spirits by the native aboriginies. I have found evidence of swirled circles of wheat corn in the fields of Oxfordshire during the 1940s, when they were known as Fairy Rings and Devil’s Circles. Then we have the Mowing Devil story of the 1600s, while accounts of crops being trampling into circles by celestial visitors is found also in native American myth. Something in the fields of southern England might be genuine, and as long as that possibility remains we should continue looking for answers. My own research into crop circles is found in two book THE CIRCLEMAKERS (1992) and ALIEN ENERGY (1994).”
    ————————————————————————————————

    Have you actually seen the swirled circles and saucer nests described by Collins here? If so, do they fit this earlier description of yours: “The more giant and complex ones are what I focus on.”? I was about to ask why you keep shifting the goal posts but I guess we already know the answer to that one.
    The point (that I yet again have to spell out for you) is that the ‘made in secondes theory’ is too much to stomach even for those who support a non man-made theory. The only mystery is that you dog-headedly stand fast to a ‘made in seconds’ theory without a shred of evidence. You have an agenda. Just own up to it.

    ————————————————————————————————
    I’m enjoying the info you share, tho the tone betrays some evidence of personality issues.
    ————————————————————————————————

    The tone is merely reciprocal. If you wish to begin with the insults then do not act so surprised and teary-eyed when you walk away with a skelped arse for the sentiment.

    ————————————————————————————————
    You act as tho it’s tidy and explained. I’m just not convinced. Call me names, have fun. The evidence you provide is thin. The canola harvest pusher pics don’t explain anything relating to the bent nodes etc…They are broken. Simple.
    ————————————————————————————————

    The canola harvest pictures refutes the obsence claim that canola cannot be bent by man without it breaking as it is the most brittle of crops. You can see the comment made on the BLT’s website and it is parroted around incessentaly on the web. If canola can be bent 90 degrees at the base then it follows that less brittle crops such as wheat can do also.
    Do you now understand why I posted it?

    Let me bring you upto speed with the mystery of the nodes.
    It was Levengood and the BLT that claimed to find correlation between bent/stretched/exploded nodes and the authenticity of crop circles (Vigoda has already claimed that the BLT’s work and the authenticity of crop circles are not related). The whole node mystery exists because of the BLT and their peer-reviewed paper on the subject which I strongly adivse you read:

    http://www.bltresearch.com/published/anatomical.php

    Take special note of these two statements made by Levengood pertaining to node size and cellular transformation

    “Taken as an isolated criterion, node size data cannot be relied on as a definite verification of a ‘genuine’ crop formation”

    “From these observed variations it is quite evident that pit size alone cannot he used as a validation tool. ”

    Even the man who gave you the mystery is not with you on this one. Deal with it.

    Here’s a link (the second time I’m posting this!) that shows this nodal alteration does in fact occur in man-made crop circles too:

    http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5639358

    Now if this doesn’t convince you then let me quote yourself earlier on this page: “You see what you want, obviously.”

    ————————————————————————————————
    The guy sprinkling (not iron) shavings…..cmon. Fertilizer….again cmon, floating microwave ovens… ? whatever. I can acknowledge that humans make some of them. easy. But there’s more. As said above, centuries of more…
    ————————————————————————————————

    Ashby has shown the H -Glaze to be made up of the same iron particles Irving claimed to have spread around. Has Levengood shown them to be meteoric in origin? C’mon..

    The H-Glaze report pertains to one isolated incident of ‘metallic glazing’. This is not the same phenomena as the strange iron particles found in the soil. As I have said before, these particles exist naturally in all soils and are furthered to with the use of fertilisers. Are you really that dumb you can’t understand it? C’mon..

    Floating microwave ovens? Who the hell brought those into it? Multiplying entities? C’mon..

    Centuries more? And what in all actuallity does that even mean?

    I appreciate that you’ve had a latent induction to the world of crop circles but at least put some effort into understanding the other side to it before accusing people of ignorance and personality disorders. The observable fact that you are unwilling to fathom an alternative point of view, to or even acknowledge and respect the value of your own input speaks volumes about personality disorders and seeing what you want.

    • stratoblaster says :

      Man…again

      “I appreciate that you’ve had a latent induction to the world of crop circles but at least put some effort into understanding the other side to it before accusing people of ignorance and personality disorders. The observable fact that you are unwilling to fathom an alternative point of view, to or even acknowledge and respect the value of your own input speaks volumes about personality disorders and seeing what you want.”

      this sums it up pretty well. but not re: me.
      I’ve made no claims about what my view is other than I don’t think you have provided enough to justify saying
      Thrive Dubunked.

      what I fathom is that you’re not very effective at debunking from any observable point of view, alternative or otherwise….

      that’s my only claim so far.

      I still have unanswered questions on every topic we’ve “discussed.” The little science that’s been provided is the result of other people’s research. You feel justified in making all sorts of determinations of what is fact, but you have no participation in any actual research, or credentials. Just a website, and an attitude.

      I was condescending at the beginning and for this I feel regret.Your blog title bothered me after reading the content. I should be patient.

      I will take that approach now. Maybe you could be less emotional. I request it.

      • Anastasio says :

        @stratoblaster

        And had I actually said I have debunked Thrive then you might well have a point stratoblaster. I await your forthcoming cut-and-paste offending quote that should set me to rights however. Until that time, try sticking to what has actually passed from my mouth to your ears.

        What I am guilty of, is offering unpretentious, alternative explanations that do not rely on portable microwave ovens (ever tried blasting a stalk of wheat with a magnetron? No? Well there’s your homework for today!), beings from the 4th dimension, falsehood or prevarication. Everything I have said can be observed for yourself by means of the links I have courteously provided or even by visiting a field of wheat on a hot summer’s day.

        Unfortunately, to do the thinking or to work the logic for you is a little out of my jurisdiction. As I contend, your understanding of crop circles and Tesla is nascent, latent and misguided. Once you’ve honestly followed your own clichéd maxim of “doing your research” and fully appreciate the benefits of reading as much material as possible to gain a comprehensive understanding of crop circles and the culture borne from them, then perhaps I’ll take your words in earnest, rather than having to systematically repeat myself over and over again and constantly correct you on some rather rudimentary and widely-available knowledge. This isn’t polemics stratoblaster; it’s a verbal tennis match where you hope serving any sloppy old shot will score you a point and save you from the wooden spoon.
        I prefer a good conversation any day but the links you have provided are from years ago and contain material I have read and used in arguments years ago. You are not opening my mind to anything stratoblaster, and the world will continue to advance and develop new tech whether Anastasio believes that crop circles are made by other beings or not.

        Yes, you keep drumming it in to us that you are open minded but please forgive me if my trilby remains firmly seated. Your arguments and tactics are predictable to say the least i.e. we’ve heard and seen it all before.

        ——————————————————————————————
        “I still have unanswered questions on every topic we’ve “discussed. The little science that’s been provided is the result of other people’s research. You feel justified in making all sorts of determinations of what is fact, but you have no participation in any actual research, or credentials. Just a website, and an attitude. “
        ——————————————————————————————

        Science isn’t important to the mystery but credentials are? Are you picking your ideas out of David Bowie’s fairground tombola or something?
        The “little science that’s been provided” and conducted by other people is actually an integral gargantuan link in the circular argument of the origin of crop circles. All talk of crop circle anomalies that have you asking the questions you do all invariably lead back to the BLT and Levengood. Remove the science and all you’re left with is hearsay. So tell me tell stratoblaster, was it hearsay that got you through your degree or did you work hard for it like everybody else? Is hearsay more factual and authoritive than scientifically and universally accepted observations of tropism and naturally occurring iron in soil? What are the credentials of the people telling you that a crop circle forms in seconds or that canola cannot be mechanically flattened without breaking?
        I cannot give you the answer you are looking for and I will not waste my life lamenting it either. Likewise, Muertos has done a capital job of refuting your obscene claims regarding 911 (I lost interest personally years ago) but there comes a point where he is no longer obliged to waste anymore of his time trying to pull your head out of your arse.
        Years ago I would have agreed with you that other beings are responsible for some crop circles but I have long grown out of that phase. You know yourself that your opinions are better-suited to a conspiracy website where you can indulge yourself in the ‘alien/other beings’ hypothesis or whatever it is you have decided responsible for crop circles. Your whole presence here (like those of all other self-crowned compassionates) is undecidedly surreptitious and inflammatory. Not that I’m saying it’s a bad thing for this blog (we can all use the laugh from time to time), but perhaps you especially should realize your place in the grand scheme of things before complaining about having your ass served up to you from all directions and no one taking your shit seriously.
        Point out any other organisation that has studied affected crops at the microscopic level or the affected soils or reliable studies that discount all natural explanations. You claim you have unanswered questions (this is not your only claim boyo and don’t think you will be spared the rod for your deceit!) so at least point me towards the source of those questions and perhaps we can make a start at educating you. You can claim you are sitting on the fence but it is clear to all which side your feet are resting on. You pretend to act as a devil’s advocate, challenging that if we don’t answer your questions (which are?) then we stand accused of being ignorant and irritable. How exactly does that work? If we can’t educate you then WE are stupid? You could certainly endear yourself with just a little less arrogance!

        Other Claims, a book by Stratoblaster (degree qualified) – available in all good and bad conspiracy sites now:

        ——————————————————————————————
        …your computer is powered by AC, a Tesla invention…
        ——————————————————————————————

        Look there’s a claim right there! It is strange how that slipped your mind isn’t it? Need I remind you how you continued to think you were correct and how you dredged the web for sites to support your incorrect and uninformed statement? Can you see a pattern developing here? Learn from it. Or don’t. I really don’t care.

        ——————————————————————————————
        “It’s easier for me to imagine they are the result of something I don’t understand than for me to assume they are solely the creation some beer filled gits with string and boards, theirs are visually clunky, and lack the molecular restructuring.”
        ——————————————————————————————

        Look! There’s ANOTHER claim stratoblaster! Did you forget about that one? Crop circles made by humans are visually clunky and lack molecular restructuring? Ladies and gentlemen, we can now prove the existence of other beings through stratoblaster’s subjective view of what is “visually clunky” regarding crop circles! Why have you not been nominated for the Nobel Prize for these powers of deduction simply defies belief!
        And what of the molecular restructuring? Even the only man ever to study the molecular structuring has proclaimed that same molecular structuring as an unreliable indicator as to the circle’s authenticity and was also found to appear in plants downed by wind and rain! Vigoda and yourself have written off the BLT and Levengood (the only man who felt the need to lie about his credentials) so that means it’s now up to you to find genuine unaccountable molecular structuring in a circle proven to be made by something other than man, and ergo give us a clue of what you’re speaking about. So get your lab coat on and report back here with your findings. We’ll still be here.
        Oh, and your credentials don’t matter stratoblaster; it seems quite possible that you studied for your degree in Clown School anyway.

        ——————————————————————————————
        “…nodal forming at the bends…”
        ——————————————————————————————

        Where do you people come from?! Are you cloned from Pee Wee Herman’s afterbirth inside a piñata and then beaten out of it by monkeys on acid or something? Statements like this are a prime example of why you need to catch up before you play up. You’re repeatedly saying you’re confused with the whole node mystery; your above statement is proof of that and I wholly concur. Just come to terms with the fact that other people have read further into it than you and have put bends at the nodes down to the natural process of tropism. Do yourself a favour and read up on it here:

        http://eduweblabs.com/Database/Lab_FoldersG/Tropism/Tropism.html

        Seriously stratoblaster; go away, calm down and digest what has been said before you even think about touching your keyboard again. Your choleric, abrasive and insinuative prose is denotary of a person who has finally lost his grip on the balloon; and the undignified plummet back to earth can only add to your discomposure. One might argue that you’ve already embarrassed yourself enough, but like the cock-eyed village idiot who is slapped down to the ground every time you get back up with a bloodied nose professing “that didn’t hurt!”
        Project all your shortcomings on to me if you wish. I think we can all see how desperate you’ve become with your latest offering to the proceedings; which incidentally is completely bereft of any material related to crop circles. Your argument solely consists of “I don’t understand the mystery (but I secretly believe it’s other beings) and I don’t believe you and your simple explanations because I think you’re wrong.”

        Yours is an argument from incredulity and it is not applicable or taken seriously here.

        ——————————————————————————————
        “I had big teeth in junior high, and was teased by a bully who called me “Teeeeeth.” That was in junior high a loooong time ago….and when I got big, he stopped. I guess I had grown into my teeth.”
        ——————————————————————————————

        A heartrending tale that would bring a tear to a glass eye I’m sure. It’s truly a shame you never took with you the value of empathy from your experience before accusing people of having personality disorders for daring to have a difference of opinion and not letting your condescending tone slide.

        Like Suzanne, your charade is completely transparent. You are simply not clever enough to incite anything or be anything other than a source of amusement here stratoblaster, which is perfect for an otherwise drab post-Jubilee Wednesday.
        I for one will be sorry to see you go.

        I will sit back and enjoy your swan songs composed of choruses of ad hominens. Knock yourself out; your crop circle argument (or whatever you want to call it) is void and without substance as you admit you have no claims and therefore nothing to offer to the discussion (apart from quoting Silva and Vigoda and your incredulity). Entertain us with your thoughts on why everyone here is an ignorant asshole and why you’re out there in the backwoods of Bumblefuck championing the cause of beam weapons, inter-dimensional beings and everything else that mystifies you. Here’s a tip for you stratoblaster; next time you’re in the bar or out camping with buddies and start spouting off about crop circles, pay special attention to the disinterested countenance of your friends, the polite smiles and nods of the head and the eagerness to change the conversation on to something a little less ‘out there’. No one thinks you’re clever, no one thinks you have an open mind. You’re caught up in a new found infatuation with conspiracy literature and you falsely believe you’ve attained new powers of intellect as a consequence. A lot of people experience it and grow out of it, trust me.
        Regardless of my credentials, attitude (which is exclusively reserved for those who address me with impudence) or my knowledge of the topics I have spoken on, I am utterly content that a brighter, unrepressed future abound with exciting ‘new tech’ awaits us all…and its sole existence does not pivot on the veracity of crop circles or the palatability of the crap that Gamble’s serving up.

        ——————————————————————————————
        “I was condescending at the beginning and for this I feel regret.Your blog title bothered me after reading the content. I should be patient.
        I will take that approach now. Maybe you could be less emotional. I request it. “
        ——————————————————————————————

        Like I said no one is taking your words seriously. No one else here shares your regret or is emotionally affected by your tone or insinuation, ergo, the only request that needs fulfilling is the revealing of the source of your unanswered questions regarding the mystery of crop circles.
        If opinions were indeed dominos then yours is a double blank, so
        forgive me if I’ve not been stricken with great admiration by the effort you’ve put in to it so far.

      • stratoblaster says :

        “And had I actually said I have debunked Thrive then you might well have a point stratoblaster”
        Anastasio are you Muertos? Muertos (translation: Dead) is the author of this “debunk”

        For me, increasingly, the scientific argument here is young in tone, emotionally based (see your long and irate response), and using very thin scientific explanations….to wit:

        amidst that long diatribe of whatever, I gleaned that besides you having a guttural response to my questioning, 1. that you propose that Magnetrons were employed to make crop circles and/or 2.Tropism is to blame….a natural process….

        OK

        Case solved.
        Good job.

        Now Id like go out and decorate the field next to my house, can you include some instructions on how I can do it? I’m willing to dismantle my microwave….
        I tried the boards and string method,
        it looks clunky and it’s really hard to gracefully weave those stalks without breaking em…

        and no pretty lights came around to accompany my process….sadly.

  57. stratoblaster says :

    disco pro,
    re: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC_Not_A_Demolition

    there is a huge bias, nobody i’ve researched so far are claiming it was a typical demolition… which is the premise of this video makers debunk.

    the guy in the hospital recovering from ankle injury (recieved in WTC) says ” I heard a bomb” and the video maker cuts in writing “he’s using a figure of speech” (at 8:34)

    not very credible debunking again.

    what’s even stranger is his explanation of the phenom of the dust clouds/smoke plumes includes lots of videos of DEMOLITIONS! unbelievable, WTC not a demolition? and again, he’s explaining it away by showing how demolitions create clouds of dust.

    I must be retarded
    I’m going with the AE911truth.org guys so far

    most who claim it was a demolition also claim that demo techniques used were new or advanced somehow (i.e. super nano thermite supposedly exclusively and only obtained from lawrence of livermore labs)…. o yea, and space beams..(not accurate, see my paste of Woods’ comment on that above).

    according to the AE911truth doc there were armed guards on the elevators that were being retrofitted for 9 mos prior to 911, the elevator shafts gave direct access to the main structure supports of the Towers. hmmm….. armed guards….

    The furthest I’m willing to go so far is that nobody has succeeded in explaining what actually happened. Why is there no precedent for this kind of catastrophe? There are lots of examples of planes hitting buildings, steel building fires that were WAY more severe, and yet none of those dropped…..

    re: WTC buildings collapse, show me an example of a steel framed building collapsing from fire, show me steel that can be melted by jet fuel. Look up the tolerances, see the figures related to jet fuel heat and steel tolerances.
    The only thing that is credible about the debunking of demolition is the Kinetic energy argument, WTC mass=energy comparable to 100 tons of TNT. But something had to get that thing going that has never occurred before without the presence of some kind of force (not fire) (i.e. charges, weakening devices, thermite, etc…). Demolition. Actually.

    Could be said that the holes made by planes weakened the structures. But again, this has happened before and the buildings didn’t collapse.

    I don’t know
    but I’m not mad about it.

    Seems relevant that we’re all still talking about it. No?

    • muertos says :

      I’m getting tired of these Twoofer tropes that were debunked seven years ago.

      I direct you again to this article, which I doubt you’ve read.

      http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/911/what-do-we-know/

      • stratoblaster says :

        Don’t get tired
        be rigorous

        Im reading your blog, finding your bias strong, but that’s to be expected at this point. Still stacking up details but so far this one seemed incomplete
        from:

        http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/911/what-do-we-know/page/2/

        ” Not a single witness has ever indicated having seen cutting charges in the towers at any time.
        Not a single person has ever come forward stating that they planted the charges there or have direct knowledge of who did.
        The charges themselves have not been found.
        Detonators needed to explode the charges have not been found.
        Question: is there any evidence at all of these cutting charges? (This will be dealt with in a moment)”

        when questioned NIST admitted that they did not test for explosives…
        according to the trailer for the newest doc offered by the guys over at AE911truth.org

        that would explain why no evidence of charges were found….

        and why did FEMA disallow an official forensic study of the debris before it was hauled away?

        why did many independent studies find a very specific form of unexploded nano thermite in the dust?

        I don’t have time now to show the links,
        I’ll keep reading your blog…

        for those following the above linked blog was written by Muertos

  58. stratoblaster says :

    BTW Muertos, what is this “Twoofer” term supposed to conjure, is that a derogatory term for someone seeking truth? If I’m supposed to be insulted…..um
    I like truth,
    as much as it can exist, which is always subjective…even in science (if you’re aware of recent findings in quantum physics at CERN and other particle accelerators) they learned:
    the observer sees what he expects to see….

    Calling me any generalizing term seems a sophomoric or adolescent way of trying to “other” someone who has a different perspective…. which bespeaks an insecurity, a weakness of position, an attempt to feel superior (yes Im psycho analyzing you).

    I had big teeth in junior high, and was teased by a bully who called me “Teeeeeth.” That was in junior high a loooong time ago….and when I got big, he stopped. I guess I had grown into my teeth.

    Do you really want to be calling me Twoofer?
    Truther?

    Is anyone impressed?

  59. stratoblaster says :

    A fundamental point I forgot to clarify:

    Does anyone here believe the truth of the official story given by the government in the 911 Commission Report?

    Do you believe the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were justified and a good move for the US?

    Do you trust Bush/Cheney to have acted in your best interest while in power (assuming with this question that there’s not many billionaires reading along)?

    I just want to take the temperature on this before I continue

    • muertos says :

      Not playing this game with you, Twoofer.

      http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/911/what-do-we-know/

      Goodbye!

      • stratoblaster says :

        Sorry to see you Run away

      • stratoblaster says :

        Its not a game, its a debunking. Which requires explanation of how it was done…..a full explanation.

        also re: the above temperature taking request, your motives are important. Do you believe the official 911 story or not? What are your political affiliations? Are you willing to question those in power? Or are you a willing stooge for incomplete explanations?

        Your “what we know” article does not address the questions posed re: disintegrating spires, what caused the collapse to begin (weakening steel-heat required), why no official testing for explosives was done on the materials and dust, why fema blocked forensic investigation of said material….just to begin. The article is not conclusive with the facts included.

        http://www.AE911truth.org gets me far into questioning the official story….lots of professionals providing real science behind their concerns….

        and

        “Twoofer”……??? still?
        sheesh

        this word/approach does not help make your point at all

        It emboldens everyone questioning you

        Just explain your debunk

        or rename it

        “Investigating Thrive”

        and opine away….

  60. manumele23 says :

    “I cannot give you the answer you are looking for and I will not waste my life lamenting it either. Likewise, Muertos has done a capital job of refuting your obscene claims regarding 911 (I lost interest personally years ago) but there comes a point where he is no longer obliged to waste anymore of his time trying to pull your head out of your arse.”

    by all means, don’t waste our time

    911 obscene claims?
    I’m not alone in my questioning,
    at all.

    capital job?
    hardly.

    Shouting louder doesn’t win arguments….
    full, conclusive, fact supported explanations do.

    Id rather my head was up my own arse than up anyone elses….even Muertos’

    (or that of a consortium of eugenics obsessed fascist billionaires)

    I have a very healthy diet

    and is this really any way to convince those who disagree, or find the explanations wanting?
    be more concise please, its gotten tedious reading your superior responses

    just share the information.

    oh, the edge, scary huh? Be afraid if you must.
    Personally, I like it. The air is fresh, electric even……(Tesla?)

    911 dust plumes, disintegrating steel, no testing for explosives, thermite evidence, 5000ish documented circles worldwide (despite Muertos’ efforts, many remain unexplained), fitted stones in peru, very old underwater ruins, 6000 yr old sumerian tablets accurately depicting our solar system, mass ufo sightings, strange sounds heard worldwide, Tesla’s research materials unavailable to the public….

    can we discuss, with civility, the neat stuff?
    because given :

    “I am utterly content that a brighter, unrepressed future abound with exciting ‘new tech’ awaits us all…”

    I have hope for you.

    • Anastasio says :

      @stratoblaster

      ———————————————————————————————–
      You in address to my comment:

      “I’ve made no claims about what my view is other than I don’t think you have provided enough to justify saying
      Thrive Dubunked. ”

      then you again in address to my comment:

      “Anastasio are you Muertos? Muertos (translation: Dead) is the author of this “debunk”
      ———————————————————————————————–

      That’s a cheap shot that even Mayweather wouldn’t abide, but I suppose a guy in your predicament has to try and score them when he can. As I stated before; you are simply not clever enough to be anything other than a source of amusement here stratoblaster i.e. a clown. It’s usually conducive to the proceedings to address the person you are talking to, agreed?
      I’d let you away with this one but hopefully by rubbing your nose in the mess you are littering this page with you’ll also learn the value of comprehensible communication, while we simultaneously continue to draw the blog’s attention to the inanity of your comebacks. Remember what I said about your little game of verbal tennis and sloppy shots? Wooden spoon? Well this is you caught in the act stratoblaster, and a fully grown, married man does not wear it well.
      A small nit-pick you might argue, but an important one to apprehend nonetheless if we were ever to embark on a civil debate. Trust me, given the levels of assholery you are willing to sink to, this IS Anastasio being civil.
      However, you have proved from the outset you are capable of neither civil nor debate, so in that respect why should one waste his magnanimity and instead pass up on the opportunity to beset an obnoxious pessimist who contends the US government slaughtered thousands of its own citizens and hundreds/thousands more helped to cover it up?
      What a positive and mentally balanced chap you are stratoblaster! We are but egregious misanthropes in your compassionate presence! Your sparkling future and chipper outlook on life is one we are to covet, surely?

      Just tell us who we have to hate on/remove from existence so we can advance as real men and share in that rapturous experience you call “Your Life”.

      ———————————————————————————————–
      …“that you propose that Magnetrons were employed to make crop circles”…
      ———————————————————————————————–

      No stratoblaster, no. Are you high?

      Cut-and-paste the offending quote where I even remotely proposed this ass-backward idea as any kind of explanation and then I’ll consider civil …you complete and utter buffoon. Does your wife paint your eyes on you before you leave the house every morning or do you habitually lie to bring some excitement into your life? The jury is out there. I’m having increasing difficulty in telling whether you’re trolling or just plain stupid.

      ———————————————————————————————–
      and/or 2.Tropism is to blame….a natural process….
      ———————————————————————————————-

      Tropism is to blame?! For the love of fuck stratoblaster…

      Let us start at square 1and I’ll walk you through this in baby steps. Tropism occurs AFTER the crop is flattened or displaced when the plant seeks to reposition itself (via bending at the nodes) towards the sun or realign with gravity. A plant that is displaced by a stomping board would seek to reposition itself in this way – by means of bending at the nodes. Would you agree with this so far? Not too scientific for you?
      No one here contends tropism is responsible for the actual flattening of the crop. No one.
      The bone of contention (which continues to elude you) is the fact how the natural recovery process known as tropism was allegedly researched and postulated by Levengood to be the effects of some mysterious microwave energy, and not the plant naturally seeking to reposition itself.

      Can you dig it? Would you like some time to get your head around it? We’ll take as long as it needs (and don’t say I’m not a good guy by helping you learn about crop circles!).

      We’re creating quite a list of these ‘Anastasio misquotes’ aren’t we? Show me where I proposed any of the claims made in your accusations and I’ll see about amending my tone. Until that time you will be treated like the prevaricating grade-A asshole you seem so intent on becoming.

      You want civil? Well, demonstrate that you know what it means first.

      ———————————————————————————————–
      “it looks clunky and it’s really hard to gracefully weave those stalks without breaking em…
      ———————————————————————————————–

      And how long have you practised weaving or thatching stratoblaster? Is it a time-served tradition that has run in your family for hundreds of years? Is it listed as a hobby on your Facebook profile alongside “spreadin’ truth” and “wakin’ up the masses”? Please, share with us your expertise.

      Here are some cases of ‘supernatural weaving’ I thought you’d enjoy:

      And who on earth could be responsible for these!? It defies belief!

      Read Muertos’ analogy in his debunking above (as you obviously missed it the first time) and ask yourself this question: if stratoblaster personally cannot replicate a visually pleasing Mona Lisa using the same materials as Leonardo does that then mean the original artist was not human?

      Ergo, do you honestly think your lack of experience and ability to create something you class as an authentic circle has any bearing on anything in all actuality?

      I can imagine your wife’s face as you marched out of the house, plank of wood and rope in tow, shouting:

      “SOMEONE IS BEING A JERK ON THE INTERNET!!!”

      But let’s be real, you can’t even follow a link or read a paragraph of information placed directly in front of your eyes, never mind muster the aptitude to leave your computer to tie a piece of rope to a plank and go stomp around in the grass next door.

      Let’s be fair, you don’t even know what you’re looking for.

      So, even if you did carry out your little experiment, what does it prove?

      Well, only one of two things:

      Other beings create your non-‘clunky’ crop circles,

      OR,

      humans make crop circles, you can’t weave and you are not as proficient in crop circle creation as those who have practised the art for years.

      Which do you honestly think is the most viable explanation?

      Do you understand that the “visually clunky” circles i.e. the saucer nests and swirled circles are the circles contended to be most likely non man-made? Can you at least acknowledge that? Shall I begin a sweep stake on how many more of my ‘diatribes’ it takes for that pertinent fact to sink into that tiny Kooshball you have the gall to call a brain?

      You have expertly whittled your own argument down to nothing stratoblaster. You have absolutely nothing to support your mystery apart from your own sceptism of man’s faculty and desire to create – oh, and your own ‘scientific’ home experiment.
      You expect “full, conclusive, fact supported explanations” yet offer nothing that requires an explanation.
      A debunker at the very least requires material to debunk? Let’s play fair shall we? At least give me some material to work with.

      You claim you like to ask questions and keep an open mind and you’ve assured us you’ve considered all the facts put forth from the opposition, but it’s clear that everything that comes out of your mouth is pure lip service seeking to convince us that you’ve covered all bases and your questions have any validity. People get wise to it quickly stratoblaster. Hence why no one no longer feels the need to entertain you with your 911 assblabbering.
      There’s only one person doing all the shouting about that now huh? Feeling lonely yet?

      Every perjury-filled rejoinder you pull out of your arse is a poster advert for why pregnant women shouldn’t smoke crack, and it’s not pretty to look at.

      Keep them coming, or start paying attention. We can make it as civil as you like.

  61. ilumio says :

    Interesting how the conspirators’ emphasis has morphed since the early days from the discovery of a single flattened circle being clear “evidence” of a UFO landing nest, to their current assertion of the patterns being encoded messages about peace and love. They make no mention of where the UFO’s land nowadays. And how curious that these ET’s are intelligent enough to come to earth, undertake an anthropological study without being noticed, acquire a deep knowledge of humanity, empathize with suffering humans, develop a strategy for world peace, write it out and deliver it to the humans by way of encoded message embedded into our preferred stationary – crop fields in the south of England – and yet despite overcoming insurmountable odds to achieve all that, it would seem they haven’t figured out that the English are far more likely to decode their message if they gave it to them in English.

  62. Hollywood Tomfortas says :

    ***** STUPENDOUS BREATH-TAKING, EARTH-SHATTERING, MIND-BLOWING BREAKING NEWS FROM THE CROP CIRCLE COMMUNITY!!!!! *****

    Ladies and gentlemen!!! Both Thriveteers and Debunketeers alike!!! Are you sitting down? If not, prepare to faint at this awesome and astonishing news!

    DAVE CHORLEY HAS COME BACK FROM THE DEAD!!!

    Did you hear me? If not, I repeat!

    DAVE CHORLEY HAS COME BACK FROM THE DEAD!!!

    Yes, THAT Dave Chorley, the one, the only Dave Chorley of the famous Doug and Dave Duo of crop circle pioneers, the same Dave Chorley who died in 1996, fully 16 years ago, has re-appeared just as he looked in 1991 in the electponic recording equipment of amazing Dutch crop circle psychic Robbert van den Broek.

    In my great excitement I must not forget to credit the source of this stupendous news. You know her well on this blog. It is our esteemed crop circle lady herself — the one and only Suzanne Taylor —- who sent me this morning this link to her blog called Conversations.

    http://theconversation.org/blog/colin-andrews-crop-circle-culprit-strikes-again.org

    Let’s go right to the link she provided. I am now so privileged to report to you all the substance of the conversation that the deceased Dave Chorley had with the amazing Dutch psychic, Robbert van den Broek.

    (Anastasio will of course recognize this website as that belonging to the BLT group of researchers, and the narrator of this report is the T of that group, the esteemed Nancy Talbott.)

    http://bltresearch.com/robbert/delgadochorley.php

    (In the interests of brevity, I will exclude Nancy’s report of the communication from the other deceased man, the late crop circle researcher Pat Delgado, in order to focus on Dave Chorley.)
    ——————-

    Nancy Talbott writes:

    Crop circle enthusiasts who have been following both the phenomenon itself and the continuing bizarre events in the crop-circle-related Robbert van den Broeke case will probably be as startled as I to learn of the latest events in Holland — the manifestation of clear images on video and digital cameras — of two men closely associated with the crop circle phenomenon, but whom we know are deceased: Pat Delgado (the retired English electro-mechanical engineer who became the first UK crop circle researcher after visiting three circles at Cheesefoot Head in the summer of 1981), and Dave Chorley (of the infamous British “Doug & Dave” crop circle hoaxing team).

    Images of these two men first appeared in the early morning hours of April 14, 2012, when Robbert v/d Broeke “felt” their presences and had contact with each telepathically. It was about 1:15 am when Robbert sat down and closed his eyes to focus his attention on their “energetic presence” as his friend Stan set up the video camera and turned it on, in case someone or something should appear.

    Not only did the faces of these two men appear in those first video clips, they appeared again hours later on a digital camera as Robbert and Stan tried a new experiment, one which has provided good documentation of a very strange “time” aberration we have observed indications of previously.

    [snip]

    At first Robbert thought this man was Doug Bower (the still-living other half of the “Doug & Dave” hoaxing team) but as the face became clearer in his “mind’s eye” he recognized the specific consciousness of Dave Chorley. [Robbert knew one of the "Doug & Dave" team had died, but didn't know which one.] He had seen both Bower and Chorley on a crop circle TV show many years ago and as Dave’s image grew larger Robbert felt a warm, friendly feeling and gratitude from Dave that he was able to “contact” Robbert.

    Chorley’s “consciousness” then communicated his awareness (now that he is “in the afterlife”) of how important it is that people respect the loving force behind the crop circles. Chorley also expressed sincere regret that while he was on earth he had gone to the media and said that crop circles were “just a joke”, and that he and Doug had said they made them all.

    He told Robbert that he knew there were many genuine crop circles — those that occur around Robbert and many in other countries around the world, and also some each year in England. Chorley then added that “angels” and “light beings” are now “providing energy” to many of the man-made circles (particularly those in the UK) because these circles have become spiritual meeting places. He emphasized that people should not be confused if they have mysterious experiences in man-made formations since many of these circles are now also being imbued with this “positive spiritual energy” — the experience of which is the primary purpose of the circle phenomenon.

    Chorley also emphasized that when visitors to crop circles have spiritual or mystical experiences while inside the formations they are actually facilitating the ability of the “energy from the other dimension” to come toward them.

    ============================

    And now ladies and gentlemen of both the Thriveteer and the Thrive-Debunking multiverse.

    Of course you demand extraordinary evidence that the faces appearing in Robbert’s cameras are really those of Delgado and Chorley. Well, you want proof? I give you proof. Right here in this YouTube video (06:58)

    (Now please be advised that the person who put together this video is obviously a paid government disinformation agent, a colleague of Muertos and possibly a close relative of Anastasio, who, by attempting to debunk Robbert’s claims, actually vindicates them.)

    I mean, I beg of you, people, please, can you not see the astounding similarity, nay the very identity — of the faces of Pat Delgado and Dave Chorley shown on that video from 1991 with the very same faces that appear on Robbert’s camera in 2012? How could anyone with a mind that is not already closed to transcendental spiritual reality believe that Robbert van den Broek was not visited by the actual discarnate spirit entities of the late Pat Delgado and the late Dave Chorley?

    • Anastasio says :

      Ahh, Taylor and Talbott: the quintessential dastardly duo double act whose stage name sadly lacks the implied comedy relief, but instead offers a candid but repugnant view into the warped mind set and questionable ethics of bona fide crop circle believers. And this play has taken a questionable turn.

      In all sobriety, how low will they go? Surely this has to be rock bottom?

      Even for a pair of misshapen, wicked old dragons I am taken aback at the doleful lack of consideration they exhibit for actual bereaved people in their aberrant pursuit of $$$ – and I have seen some shit.

      Insensitive, ingenuous and malevolent simply do not go far enough to cover it, by any stretch of the definitions.

      Indeed, to wit on Twain, à la Talbott:

      “If I were to express my revulsion in words, it would bankrupt every vocabulary of every language in the world”.

      As Taylor has amply demonstrated; to her beautiful mind it appears credible that Jan Delgado’s deceased, beloved father would contact a complete stranger in Holland from beyond the grave, but questionable and suspicious that a living Jan Deglado would consult with a living family friend concerning the dejected abhorrence incited as a result of Talbott’s publication.

      Well if these two deceased gentlemen had indeed made contact with den Broeke then surely that left Talbott with a moral duty to inform the next of kin of these apparitions? Did Talbott take it upon herself to follow through with this duty?

      No. Of course not. That wouldn’t make for an interesting story would it?

      It seems the more compassionate and impelling obligation was to cruelly slap the story on the BLT website, blow some more smoke up den Broeke’s ass and let the families of the deceased find out the ugly way that their loved ones were being used as a sick propaganda tool.

      Way to go girl, but I’ll hang on to that tax-deductible donation for just a while longer.

      This from Colin’s site:
      ———————————————————————————————–
      “It is the considered opinions of the family of Pat Delgado and his close
      friend and researcher Colin Andrews that the alleged messages and
      photographic images purportedly produced by the special powers of
      Robbert van den Broeke were created by trickery. This trickery
      involving images of Pat Delgado, a beloved husband, father, grandad
      and best friend is a disgrace, which reaches a new low with the
      unscientific extreme elements of the crop circle research field. No
      attempts have been made to discuss these images or communications
      with the Delgado family before posting them on the Internet nor it would
      seem have any transparent evaluations been made by the various
      camera manufactures or professional magicians etc. If they have, his
      family would like the courtesy of seeing them.
      Pat Delgado’s family were deeply involved with his work and are
      appalled at the adoption of his voice and putting at risk his high
      integrity by people who never even met him. Playing with the reputation
      of Pat is outrageous, despicable and unacceptable.

      Issued on behalf of the Delgado Family by Colin Andrews”
      ———————————————————————————————–

      Summed up perfectly by an affected individual.

      Whether Colin’s statement reflects Jan’s sentiments or not, the fact remains that Pat Delgado was a close friend of Colin Andrews; and Colin has a right to be pissed, regardless of how Suzanne Taylor tries to justify this twisted debacle.
      And how does Taylor brush the above statement aside? By setting up a whole page on her blog to discredit Colin’s response by simply pretending it’s not real!

      Tactics of an intellectual guttersnipe no less.

      If we ever needed proof of what a perfectly cold, bitter and cantankerous old goat Taylor really is then she really couldn’t have done a better job of convincing us.

      Asking the question of whose sentiments they are and what right they have to be held does nothing to absolve Talbott of the cruel, manipulative tactics she has employed to further her game, and it does even less to warrant the anticipated wave of retarded backslapping and the smug repeated bashing of the ‘Like’ button from her biggest fan (Taylor).
      But then, what can we truly expect when we exist in a world where even the most compassionate of those among us have no problem referring to the 911 tragedy as “the neat stuff”?

      If crop circles be the earth’s saviour then the earth be truly fucked.

      There is a simple virtue in comparison that belies the identities and motives of the Taylors and the Talbotts of this world. Ergo, if crop circle debunkers are “universally unkind” then this little act of skulduggery runs the BLT and all sympathetic supporters right off at the bottom of the social evolution scale.

      Even in our darkest, most despondent hours of pessimistic turmoil, there is token comfort in these cruel acts that tell us our complete lack of faith in some people’s supposed benevolence is never borne or imparted without due justification.

      Taylor and Talbott take a bow; you are without a doubt two of the nastiest scumbags that grace the crop circle scene today.

      • muertos says :

        I haven’t been paying much attention to this fracas until now, but whatever is going on, it’s pretty sickening. Suzanne posted this on her website? I assume she’s condemning it as an obvious sick and exploitative forgery, right? I mean, even the believers in paranormal origin of crop circles wouldn’t want to be associated with this sort of idiocy, would they?

      • Hollywood Tomfortas says :

        I assume she’s condemning it as an obvious sick and exploitative forgery, right? I mean, even the believers in paranormal origin of crop circles wouldn’t want to be associated with this sort of idiocy, would they?

        Muertos!

        What planet do you live on???? (Wait, don’t answer that, lest you give away the identity of the evil ET entities who have hired you, I mean, enslaved you for disinformation work against THRIVE.)

        Check out Suzanne’s webpage here.

        http://theconversation.org/blog/colin-andrews-crop-circle-culprit-strikes-again.org

        As for whether or not she believes that Pat Delgado and Dave Chorley have come back from the dead through Robbert’s mediumistic camera, read this explication from her.

        I must say Muertos, she is as blown away by this as you are! So at least you have that in common.

        Colin claims not only that Nancy’s report (http://bltresearch.com/robbert/delgadochorley.php) about the appearance of the late Pat Delgado, an early circle researcher, on Robbert’s digital and video cameras, is “trickery,” but that she and Robbert have offended Pat’s relatives. Colin provides no substantiation for the trickery claim, and I am skeptical about Pat’s relatives contacting Colin and not Nancy. Also, In the videotape posted in the report (link above), you will see how touched Robbert is at recognizing Pat’s face and how much regard he feels for him, and if any Delgado family member saw the BLT report it’s hard to believe they would have felt that Pat had been mistreated.

        An enormous array of other highly anomalous events occur around Robbert, including the clear images of deceased people he gets on digital cameras and on videotape. All this is meticulously documented (see multiple individual reports listed at the bottom of BLT’s page devoted to Robbert’s case, link above), and I trust Nancy’s reporting implicitly.

        Also, I saw an un-cut video of Robbert taking pictures, and I know enough about the videographer and someone meaningful to the videographer whose image appeared on Robbert’s camera, to be blown away. We all look forward to a DVD with a compendium of videos that will show some of the incredible things that occur around Robbert, and I think everyone who sees what I have seen will think seriously about the larger grid of intelligence, the “cosmic consciousness,” in which we are embedded.

        Bear in mind that Robbert didn’t “ask” for Pat, any more than he has asked for any of the deceased people whose images have appeared (including 60 photos of Nancy [Talbott]’s deceased brother). Robbert is a “medium,” whom the dead apparently can use to communicate with the living, but it is not Robbert’s choice as to who “comes through.”

        Robbert’s experiences and Nancy’s careful reporting about the astonishing events that occur around him are intriguing and informative, and Colin has done a disservice to us all in summarily dismissing them.

  63. thetruthhides says :

    Suzanne is riding the crop-circle gravy train for all it’s worth…

    http://circularstateofmind.wordpress.com/

    • anticultist says :

      The silly old crow publicly stated that she wanted to recruit Rosie O Donnell as her mouthpiece to garner more attention for her money maker in that interview. You couldn’t wish to be more obviously materialistic about it.

  64. Hollywood Tomfortas says :

    Here is Colin Andrews response to the Tall Taylor-Talbott Tales:

    http://www.colinandrews.net/Crop_Circles-2012-Colin_Andrews.html

    (So Far) 2012 Crop Circles:

    The worst on record and hardly qualify for the exquisite nature of the phenomena of the past thirty years.

    & The People:

    With Holland and the ongoing saga of self proclaimed medium Robbert van den Broeke taking center stage, its ironic that in his small band of followers , that well known controversial film maker Suzanne Taylor again sets forth more hatred towards others who disagree with her views, including myself. Just as Robbert himself says that “unconditional love” is the message he claims came to him with one of the latest crop circles. Which incidentally he knew was coming.

    In the last few weeks, Nancy Talbott of BLT has touted claims by Robbert that he has captured images of my deceased friend Pat Delgado and also deceased hoaxer of the 80s Dave Chorley much to the shock and disappointment of Pat Delgado’s family who issued a statement calling it Trickery. . . .

    Following Suzanne Taylor’s latest outburst I would like to correct a couple of the many untrue statements she has made. I’m sure some deliberately for maximum effect:

    1. Anybody who has followed my research knows I have not researched this subject for just a couple of years, it will be 30 years next month.

    2. Regards the BLT findings in the Edmonton, Canada formation which I was well aware did not extend to UK. BLT findings were that statistically significant findings were found in the more simple designs, exactly what I also found from a very different study of simple designs in UK during 1999 and 2000 – these also showed the more simple designs were likely not to have been made by people. My point was that BLT and my results showed agreement in that simple designs are more likely of the whole, to be non-man made.

    3. I did not claim the BLT report of images of Pat Delgado and Dave Chorley on cameras operated by Robbert van den Broeke was Trickery — this statement was made directly by Pat Delgado’s family which I posted but I did agree with their view. That is an important difference.

    4. Like anyone else I am allowed my opinion. No I have no absolute evidence that Robbert has hoaxed these images, its my opinion that he has — that is all, although the evidence presented by retired University of London lecturer Roger Wibberley is very compelling . What I do know is that Pat and Dave are deceased and claims of their images with comments made by them beyond the grave place the burden of proof not with me but Robbert and Nancy Talbott. Lets get real.

    5. Taylor says she is skeptical that Pat Delgado’s relatives contacted me. This is highly offensive to me and again Pats family. I would be taking a huge risk posting a statement which was not true, as she suggests especially because Pats daughter is a British magistrate and is the equivalent in the US as a low level judge. My tail would be on fire within minutes of making such a erroneous claim/statement.

    This aside and knowing how these people are using the good names of deceased love ones, nobody, Taylor, Talbott or even van den Broeke has picked up the phone to Pat’s family or written a single word of apology for their unprofessional and insensitive public announcement. They choose instead to attack the messenger who would have the nerve to question their claims. Such is the way of today’s politics everywhere.

    2012 does seem to be a mirror to us all for us to work harder on unconditional love and respect — with that I agree with Robbert.

    I also want to ask those concerned, how will they feel if it is proven these images are faked?

    If I am shown to be wrong about all this then I will be the first to apologize. I do admit that Robbert does appear to be a quiet gentle person.

    It has crossed my mind that Robbert might not be his own boss in these matters?

    Colin Andrews
    June 15, 2012

  65. Hollywood Tomfortas says :

    I just posted this comment on Suzanne’s “The Conversation” website

    http://theconversation.org/blog/colin-andrews-crop-circle-culprit-strikes-again.org

    ——————–

    Suzanne,

    This whole episode of the fishily identical faces of Pat Delgado and Dave Chorley both fishily appearing in the same 1991 video and then fishily showing up in Robbert’s camera in 2012 is strikingly and hauntingly reminiscent of a similar episode that took place almost a hundred years ago in England.

    I refer to the infamously eye-rolling affair of the so-called “Cottingley Fairies” that were photographed by two young cousins, Elsie, age 16, and Frances, age 10, in 1917 and which actually convinced the avowed spiritualist Sir Arthur Conan Doyle of the existence of fairies —- and by extension, the rest of the paranormal beings and phenomena that he fervently believed in.

    The wikipedia entry is quite thorough and worth a full read through

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies

    Here is a shorter JREF page

    http://www.randi.org/library/cottingley/

    Now it turns out that the girls finally confessed to the fakery in 1983. It took them 66 years, or two-thirds of a century. Suzanne, I daresay that there’s a lesson here for both you and Nancy. (Maybe not for Robbert.) But time is of the essence. Since both you ladies each already have celebrated a life span of approximately 2/3’s of a century, I can predict quite confidently that you do not have the luxury of waiting yet another 2/3’s of a century during which you might contemplate the actual physical reality of the Delgado/Chorley images.

    However, I am not even asking you to confess definitively that they were faked by Robbert. I’m only asking you simply to entertain just the possibility that Robbert could have — not even might have — faked the photos in 2012 just as the Cottingsley girls did in 1917.

    Now let me leave you with an assurance that you and Nancy can still believe in the posthumous existence of deceased human beings and even their back-influence upon the living — and yet simultaneously believe that some alleged evidence of posthumous appearances through some sort of medium could be fraudulent, at best a winsome product of peri-adolescent wish-fulfillment.

    I quote here from the Cottingley Network website:

    http://www.cottingley.net/cfbutist.shtml

    In 1986, Frances passed away aged 78, still believing in fairies. The photos were admittedly faked but she insists that she really did see fairies…

    (I do believe that the ticking sounds I hear are emanating from both yours and Nancy’s respective biological clocks. Ladies, there is still time to repent — notwithstanding the possibility that the whole world might end on the Winter Solstice of 2012, but I digress.)

  66. Hollywood Tomfortas says :

    An interesting discovery I made today about the Delgado/Chorley images. Here is my report to Colin Andrews about it.
    ————————–

    Colin,

    I’ve been looking once again at the BLT page where Nancy shows the video captures of Pat & Dave first on Stan’s video tape and then shows the faces as they appear on Robbert’s digital camera 4 hours later. I believe I have found something significant and wanted to alert you to it.

    http://www.bltresearch.com/robbert/delgadochorley.php

    It is clear from the images as they appear on Robbert’s digital camera around 5 AM that they are lifted perfectly and intact from the same 1991 video and then fiddled with using whatever photo software Robbert has. (Doesn’t even need to be Photoshop.)

    But I had yet to look at the other images as they first appeared in Stan’s video of Robbert at 1 AM or so that fateful morning. At first glance, I was convinced that they had to be different separate images. Why? because Dave and Pat were looking off in different directions. In the digital camera images, as I am facing the screen, Pat Delgado is looking over my right shoulder while Dave Chorley is looking over my left shoulder.

    But scrolling up to the Stan video captures, Dave looks to my right while Pat looks to my left. Just the reverse. I then compared the images again and Bingo! Eureka! Whoa! I see that the images are identical, but only mirror-reversed!

    And then I eventually got the bright idea of going inside the house to get a hand mirror and return to my studio and actually compare the photos on the screen with their images reflected in my mirror.

    How wonderful! I can now see the evidence of image-reversing without having to scroll up and down.

    Let me know if you see what I see.

    Tom Mellett
    Los Angeles, CA

  67. Hollywood Tomfortas says :

    Before I post my next message to Colin Andrews about the mind-boggling “hoaxing of a crop circle hoax” in Roanoke, VA by the Talbott/van den Broeke team in 2011, I would like to justify its relevance to the THRIVE movie.

    When you visit the THRIVE Movement website and read why Foster Gamble believes in the ET origin of crop circles (scroll down 2/3’s the page)

    http://www.thrivemovement.com/the_code-et_ufo

    you will notice that the only footnote link he provides to give evidence of the supernatural/extraterrestrial biological causality of crop circles is a page on Nancy Talbott’s BLT Research group site which trumpets the research of Doctor (sic) Levengood.

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

    (Such research has already been more than soundly debunked by Anastasio in several comments way above here.)

    Therefore, anything that impeaches the credibility of Nancy Talbott’s BLT Institute will simultaneously and equally impeach the credibility of Foster Gamble in his claims about crop circles in the movie THRIVE.

    So here is the saga I will entitle: “Was the Hoaxing of the Roanoke, Virginia Crop Circle itself a Hoax?” Judge for yourselves.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++

    Colin,

    I think you will be as intrigued as I am about this Roanoke, Virginia crop circle adventure of Nancy and Robbert. It appears to be a “hoax within a hoax,” or maybe more accurately a hoax about a hoaxed crop circle.

    On Nancy’s BLT site, you can read about it here;

    http://www.bltresearch.com/robbert/hardy.php

    Pay close attention to the dates of the events that unfold. And the “dramatis personae.”

    I first learned of this circle when I happened to listen to this radio interview
    Open Minds Radio hosted by Alejandro Rojas uploaded May 24, 2011

    This is a 90 minute program and Nancy and Robert do not appear until a half hour in. If you would like to hear Nancy and Robbert speaking, then start listening at the 31:30 mark where Nancy describes the special surprise which is the Roanoke, VA crop circle hoax. She goes on until 37:35 when Robbert speaks and this episode ends at 40:50.

    The man who reported the crop circle is Tom Howell and he wrote two articles for the Roanoke paper about it. Again, note the dates.

    [Tom Howell made an award-winning 16mm documentary on parapsychology in the 1970s. In the 1990s he had a 400-page website on psychic phenomena that continues to this day. Tom travels the world reporting on strange phenomena. Contact Tom at psychicinvestigator@yahoo.com. ]

    May 17, 2011

    http://www.examiner.com/article/crop-circle-hardy

    May 25, 2011

    http://www.examiner.com/article/crop-circle-hoax

    What is so fascinating about this adventure is the closed loop nature of the people involved. Tom Howell is a psychic investigator. The teenager, Mike Collins, is not just a paper boy for the Roanoke paper, he is specifically Tom Howell’s paper boy!

    Are we to believe that there is no possible way that Robbert in Holland could have been tipped off in advance about the identity and description of the crop circle “hoaxer?” Especially when the hoaxer is the very paper boy of the man who reports the crop circle to Nancy who just happens to have a keen inner feeling that the circle is a hoax circle? And that the man who reported it himself has made a film about psychic phenomena?

    Now I don’t know if you have an equivalent there “across the pond,” Colin, but here in the States we have American Professional Wrestling which is so obviously fake and scripted, that everyone knows it and no one above the age of 14 pretends otherwise. But this Delgado-Chorley stunt and this Roanoke crop circle hoax convince me that when Nancy, Suzanne and Robbert are confronted with the fact that American Professional Wrestling is fake and scripted, they continue to pretend it’s real. They actually believe it’s real. Are they really that childish?

    I fear we have all fallen down the rabbit hole of the Easter Bunny!

    Best regards,

    Tom Mellett
    Los Angeles, CA

  68. amber says :

    In the video I wonder why they don’t show how or why cameras, watches and other electronics stop working? Why helicopters wont fly low to the crop circle and why the grass or crop will repeatedly grow taller in the shapes? or how the crop is ever so precisely bent at an approximate height from the soil all in a single evening? Very curious that these details went omitted I mean you ARE a debunker correct? :)

    • Lee says :

      Amber those are the things crop circle believers suppose to show not us. The burden of proof is on the believers therefore they are the one who suppose to show how or why cameras, watches and other electronics stop working, or why helicopters wont fly low to the crop circle, or why the grass or crop will repeatedly grow taller in the shapes, or how the crop is ever so precisely bent at an approximate height from the soil all in a single evening. Those aren’t religious or philosophical question but, allegedly real, physical phenomena so if they’re true there should be real evidence of those things you mentioned actually happened on crop circles.

  69. Douglas Barnes says :

    I was taught in university physics how to make a crop circle back in the late 80s. Then again, I am a super-advanced alien.

    • Mr. Anon says :

      Are you talking the benevolent, doughnut-loving aliens or the evil, reptilian banking aliens?

  70. Dr Peter Andrews says :

    >>the simpler explanation is almost always the correct one

    A ‘simpler explanation’ which ignores most of the facts is very rarely the correct one.

    Um…pranksters can make crude, easily identifiable copies of crop circles which don’t contain most of the characteristics of real ones (magnetic anomalies, magnetic particles in the soil, growth anomalies in the shoots, correct, perfectly drawn circles, etc, etc..

    But you are so gullible that you believe that this is the explanation.

    The rest of your website is an equal mess of nonsense, non-scientific conjecture and general ignorance.

    • Anastasio says :

      I was just wondering Dr Pete, which of these correct, perfectly drawn circles of yours have found the last digit of pi? Can you please provide links?

    • SlayerX3 says :

      Nice cherry picking,

      More correctly. The explanation that makes fewer assumptions is the most likely correct.

      If I say crop circles are made by alines I have to assume that:

      Aliens traveled through space to reach (not verifiable)
      Aliens made those circles in restricted airspace and evaded detection by locals (implausible)
      Aliens would bother to make crop signs but not use more logic means like radio (just plain dumb)

      If I say pranksters made the crops:

      They were after a publicity stunt (admitted)
      They know how to make crop circles and their abnormalities (demonstrated)

      “But you are so gullible that you believe that this is the explanation.

      The rest of your website is an equal mess of nonsense, non-scientific conjecture and general ignorance.”

      Did you even bother to read the articles and follow the links? Or are you just making a fool of yourself?

  71. Niall Brown says :

    Dear Lord. Your argument, in fact EVERY argument on this page is fronted by vicious wordplay. You try to prove your point by shouting about how wrong everyone is. It is BLATANTLY obvious that whomever wrote this rubbish has never examined the crop circle phenomena, merely copy and pasted the first ten debunk articles he could find on Google. Let me straighten all you morons out. Approximatley 95% of crop circles are human made. But it is the 5% that are intriguing. You missed out sever key points in your article. But firstly, I must challenge your view that “The simple explanation is the one that is right”. This is a favourite of debunkers, who are often highly uneducated, and it wholly incorrect. Enough of that. The first thing to note is that there is no way these pranksters can create these patterns overnight. I’m talking the huge, complex ones. This has already been proven. Secondly, I need to point out the marked difference between a human crop circle and the others. There is nothing special about human made crop circles, as you correctly point out. What you omit all together is the fact that in these other crop circles, the corn isn’t just flattened. It is boiled, superheated causing it to buckle near the center. Similarly, these crop circles cause massive interference to electronic devices, something that simple magnetic particles do not. I also must make a point on these “pranksters”. You like the idea of a bandwagon so much, and use real life instances to attempt to prove (falsely) that you are correct. There have been hundreds of instances of so-called copycat killers. Why can’t these “pranksters”, who like all debunkers consider themselves the only force of truth, be jumping on the bandwagon? “Oh I made this with a few mates, you’re all wrong”. I don’t think so. In short, you are a fool, your followers are fools. I await what will no doubt be a vicious retribution.

    • Anastasio says :

      Hello Niall,

      I just wanted to be the first to congratulate you on such a profound and insightful opinion! With your unassuming but effective use of monosyllabic derision you literally whipped out the machete of erudition and cut a swathe of intellect straight through the unschooled jungle of ignorance that flourished here before your auspicious arrival – if I may be so bold as to ride on your coat talis by adding my own humble commentary.

      Now beware Niall; some perpetrators of nescience who frequent this blog may imply your opinion simply looks as though you went to the first ten sites on Google and paraphrased (rather awkwardly) the ‘pearls of wisdom’ that sparkled most lucently to an unwitting mind.

      Some may be as vulgar to imply they have experienced a more eloquent argument in a can of alphabet spaghetti that has been stuck up one’s arse and farted against a wall.

      I, for one, can sense the calm resolve in your manner and turn of phrase, and I know for sure that when pushed, you’re going to show us just one of many huge, complex formations that was made in one night, ‘boiled’ as to make the stems buckle near the centre, caused massive interference to electronic devices and and shows the hallmarks of anything other than human involvement.

  72. website design agency surrey says :

    After I initially left a comment I appear to have clicked the -Notify me when new comments
    are added- checkbox and now each time a comment is added I get four
    emails with the same comment. Is there an easy method you can remove me from that service?
    Kudos!

  73. tofufighter says :

    As much as I agree that Anastasio’s unrelenting sarcasm and use of scathing analogy might be a put off for ‘truthers’ commenting here, I find it hard to blame him for it.

    Come on… it’s 2012 and stratoblaster seems now to only have stumbled on the 911, crop circle, and a number of other listed conspiracies which have him all excited like a child with a new toy. That’s understandable because it’s all very fascinating, and people LOVE to believe in mysteries. Believing in them gives an air of excitement to what is sometimes otherwise a reasonably dull existence. A novice truther who clearly hasn’t read through a fraction of the literature (for or against) is extremely irritating when pompously declaring their position.

    Doctor Peter Andrews and Niall Brown, neither of you should be too surprised at the response you received, since you both strolled in pointing arrogantly at the “uneducated nonsense, non-science rubbish and blind ignorance”, without offering a scrap of “evidence” to support your claims regarding the “5%”.

    Is it entirely necessary to cut those kinds of comments/commentors to shreds the way that he does? Maybe. Maybe not. It’s definitely understandable.

    • stratoblaster says :

      I hear you Tofufighter. However, I know its 2012. I’ve been at this a while. Sadly, it’s an old toy that I can’t seem to put down. I knew intuitively, as the buildings fell, that something had gone very very wrong. Dismiss “truthers” as you would dismiss the devil, at your peril, because “the devil is in the details.”

      Maybe the devil is the best way to explain crop circles and 911. It’s about as vaild as saying THrive Debunked! and writing ad nauseum about how stupid every conspiracy theory is…..(look up the meaning on conspiracy……it’s more applicable than most assume…especially when you know that people made lots of $ on 911 (stock puts on the airlines etc…)

      What amazes me is that being vitriolic or condescending is somehow treated here as a show of strength of intellect, and that you look down upon a childlike amazement towards the mysterious. This assumes that all the questions of the universe have been soundly answered by abusive, irritable, and smug know-it-alls like anastasio, and anyone who posits otherwise is to be dismissed. Have you read Einstein? I’ll propose that he’d be delighted at being accused of being childlike, awestruck, and amazed by the mysteries of the universe. He was wrong about some things, but he advanced us. This can’t be denied.

      and, 911? really? all sewn up huh? nothing to see here folks move along…
      NO. I don’t buy it. I’m not going to ignore the testimonials of explosions, the disintegrating spires, the freefall demolition, the stock options, bush reading my pet goat while were “under attack.” You can be gullible, not me. Call me a kid. Nevermind.

      Anastasio feels we’re all idiots for thinking there’s problems with the official story. Fine. I’m with the idiots. To me they seem smarter and better equipped to explore the unknown, to actually get us some solid answers. This is the evolutionary approach. To me Judy Wood (Disintegrating Spires Theorist) has contributed more to the conversation than Thrive Debunked. As crazy as her ideas are….there’s a detailed approach to her science. Unlike Anastasio, she seems qualified to be speaking on the matter. I don’t have to “believe” her to find her ideas useful and be stimulated by them. Her approach has a better chance at arriving at a conclusive explanation than that of Thrive Debunked.

      Debunkers fail unless they explain with facts. This site fails repeatedly by giving power to attitude over solid conclusive explanation. I can only assume you are being paid to fight off the questioning that is so justifiably coming your way. Or your world view is rigidly un-movable and cast in cement.

      If you’re not being paid….you should be. Contact Cheney, Rumsfeld, Monsanto, Carlyle, Jp Morgan, Bin Laden Family, Bush, The Vatican, Exxon, WTO, Trilateral Comm, Chamber of Commerce, Citizens United, Koch Bros, etc….. They are your people. They owe you prosperity and gratitude for your help.

      Stratoblaster

      • Mr. Anon says :

        Enlighten us. In what way is Judy Wood “more stimulating” than anyone here?

      • stratoblaster says :

        Enlightenment is something I wish for all of us, truly, and I imagine it comes with a personal and direct contact with source that branches out from within to connect with all else. That is up to you, (and me) and I wish you well on the journey.

        Read this blog, my comments, comments of others, read Judy Wood too, if you want, i’m not commanding. Enlighten yourself. We all benefit.

        I encourage you to examine the tone of the blog and it’s advocates and ask yourself, is it impartial? (look at the title) is it coming from a wide mind that allows for a scope beyond itself?

        For me, I think the smug and adversarial tone betrays the blogs credibility and evidences a lack of maturity, or it’s simply a primitive paid/fanatic disinfo attempt. Consistently, there is a key element missing here: Humility.

        It takes ability, wisdom, and ironically, Knowledge to say: “I don’t know, but what I think might be the case is….”

        This blog is dismissible because it doesn’t offer ideas, to quote they just say “it simply isn’t true. ”

        Understanding that I find Wood more engaging, but have no claims to the veracity of her theories (frankly, I’m unqualified beyond gut feelings)….not only does Judy Wood debunk the official story, but she offers her own well qualified theories as to what may have happened instead and then provides evidence, albeit wild evidence. No matter how unfamiliar or out of the box, his makes her contributions much more valuable and interesting. She has ideas. She is brave to stick her neck out so far. I give her that.

        No, is simply too easy.
        If no, then why not, and if not, then what?

        Ah, now im interested.

  74. stratoblaster says :

    Also, the only thing dull about my existence is the moments when I have to trudge thru anastasios and muertos’ replies to the questions I pose. My motive is to share with others that in my view, it is o.k. to not have all the answers, especially if attainable facts are lacking…. that mystery is a given if you are paying attention. Also, to not be duped by “official” stories re: major events like 911, or pretty lights in the sky.

    • tofufighter says :

      Stratoblaster,

      I am sure that you realise that your response of “if you’re not already a paid disinformation agent, then you should be… etc” displays a certain level of paranoia that is entirely too common of people who take your position. It’s difficult not to treat that kind of comment as ridiculous. I’m not american, I’m not british, and I have no vested interest in the politics of your country. I say this, knowing that if you actually believe i’m an agent of some kind, you won’t believe me anyway. See the futility here?

      Einstein may have been awestruck, and indeed is correct that we can and should be delighted by the mysteries of the universe, but I believe that you will find that many of these things you mention are not mysteries at all. I grew up absolutely enraptured by tales of mystery.. the Mary Celeste, Bermuda Triangle, frogs entombed in rock, the list is really endless. But that was 25 years ago, and now having done my own research, it’s very clear that the vast majority of these myths were created by people who knew that they could cash in on their imaginations, and that can be easily explained by science. The same is true for 911 and crop circles, and it is my opinion that if you actually read through the scientific evidence of BOTH sides, you would realise the same thing.

      Having read through the blog entries on this site and others, I can tell you what I see: scientific evidence IS presented. It’s presented often, and it not only often supports the “official” version of events, it also often refutes evidence presented by 911 ‘truthers’. On the other hand, i very very seldom see scientific evidence presented, and often the argument boils down to “that’s just what I believe”. It’s just not credible enough. You won’t ignore testimonials and anecdotal evidence, but you seem to completely ignore evidence offered by a wide range of experts. This tells me that you really WANT to believe one side rather than another.

      “I knew intuitively, as the buildings fell, that something had gone very very wrong” – this means you “had a feeling”? Do you mean something more wrong than three thousand people dying? Can you see why someone might treat this kind of comment with disdain? Again… I’m not saying i agree with the approach of insult and denigration, but “feelings” do not constitute a reasonable basis for buying into theories that are so extremely thin on actual evidence, and this is why people like anastasio get irritated.

      • Anastasio says :

        Forgive me chaps but my lugs are positively ablaze.

        At the risk of being accused of putting words into Stratoblaster’s mouth (although there is arguably only one way to interpret what he has written), I would ask you all to scroll up a little where you will see stratoblaster refer to the destruction of the Twin Towers as “the neat stuff”.
        This unique “bad feeling” he had about the towers coming down is seemingly offset by the entertainment he derives from watching the replays of the towers ‘disintegrating’ into dust.
        He’s a well-balanced chap no?

        And yes, of course I’m being facetious.

        But it was because of the above slip of the tongue, the many failed attempts to misquote me and the complete lack of his understanding in his own argument that he received the prolonged and sarcastic roasting that he did. But I have always taken it as read (perhaps a little naively) that my words are absorbed with the same flippancy with which they are written.

        After Stratoblaster’s period of convalescence (which has surpassed more than two whole months now) I can see that he is still clearly obsessed and perhaps took our disagreement to heart a little too much.

        When I said ‘well balanced’ what I actually meant was that he has a chip on both shoulders.

        Therefore Stratoblaster, if my words have affected you, or anyone else, in a negative manner then trust me, I do not feel great about that. There ya go buddy. Here’s a tissue.

        Like everyone else, I am merely here voicing my own opinions and regurgitating upon request material that I have read and experiences I have lived; and the petty rewards of feigned omniscience mean as much to me as whether anyone believes anything I say or not.

        I’m just killing time when things are slow in the office. Reflecting Hollywood Tom’s observation on the Haramein thread; whether Gamble or Muertos is right, the world keeps spinning and life goes on as normal, regardless.

        Of course, if anyone enters my havens of rationality with impudence (do I go knocking at Stratoblaster’s door every time I need to take a dump?), then as pointed out by tofufighter, I, and others, reciprocate accordingly.

        Equilibrium is restored, all is fair. No need to call someone an asshole when you’re continuously farting out opinions of your own. You won’t find me stirring it up at ATS or the like.

        So to make amends, here’s a little something to cheer up Stratoblaster’s dull existence; having moved to the Oil Capital of Europe in my teens and having spent the last 18 years working in oil, it’s quite coincidental (or not) that Stratoblaster should mention Dick Cheney – as he used to be my boss at one time! No Shit!
        Granted at the time there were more job capsules and miles between us than you could count on two hands and I have never actually met the man, but like every other good employee I received the one-way correspondence by means of sporadic, generic emails of obligatory gratitude and encouragement which helped us all feel like one big happy family!

        Strangely enough, the thanks was mostly due in recognition of continued safe working practises (arguably the most important topic on any oil company’s agenda) and I can’t remember ever being asked to sit on the internet and convince people that genuine crop circles don’t exist.
        Even during 911 and the invasion of Iraq there was no guidance from our peers (Cheney had left by that time obviously) in what to think or what to tell other people about our employer’s actions. Though common sense prevented me discussing my 911 conspiracy beliefs with senior management, there was nothing to stop us, the proletariat, sitting at our computers sucking up Moore’s and Avery’s words as gospel or discussing with much disgust the ‘peasant tax’ that our benefactors had placed on us!

        So technically, Stratoblaster has all the evidence needed to write everything I have said here off as the work of a paid disinfo agent. I was literally being paid by ‘big oil’ as I wrote out every reply to him; every thought and opinion funded by one of the most infamous and reviled oil companies since 911 and to top it all I received thanks from Cheney!

        Could I have been a paid disinfo agent without even knowing it?
        Now there’s a conspiracy!

  75. stratoblaster says :

    Tofu: respecting your attempt and appreciating the even tone. Please show me where I can find solid refutation of the “truther movement” and support of the official story. My feeling that something was very very wrong on 911 was regarding the story that we were told and how it all unfolded officially. I should have clarified….

    American or not …many throughout the whole world questioned the official story immediately and ever since. I’d love to hear/see/read solid refutation of the numerous eyewitness comments from firemen and police in NYC of explosions…

    or how/why the center of the tower sunk first, meaning the core supports had failed in a steel building from a fuel fire…..(there are so many examples of steel buildings with bigger and longer lasting fires, none of which collapsed, that it makes me incredulous when people want to ignore something so uncommon),

    not to mention the lack of leaning or even pan caking of floors which would be indicative of a localized failure. Even if the jet fuel poured down the elevator shafts, it could not destabilize the steel, the temperatures achievable, are impossible…..I’d love to see solid refutations of most of the ideas mentioned in http://ae911truth.org/
    please, because I didn’t find it here.

    whether nano thermite, particle beam weaponry, the devil, cheney, or WTO bankers did it, I can’t be sure.
    send links please.

    Anastasio, come on, I never intended a twisted interpretation of “neat stuff” being applied here to people being killed and lied to on 911. That’s yer own trip, whether my tounge “slipped” …whatever… that’s just gross. I stopped reading you …..

    My complaint remains that this blog debunks poorly and attempts to steer people away from valid concerns and mysteries, especially in regards to crop circles and 911.

    Id rather it were named, Thrive Investigated, and we could share info and iron out flaws in the interpretations of what is going on together with the shared ideals of justice, advancement, and evolution.

    • Wyboth says :

      What you fail to take into account for the 9/11 conspiracy is that Al Qaeda took responsibility for the attack. Kind of ruins your argument a little bit.

      Please explain to me how this blog poorly debunks 9/11 and crop circles. Enlighten me with your infinite wisdom. But for the love of God, don’t say I’m weak minded and need to meditate to find answers to all of my problems. Give me an actual reason why this blog does a bad job of debunking. To me, it seems like Muertos and Slayer did a great job with debunking, but since you know all and say this blog is no good, then it must be true.

      That was sarcasm, by the way.

    • alysdexia says :

      A car crash sounds like a explosion, so what?
      The towers are hollow?
      Prove that the temperatures cannot make such steel in that shape under that load to fail.

      • stratoblaster says :

        There is no precedent for such failure to happen …twice in the same day, ive read physics papers that indicate steel could have been weakened by fire, it is plausible. Doesnt explain obvious demolition drop of building 7, or many claims of explosions and rivers of molten steel (not enough heat generated by jet fuel for that) by MANY firemen (given a subsequent gag order, why?). If one building was wired to be dropped (7) demo style it makes the most sense that they all were and theres lots to support that, look at girders cut at angles in wreckage. Thermite is not “commonly found” in dust everywhere, especially the kind found in NYC, that comment was a real corker….cheney war games, stand down of NORAD, airline stock puts, pentagon absence of plane parts, pentagon novice pilot impossible approach angle, atm video of NOT a plane hitting pentagon ( i saw it before it was taken down) its back out now, my pet goat…. Blah blah blah- you prove it was arabs in a cave and while you’re at it prove that bankers are honest and that USA is a democracy and that Monsanto isnt depopulating earth. Iʻll be looking into solutions . Paul Stemets is my new favorite human for example, he’s what is good. You make no sense,.

      • alysdexia says :

        Beam trebuchet?

        Where is the proof there was molten steel? instead of molten aluminium, etc.

        Read my comment under Judy Wood’s video.

        Okay, you tell me what goes into thermite and then where those compounds may rest in a city.

        As for your circumstantial problems, you tell me the statistics of when they happen.

        What is your problem with Monsanto?

      • stratoblaster says :

        thermite composition depends but is usually-aluminum+iron oxide, obviously these elements can be found all over any city, however the particles found in 911 dust had specific layered and shaped composition

        this from

        http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-the-Harrit-Nano-thermi-by-Michael-Fullerton-090814-310.html

        debunkers claim:
        “The scientists in the (Harrit) paper failed to realize that all the elements in the chips found were there in the building contents. There was much steel which rusts making iron oxide, aluminum from the facade. During the collapse the material was pulverized and then crushed to create the red/gray chips.”

        However:

        The red/gray chips found all had uniform red/gray layers and identical composition. In nano-thermite, at least either the aluminum or iron oxide particles are 100 nanometers (nm) (100 billionths of a meter) or less. The red layer contains plate-like aluminum components 40 nm in thickness mixed in a solidified matrix with highly uniform iron-rich rhomboid components. Random mixing of building material can’t create such uniform highly engineered materials.
        these materials can only be composed in this manner in a lab, not randomly.

        debunkers:
        “the scientists that wrote that paper are incompetent. The chips they found were just paint chips from the heat-resistant primer coating the support beams.”

        Except:

        According to NIST the primer paint contains large amounts of chromium, magnesium and zinc but only trace amounts of chromium and zinc are sometimes found in the red/gray chips. Such primers are designed to be highly heat resistant. The red/gray chips ignite at 430C. According to NIST the primer paint does not ignite even at 800 C. Such primers are designed to be heat resistant not explosive.

        The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 ˚C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

        and….molten material burned for 99 days in the rubble
        no forensic investigation of those materials was allowed by presidential order, now there’s a smoking gun for ya if ever there was one, why not do a thorough investigation? not to mention the shoddy work of the 911 Commission which was subsequently admitted BY ITS MEMBERS.

        this isn’t going away because the official explanation is BS, whatever the truth is, we weren’t informed of it. This is the only thing I’m certain of re: 911 details. Google isn’t creating any infallible experts, I’ll concede. (that includes everyone here).

        re: Monsanto…..seriously you’re unaware? Monsanto Has Been Removed And Banned By: Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, Madeira, New Zealand, Peru, South Australia, Russia, France, and Switzerland!

        these should help as a quick beginning:

        http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/01/31/monsanto-worst-company-of-2011.aspx

        http://www.combat-monsanto.co.uk/spip.php?rubrique5

        look into it if you like healthy digestible food, I recommend only eating organic and avoiding boxed food and any alternative sweeteners or corn syrup, there is practically no wheat that is non gmo and properly digestible

        some of their products:

        agent orange, aspartame (among many hazards…it causes atrophy of pineal gland), and glyphosate (Roundup)

      • alysdexia says :

        900 messages: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=153478

        GMO != pesticide, herbicide.

        http://www.biofortified.org/2013/08/why-novel-dsrna-molecules-in-gm-food-are-of-little-to-no-concern/

        I couldn’t find anything for aspartame and pineal gland other than a urban legend.

      • stratoblaster says :

        I’m aware of the Randi blog, I quoted some of the same info…..I read that blogs entry on The Creature from Jekyl Island (history of Fed Reserve) and found a bunch of shrieking unprofessionals claiming expertise…They did not debunk the book, they assume there is no revolving door between private banking and regulation/audit (remember ratings agencies fraud in mortgage debacle?).

        In the first 5 minutes there again re: thermite it speaks the same story. I’ll slog through a little more.

        But o.k. Let’s agree Nano thermite is questionable, and conventional explosives would leave copper residue that was not found. We don’t actually know how it happened, it has no precedent. There’s a first for everything I guess, even if it’s previously unheard of in similar cases (buildings collapsing from office fires), and even if it miraculously happened twice on the same day! Not to mention building 7 demo, I mean, structural collapse…..with no plane impact and partial damage. ahem. 911 commission report didn’t mention it either. convenient.

        Back to the crux. I don’t believe the 911 Commission report, it’s own members don’t stand behind it. I’ve explained many of the inconsistencies, it’s been over a decade, we’re all aware of them. It’s tiring. Can you explain the disintegrating spires btw? That one is just so strange, as is Judy Woods’ explanation, but I give her points for thinking on it. (go ahead Boswell have your fun). Long story short, the book of 911 is still open for a reason.

        As for GMO’s eat em if you like, I wont. I like nature.
        you might ask yourself why the white house signed Monsanto Protection act while requiring organics to be served in their kitchen

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/food-politics-white-house_b_543798.html

        Same goes for Monsanto cafeteria supposedly (tho there’s controversy on that point, of course).

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy

        I don’t think the FDA is immune from collusion, revolving door, and I prefer stevia anyway.

        But I don’t really care what you eat, I do care however if the gene pool of organics gets irrevocably tainted by GMO’s

        we are not equipped to play god with genomes, these blogs are a great example of that.

      • alysdexia says :

        http://dictionary.com/browse/wont

        Did you know citrus makes more methanol than aspartame?

      • boswell says :

        His problem doesn’t lie with Monsanto, it lies within his deeply disturbed head. The guy can’t hold a cohesive rational conversation together because of his mentally unbalanced beliefs. By asking strato to explain things you are just giving a crazy person a platform to feel like someone is taking them seriously.

      • stratoblaster says :

        O bos, pipe down, don’t embarrass yourself again with insults. Feel free to throw some pertinent info into the mix, but please spare us the teenage fury.

      • conspiracykiller says :

        Speaking of embarrassing, the trail of stupid you have left on this blog is epic. You should probably take a long leave of absence from the internet.

      • stratoblaster says :

        Is the Hubble telescope pic part of this “trail of stupid” conspiral-I-see killer? 100 Billion Galaxies is too much huh?….I know, it’s a real mind blower. try not to be so grumpy about it. it’ll get better if you accept the tiny. But predictably, no word on any details I’ve presented….just more stupid. I’m irritating the archons I see. woo

      • stratoblaster says :

        funny how you and bosunwell share the same pic and flatulent emotional tone…..hmmmm safety in numbers?

      • alysdexia says :

        Where is muertos to block troll trash like you?

      • conspiracykiller says :

        “funny how you and bosunwell share the same pic and flatulent emotional tone…..hmmmm safety in numbers?”

        I am the same person, just happen to log in that way when I come back sometimes. It’s no big conspiracy.

      • conspiracykiller says :

        “Is the Hubble telescope pic part of this “trail of stupid”
        “100 Billion Galaxies is too much huh?….I know, it’s a real mind blower. try not to be so grumpy about it. it’ll get better if you accept the tiny. But predictably, no word on any details I’ve presented….just more stupid. I’m irritating the archons I see. woo”

        – WTF does a dumb out of context link about the hubble telescope have to do with supporting any of your retarded claims ?

      • stratoblaster says :

        trail of stupid? make a point

      • conspiracykiller says :

        I have, your comments are full of retarded beliefs and unsupported claims. You are a conspiritard and your posts are a trail of stupid from the moment you started to the moment you stay.

  76. Alfonso says :

    Hi there to every , for the reason that I am in fact
    eager of reading this weblog’s post to be updated on a regular basis. It consists of fastidious information.

  77. stratoblaster says :

    Happy equinox

    go to 8:23 in video for an example of how I think crop circles may be formed

    This whole series is worth watching….a compilation of many of the mysteries and “neat stuff” I’ve previously brought to the discussion. Mock it, ignore it, be inspired by it (my hope), but please don’t bother me with angry comments.

    My hypothesis re: most of these mysteries is that it all relates to sound. That our very existence and bodies relate to sound vibration. We are living music. Reality is sound. (John/New Test: In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god). (I’m agnostic and think the bible was an allegorical manual of life tech and of celestial movements, not historic, BTW.)

    I’ve been studying Pythagorean tuning
    this guys work is interesting as well as Marco Rodin

    His video “The Cosmic 432 pt 1 & 2″ is more produced, but a bit new agey… I like the above because it’s more straightforward.

    BTW Thrive Debunked failed to explain so many of the details re: 911 that it’s a bother to go over them line by line…. I don’t have that much time to waste here. Plus the subject is just so sad.
    flame me on this if you will…. do your own research if you care about it.
    you can make up your own mind.

    I encourage you to at least question the Bin Laden story….

    What I think so far?

    I don’t think the official 911 report holds water scientifically, I think it was a false flag operation serving the aims of the Rothschilds/Vatican/Zionist banking cartels that are trying to dominate the world economy. I think it’s possible that it was a display of a technology that is mostly unknown, again related to sound or unseen forces ala Tesla’s resonance research, or the explosions and nano- thermite indicate a preplanned demolition. Either way the fact that there has been no accurate official investigation reveals a fear factor and coverup that I find significant. The response to such suggestions at this blog further reveal a fear response.

    Fear vibrates low and keeps DNA from self repair
    LOve vibrates high and empowers the human organism to thrive.

    Yes
    THRIVE.

    I love.

    • Hollywood Tomfortas says :

      FUCK LOVE!!!

      • stratoblaster says :

        hollywood:

        and from an earlier post of yours:

        Maharishi Effect
        Achieving World Peace: Theory and Research

        by Dr. John Hagelin

        Abstract

        We consider the implications of the latest advances in scientific knowledge for the areas of conflict resolution and world peace. We examine scientific evidence for a new technology of world peace based on the unified field of natural law and its practical utilization through extended, field effects of consciousness. We assess the practicality of this new technology using direct, experimental intervention studies in critical test regions, including the Middle East. We conclude that this technology of world peace offers a cost-effective, scientifically validated means of achieving and sustaining a stable state of peace in the international arena.

  78. stratoblaster says :

    this guy makes some interesting points too

  79. stratoblaster23 says :

    http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=ufo

    U.F.O.s : Looking Beyond the Evidence
    Forget, for the time being, ‘Do they exist?’ What would it mean if they do?

    I appreciate the authors ability to step aside from taking hysterical positions for or against the actual presence of aliens visiting earth, rather he approaches the topic in a manner I wish more debunkers would employ…. that is one of advancing our maturing process, evolution, and capacity for new ideas (think of Galileo for the flat-earth bloggers here) rather than insisting on being
    “right.”

    a good read.

  80. led lights australia says :

    I enjoyed reading on this blog, thanks for sharing this one to us, great job.

  81. Mark says :

    Your article is absurd I haven’t seen anybody make a crop circle as intricate as what I’ve seen at night in seven minutes it’s what it’s takes to make a crop circle as videotaped live video continuously during the night on the field as the sun comes up as a crop circle that there are no feet steps going in and out and there are no holes in the ground or steaks for what they cannot be done by human because you’re done too quickly intricately and precise

  82. Terese says :

    Asking questions are in fact fastidious thing if you are
    not understanding something completely, except this article gives nice understanding even.

  83. BY: Joshua Shanholtz says :

    Is America Still Burning Their Children Alive At BOHEMIAN GROVE? Wait, Never mind, Yes They Are lol…. :( NO FUCKING WONDER ALL ARE UNDER A GENERAL GLOBAL CURSE. WELCOME TO THE END OF DAYS BITCHES HA HA HA HA HA HA LET THE UNITED NATIONS MAKE A DEAL WITH THE DEVIL AND SPILLED THE BLOOD ON YOU KIDS HEADS :( ITS WRITTEN ALREADY IN ANCIENT HOLY BOOKS. REPENT THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS AT HAND! http://www.joshuashanholtz.com

    • anticultist says :

      sigh when will the stupid people die out ?

    • Tofufighter says :

      If the internet wasn’t full of dirty, crazy bearded guys standing on the corner smelling like alcohol and carrying a sign saying “The End is Nigh” then I would say you were that dirty, crazy bearded guy standing on the corner smelling like alcohol and carrying a sign saying “The End is Nigh”.

      • stratoblaster says :

        I wish your thoughts were worth responding to. Y’all have really lowered the bar lately .

      • a rational person says :

        oh hey, the nutbag who believes 911 was done with DARTH VADER STAR WARS LASER GUN WEAPONS is back!

        how was the loony bin, strato? get some good drugs this time?

      • Wyboth says :

        What the fuck you jynxing bitch?! *ahem* Hi Strato, haven’t seen you in a while. How’s the weather up there?

      • a rational person says :

        wyboth, just remember that stratoblaster believes SUPER DARTH VADER STAR WARS LAZER GUNS FROM SPACE DID 911 and he also thinks crop circles were done by aliens and that lizard people are real. yea, that’s the kind of fucking nutbag we’re dealing with here.

      • Wyboth says :

        Space lasers and lizard people should be self-explanatory, but apparently not. Are they real? No.

        I’m more forgiving of crop circles, since that’s far less loony than the other two. That’ll still require some work, though.

  84. sam says :

    cropcircles were maded by bored farmers and everyone who belives they are real are stupid idiots

  85. deano says :

    “the simplest explanation is often the correct one” if this is un-debunkable fact: many witnesses at 9/11 heard explosions & thermite/thermate were in debris> towers were brought down by explosive demolition
    If planes were used, where are the black boxes?
    How did 757 fit into Pentagon hole?
    Why did bldg 7 collapse with no plane impact?
    Steel melts at 1500c. Office fires reach half that. So debunkers believe in highest protected air space,had hi-jacked planes fly for 45min not intercepted,perform very advanced manouveres & demolish bldgs rated to stand multiple impacts & office fires, demolish a bldg they didnt hit,were filmed on only a few videos & then the entire family of accused(bin Ladin) flies out of the country the next day when all flights were grounded.

    This long winded theory is more real than actual explosive demolition?

    Hard to believe when documents of “OPERATION NORTHWOODS section 8a/b

    ” nearly describe this scenario exactly.

    As for crop circles , obviously you havent seen the video of military helicopters chasing the “Ball of light”. Colin Andrews has been threatened by CIA not to associate cropcircles with UFOs. Lungdren & Circlemakers are paid by MI5, as were Doug & Dave.
    The irony that confirms conspiracy is this. These hoaxers/pranksters(now artists?) have beeen paid to claim ownership & so discredit alien origin. Why then create alien themes,DNA,planet formations, & solar system to create more questioning of their true origin & association with UFOs & aliens?
    You can call me a conspiracy theorist but thats in your eyes. I consider myself a skeptic of the BUSHit we have been told to swallow. Rest of world thinks Manning is a hero for exposing a war crime, do you think he is a treasonous traitor? Now they are after Snowden. Maybe de-bunkers are scared of disagreeing with their govt? That wont save you when FEMA Nazis knock on your door- because you KNOW of the conspiracy too.

    • boswell says :

      “You can call me a conspiracy theorist but thats in your eyes. I consider myself a skeptic ”

      You are a conspiracy theorist and as far from a skeptic as a person can possibly be.You believe stupid shit based on confirmation bias, conjunction fallacy, cherry picked data, and outright stupidity. Don’t be sad though, because you are simply one of thousands and there is nothing particularly special about you or what you believe. When it comes to fringe believers the exact things ou say and believe are the tropes one hears from various uneducated and half researched people on the internet.

      In reality what you believe is irrelevant to the real world, because everything you claim is found on made up crap that is long debunked. There are numerous websites online that you could have read and understood, were you able to change your belief based upon evidence instead making the evidence fit your beliefs.

      Anyway, when you grow out of this stupid shit you believe you can always come back here and read how retarded you were.

    • a rational person says :

      deano, you’re a stupid nutbag. boswell just tore you a new hole. i’m getting obsolete around here. good job destroying these conspiratards, boswell!

    • tofufighter says :

      Really, Deano? ” I consider myself to be a skeptic” ??
      Inigo says… you keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

  86. deano says :

    Obviously never seen “33 Conspiracy Theories proven True”. So again by Muertos & de-bunk law. IF one Con T is proven true then they must all be true!
    However, I’m not that easily brainwashed. I am a skeptic of BUSHit. Not a debunker of everything that opposes the mainstream.
    Just finished reading “The Roswell Report: Case Closed” by the USAF.
    Pages & documents all very official & detailed. Pages & photos of the balloons,recovery vehicles & Anthropomorphic dummies, & dates of accidents involving deceased & charred aircrew.
    The two questions that remain dubious:
    1. Why tell newspapres they had a saucer one day, then it was a weather balloon the next> then years later a Project Mogul balloon with dummies
    2. If it was either dummies or charred remains of aircrew> Why did they ring mortuary to order child size caskets/coffins
    What the really mysterious part is that in 1947 they didnt have dummies & plane acccidents.
    But I guess this is the USAF we are talking about. One of the biggest skeptics & debunkers in UFOlogy was Hynek of Blue Book fame. After years of analyzing reports , he became a dedicated believer. So a person with a very high security rating & access to ALL reports, stops debunking & starts believing. Ever wondered why? What has he seen?
    There is also a great book with pictures all about Area 51. The lady writer was allowed access to all declassified material. The SR71 Blackbird of USAF fame was originally the A12 Oxcart of CIA & U2 designers. For years Area 51 was denied by govt but we now know it exists. Denial is a big deal in the secret world of black ops. When asking about UFO’s, she was told; never saw any of that but have you ever wondered where the silicon chip, electronic circut boards, fibre optics, led lights, night vision, stealth & even velcro suddenly appeared from.

    • a rational person says :

      roswell? wtf does roswell have to do with anything? you’re just spewing stupid nutbag shit just to spew stupid nutbag shit. let me guess, next u’ll be farting out your mouth about david icke’s lizard people. right?

      is there any nutbag conspiratard theory you don’t believe in? i bet u believe the moon landing was faked? secret haarp weather machine? hollow earth? bigfoot? queen elizabeht is really an alien? yea, but u believe in all that too don’t you, nutbag?

      • boswell says :

        The fact is Deano you are prone to plenty of cognitive deficiencies, you are what is termed gullible to the rest of logical society. You are digitally illiterate essentially.

      • a rational person says :

        you can tell deanos brain processes are fucked up b/c he thinks 911 “inside job” is the “simplest” explanation. and u can also tell that he thinks debunkers don’t believe conspiracy theorys because they believe everything the government says. if he thinks like this deanos brain is totally crippled.

        i don’t think there is a conspiracy theory he doesn’t believe in. there’s nothing in his brain that can separate good facts from nutbag bullshit so eventually he’ll believe it all. yes, even lizard people.

      • boswell says :

        He likely already does believe in lizard people, ufo folklore already includes the Draconis lizard race as being a species of aliens to visit the planet, so a leap tot shape shifting alien lizards being here won’t really be too much of a stretch for him. He has probably already assimilated the Ickean hollow moon base theories.

        I think it’s possible that this moon bat could take the shit he believes to yet further extremes, and could even believe that we live on an inverted planet in an inverted universe surrounded by a glass sphere where the sun rotates around our Earth. Like this clown below.

  87. deano says :

    Very funny. Typical yank that has been dumbed down but I think this bloke has had too much Smack. Crack & Applejack.Did broswell tear irrational a new hole at the grove? The only thing you 2 could debunk, is from the kids bunk bed!!
    Any rational skeptics here? Or is everyone at Bohemia Grove worshipping the death king muertos? I didnt mention lizard people, it seems all of you debunkers watch the series “V”. Watch “Independance Day” the president kicks, sum whoopass alien butt, & you can all cheer & wave your little false flag!

    Cropcircles & Cattle mutilations are the 2 phenomenon that leave physical evidence. They also have many witness reports of strange lights then the appearance of military helicopters. WHY? If these are just the work of pranksters or predators, why the interest?
    The latest mutilation was in Missouri in April 2013. The rancher was a deputy, & told by the sherriff & the FBI to drop the subject after he enquired about the helicopter.
    Maybe broswell & irrational needed some beef steaks for the BBQ at the grove.

    • boswell says :

      ^^^CRazYguY^^^

    • a rational person says :

      so u believe in bohemian grove, 911 inside job, crop circles and cattle mutiliation.

      yup, total nutbag.

      and yes, i think you do believe in lizard people. why are you dodging the question? do you believe in lizard people or not?

  88. deano says :

    “v” provides the only image of lizard people. You obviously watch & believe far too much television- if its on Fox , it must be true.
    Bohemia Grove>secretly videoded,politician refused to comment,security at gate
    9/11>thermite was present,see explosions,bldg 7?Silverstein made billions
    Cropcircles>balls of light,ufos,military helicopters,arecibo message
    Cattle mutilations>physical remains,exanguished,laser cuts, helicopters

    Go & do some more research because all of these have videos to confirm & not just witness testimony,seeing is believing for skeptics so go & have a look before prattling off its been debunked & other verbal diahorea!!

    • a rational person says :

      bohemian grove – not evidence of any conspiracy
      911 – everything you wrote was completely wrong and has been debunked 1000s of times. maybe YOU should do some research, hmm?
      crop cirlces – debunked on this page
      cattle mutilations – “laser cuts”? umm, no. try animals

      nice try, hoss.

      now, do you believe in lizard people or not?

  89. deano says :

    Ahh the military helicopter videos- gets em every time. ” had a full response to red collie’s comment but decided to retract it” – death king muertos, or is he anastasio, cant rebutt this one. Doesnt want to debate the truth with stratoblaster either.
    I suppose the presumption now is, which one of his little trolls are rebuttable.
    Glowing reports of Cheney , his big oil boss, his tongue must be rebuttable.
    What is it you actually do for this oil company on the computer? I’d say debunk , & disinform anything to do with clean free energy. Crop circles started the show so they had to go. Just like the EV1 by Cheney & Bush.
    Look it up broswell & irrational. GM had a production model electric car.
    God forbid an alternative to oil ,we just got the War on Terror started. Lets all wave false flags & send the troops in. We can bring in the Patriot Act too, take their guns & build bunkers(DUMB) for us, & camps for them. Shit, Bradley Manning is gonna stuff it up. We better get that Assange & Snowden as well, they could blow the lid on this.
    If 9/11 was bin Ladin’s doing
    Why fly out his family from US the next day? >links to Bush family
    Why did it take 9yrs to kill him?> longer war in Afghanistan(set Karzai up)
    Why involve Iraq & Saddam?> WMD good ploy to protect captured oil
    Why were listed hijackers still alive?>planes were drones(black box tapes)?
    Why hide pentagon surveillance tapes?>could show missile
    Why bring down bldg 7 without plane?>full of documents & evidence
    Why make a hated Jew multi-billionare?>Silverstein insurance policy
    How did he know Norad was offline?>terrorist exercise-coincidence?

    The list goes on & on & on. My personal favourites was Cheney was missing & Bush kept reading “My Pet Goat” in classroom. Skeptics & debunkers are like the little Bush goats still bleating or swallowing the story. Now is Syria & Egypt, the next will be Iran. baaa….baaaa……baaa…….baad aliens…..baad truthers

    THRIVE gives us hope of a better cleaner peaceful future. All this blog was set up to do was tear it down by ridicule & disinformation. We true believers can see through the thermite generated smoke & mirrors that only point to cherry-picked half truths that expose the presumptions forced on the uninformed.

    your nutbag (big testicles in a scrotum), deano

    May you all thrive & enjoy the phenomenol artwork in the crops.

    • boswell says :

      If you have ever talked with a 5 year old Deano you will see a pattern in the way you come across here.

      Why? Why ? Why ?

      You should probably try and answer your own questions, because none of us care to play the reach baby the answer game here. You are incapable of understanding the complexities of the adult world right now, so it would be a waste of our time as it would lead to more of this:

      Why ? Why ? Why ?

      I think you get what I am saying.

    • a rational person says :

      deano, do you believe in david icke lizard people or not? why won’t u answer the question?

    • tofufighter says :

      “we true believers” was all i needed from that passage.

      Deano, your comment is virtually a carbon copy of any posted by newbie conspiracy theorists. There is nothing factual to it, just a list of “what about this, what about that” rhetoric.

      Probably the only reason you’re getting responses is because the shiny tinfoil attracted attention, but the reality is that boswell, rational and I all know it’s futile trying to actually reason with ‘believers’, particularly those who display the characteristics of someone who hasn’t been around the block.

      http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/conspiracytheories.html

      read it, don’t read it, it’s all the same to me.

  90. deano says :

    Dear broswell, I answered the questions for you both. Where is your intelligent,articulate , well researched answers. Muertos/Anastasio cant help you now. Irrational- stop watching repeats of “V”. If aliens wanted to invade, there is nothing your “GOD IS AMERICAN” country could do to stop them.My question to you is why arent you in Iraq or Afghanistan? Sounds like you both are too busy debunking from kids bunk beds, Twoofers or Poofters?

    • boswell says :

      I don’t take conspiracy theorists like yourself seriously enough to bother debating with, especially when it comes to their retarded previously debunked claims.

      The only response you are going to get from me will be in the form of ridicule, condescension and pity.

      If you want someone to take your nonsense seriously you should really be talking to one of your fellow numbskull conspiracy theorists. I only deal in facts and rational information, you have never presented any, hence the lack of interest in the content your comment.

    • a rational person says :

      deano, i’m surprised you don’t believe in lizard people. there’s just as much evidence for lizard people as there is that 911 was an inside job. ZERO.

      you’re a retarded brain dead douchebag conspiracy nutbag. u’re also probably about 14. when u get a life and grow some pubes u might realize how stupid all this conspiracy shit is. then again maybe not. u seem like a dim bulb. bye hoss.

      • deano says :

        Still believe in your “GOD is AMERICAN” irrational govt. Cant lie to you about broswell?
        Syria just about sums it up. A regime change by provoking civil war ,by the use of the CIA.
        US has been providing rebels with weapons. How easy would it be to put in a chemical one, or drop it by drone. Just the excuse they need to get troops in- just like IRAQ. & WMD.
        In 1988 they gave chem weapons to Suddam in Iraqs war against Iran.
        If you 2 like backing your govt so much, why dont you go & fight in Syria,or the coming to you soon, Iran war.
        Or maybe fly in Apache gunship & shoot at cerealogists examining real cropcircles.
        Instead of watching “V”, go & watch “Mirage Men”. Hoax circle makers turned film makers explain why govts keep the UFO story alive to cover secret stealth planes. But hang on. They were paid by MI5 to hoax cropcircles & draw attention away from UFO connection.
        Arent UFOs allowed to make cropcircles?
        But UFOs are real if they are seen over military bases?

        Ah, thats why there are videos showing military helicopters chasing UFOs away from crop fields.Confusing isnt it?

      • conspiracykiller says :

        Drug casualty Deano returns.

      • a rational person says :

        deano’s a 14 y o kid who thinks 911 was an inside job and probably believes in chemtrails and haarp. now hes raving about syria. who gives a fuck about syria?

        who is “suddam”?

        this nutbaggy fucktard gets harder to understand every time he posts. yea conspirackiller i think hes on heavy drugs.

  91. deano says :

    Why havent you lot enlisted yet? Dont you know Obama has drawn a Red Line which Syria has just crossed?
    Hurry up ,you might make it to Iran!!

    Not knowing what is happening in Syria shows how pathetic you rebuttable little trolls are. The whole world is against US bombing the Assad regime because innocent civillians will be casualties.
    You lot are obviously casualties of your “US is Best” govt already.
    It doesnt matter though. Soon you will be de-bunking from the bunk beds at your nearest FEMA camp.

    Have you been to that “Creation” theme park yet?
    You can hang with all the christians & pat the dinosaurs next to Adam & Eve.

    The real creation was in Africa. Look up “Adam’s Calender”.

    • conspiracykiller says :

      Try to limit yourself to one topic at a time Deano.
      At least then you can be wrong on only one thing, thereby limiting the amount of dumb you put up on here.

    • a rational person says :

      why do conspiritard nutbags always think that people who don’t buy their raving loony shit think “the gov’t is always right’ or “we always listen to what the gov’t says”? are the nutbags really that stupid that they think people are like that?

      nvm, i know the answer…jeesuz, these brain dead fucks drive me to drink.

      • conspiracykiller says :

        Yup it’s just the makeup of their childish black and white thinking. In their stupid immature minds everything in life is a dichotomy, and everything can be reduced to a yin and yang.

        It pretty much boils down to their complete lack of intellect and understanding of how the real world works.

      • stratoblaster says :

        If this blog is representative of the level of intellect and capacity for making cogent arguments in the community of so called debunkers vs those trying to parse facts and propaganda, we are so screwed. Everyone on here communicate like 12 yr olds, imagining that he who hurls the most insults wins. Bottom of the barrel. This blog should be flushed. Dump.

      • conspiracykiller says :

        Once again dichotomous thinking, assuming that the people who comment here represent all that is about being skeptical.

        Your arguments are as amateur as they can get, the blog comments are in no way a representation of the blog itself, its writer, or the skeptic community. You are being addressed by individual people here who enjoy laughing at the stupid shit conspiracy theorists post.

      • a rational person says :

        “Everyone on here communicate like 12 yr olds”

        sez the guy who thinks the wtc towers were blown up with laser beams from outer space!

        *makes laser gun noises* PEW! PEW! PEW!

  92. stratoblaster says :

    Thanks for proving my point rational, tho I wish you lived up to your name.

    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/04/laser-warfare-system/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon

    Btw it was Judy Wood who asserted that it was possible a directed energy weapon was used, I merely shared the link. Personally I think Dick Chaney orchestrated or at least facilitated 911, and am on the theoretical side of it being a nano thermite controlled demolition.

    But whatever, you think uncle sam will tuck you safely into bed in your spider man pajamas. just ignore the anthrax, the absence of plane parts on the pentagon lawn, the testimonies of explosions heard in the towers by many many fire and police men, the thermite particles found all over NYC in the dust, the fact that the concrete was pummeled to dust (demolition style) etc……..o why bother? US government wouldn’t lie to you, you’re special. Go team.

    • conspiracykiller says :

      It’s because of posts like yours that rational takes the piss out of you and refuses to take you seriously. You are a carbon copy of every other conspiracy theorist , but you like to assume you are somehow a unique little snowflake.

      You should probably take your 911 bullshit theories elsewhere too, I can guarantee you no one here gives enough consideration to them to discuss them with you.

      Rational is right to mock you at every turn, your posts on this blog are an utter embarrassment.

    • a rational person says :

      hahahahahaha, yea thats it stratoblaster, don’t defend your beliefs, run away from em! run away! RUN AWAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!! hahahahahhaahhaahhaha

      it’s obvious you think the wtc towers were blown up with sooper dooper darth vader beam weapons from space. you posted the link to a dr. judy nutbag wood video cuz you like her and her crazy theorys. why else would you do that?

      i called you on it and now you RUN AWAY, RUN AWAY, RUN AWAY, RUN AWAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      hahahahahahaha, thanks for givin me a good laugh hoss!

      so you believe in super dooper darth vader beam weapons from space. probably believe in lizard people too. what else? fake moon landing? i’m guessin yes…chemtrails? haarp? secret jew plot to rule the world? yep, yep and yep…classic conspiracy nutbag right here, but you’re one of the craziest ones ever to stink up this blog.

      thanks for the memories hoss, every time u show your retarded nutty ass here, hilarity insues!

      *laser beam noises* PEW! PEW! PEW! PEW! the force is strong with this one! PEW PEW PEW!

      • stratoblaster says :

        ahh perfect rational, like a moth to a flame. i rest my case. RIP thrive dubunked. No debunking here, just sticks and stones. Remember folks, all conspiracies are fake, you’re an idiot if you ask questions….Kennedy shot himself, Reagan can’t remember anything so don’t think about it, there really WAS yellow cake in Sudan, Saddam had WMD….somewhere, Rumsfeld sold him chemical weapons to gas the Kurds by accident, Osama is not affiliated with the Bin Laden-Bush Carlyle love affair, turns out cheney was running war games for terrorist highjacking of planes only by coincidence on 911…..oh and the Federal Reserve loves you and will be happy to give you back your gold.

      • a rational person says :

        yea, and you still hate jews and think 911 was done with darth vader star destroyer beam weapons.

        PEW! PEW! PEW! *wheeze wheeze* LUKE, I AM YOUR FATHER!!!!!! AND DICK CHENEY DID 911! *wheeze* PEW! PEW! PEW!

  93. tofufighter says :

    Stratoblaster… “the testimonies of explosions heard in the towers by many many fire and police men”

    I tried to search, but couldn’t find a satisfactory answer.
    Can you please give me a link to the testimonies?

    • stratoblaster says :

      Tofu: there are many,

      http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5HTRJZujQj8&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D5HTRJZujQj8

      Pew pew for rational

      http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=8yfa7WnLlCU

      There are said laser weapons, whether they were used on 911, im not qualified to say, but whether they exist is simply not in question.

      • a rational person says :

        “whether they were used on 911, im not qualified to say”

        LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hahahahahaa you were sure “qualified to say” when you posted that nutbag video of the crazy bitch judy wood and her darth vader star wars beam weapon theory. dont lie, you really do believe laser beams were used on 911. why are you running away from your beliefs?

        hahahhahaahhahaa man you are the most entertaining nutbag on this board. every single thing you post is fucking hilarious because its so retarded. you just dance like a little puppet to any tune i play. i say jump and stratoblaster sez how high. i love it!!!!!!!!!!!!

        banner day on the blog here…we got some nutbag whos gonna blast off and build the “venus project” in space, we got deano spewing stupid from a fire hose and we got strato dancing like michael jackson doin the moonwalk with his pew pew laser space beams. this is like the fucking circus. now i know why i come back here day after day…its pure entertainment!

      • stratoblaster says :

        Boswell, nice debunk, very informative…

  94. deano says :

    To tofu & killer,” trying to search, couldnt find satis annswer”. You never will if youwont search hard enough or look for a different answer.

    Look up General Wesley Clark. In the pentagon just 10days after 9/11 a lower officer told him “we are going to war with Iraq”. “Why” he asked. At the time it was all about Osama & Afghanistan.
    Soon after he was shown a document ” 7 countries in 5 years”. US to war with Afghanistan,Libiya,Sudan,Lebanon, Syria, Iraq & finally IRAN !!

    This is from a 4 star general & look at how these claims have come to fruition

    The war on terror(started by 9/11) is a smokescreen to justify US forces in the Middle East. Mainly regime changes to align with US agenda & weakening arab defenses for installation of bases & control of oil & resources.

    For a crime there is motiff. This had been planned for years, ever since the Iran-contra affair. 9/11 was the “reason” they needed.
    If you dont believe your govt is capable of killing its own people to inspire retaliation, look up “OPERATION NORTHWOODS Sec 8a/b”

    These were conspiracy theories that have been proven TRUE!!!!!

    For proof of the corruption in US govt, you only have to look at an asshole called Duanne Claridge.
    George Bush Snr pardoned this CIA prick, & who did Bush use to run?

    It is a well known fact that Bush is heavily connected to the bin-Ladin family of Saudi Arabia, & they have immunity on US soil.
    The only people that flew out of the US after 9/11 were the bin-Ladins.

    Ironic that Bush Jnr screamed it was all done by Osama bin-Ladin.

    You can call us conspiracy theorists all you like, but I am skeptical of the BUSHit they try to ram down our throats.
    WMD > proven lie in Iraq
    CHEMICAL WEAPONS > In Syria maybe, but proof of govt use> ?????????.

  95. tofufighter says :

    Deano
    I only asked for one simple thing.
    Can you provide it?

  96. deano says :

    It isnt hard tofu. Type in “9/11 explosions heard”. There are pages of the stuff. Firefighters,police,reporters,priests & civillians.

    Ive explained the reason they did 9/11> create support for a war on terror against Arab countries. Saudi Arabia is involved with US petrodollars & is aligned with US policy. The other countries are not!

    OPERATION NORTHWOODS is how they implemented it>drones,fake hijackings. Civillian deaths to inspire hate,fear & a reason for war.

    OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD is how they controll the media to enforce their “version” of what happened.

    If you are that gullible to swallow the towers coming down, you cant possibly believe what happened to Bldg 7. No plane impact, Silverstein said “Pull It”
    the penthouse collapses first, drops on its footprint, small fire & the official version is called “THERMAL EXPANSION” .> more like swamp gas!!!

    If you examine the Pentagon footage, 1 camera from 86, the object that zooms in is way too small. The second immediately beforehand is missing,The hole in the bldg is tiny, not much wreckage, & the pentagon has guided misssile defences that were somehow turned off!! Just like all the NORAD scramble fighters that morning, apparently from a mix-up with the FAA.

    You lot need to do some more history homework & watch “33 Conspiracies proven true”, because in skepticland, if one theory is true, they must all be true!!

    P.S. I bet you all have Top Gun jackets with patches. Look up psyops patches & tell me why they have images of grey aliens. dragons(lizard people) & occult & satanic themes, knights templar & serpents..,

    • conspiracykiller says :

      I know you will never read these links Deano, they’re likely to destroy every claim you make about 911 and force you into conspiraloon retirement. However, I am putting these links for passers by who happen to read your crap and need to see exactly why you are a clown for believing such insanity.

      http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911nutphysics.htm

      http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

    • conspiracykiller says :

      ” because in skepticland, if one theory is true, they must all be true!!”

      Not sure what planet you learned this little buttnugget of nonsense on, but it sure as shit wasn’t planet earth. Skeptics address things independently and asses the evidence and facts, they don’t assume because Nixon was caught cheating that every president cheats, that’s just pure horse shit.

      Every claim must be addressed for what it is claimed to be, not on the evidence or claims of something completely separate and different.

      You talking about skepticism is clearly not a good idea.

      “You lot need to do some more history homework & watch “33 Conspiracies proven true”,”

      PS. Conspiracies do not equate to Conspiracy theories, if anyone needs to do their homework it’s you. I would recommend you start here :

      http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/blog/39/the-usual-retorts-conspiracy-theorists-top-10-misconceptions-of-debunkers/

    • a rational person says :

      yup, i got my top gun flight jacket right here with the lizard people patch. how’d ya know hoss? you been raiding my closet again? looking for more of the drugs because you ran out? hahahhahaa bet you believe 911 was done with darth vader space beam weapons too. PEW! PEW! PEW! *lord vader, david icke is on line 2* *wheeze wheeze* prepare to target world trade center! PEW! PEW! PEW! target destroyed sir!!!!!!

  97. deano says :

    To killer, that buttnugget of nonsense comes from your beloved leader , death king Meurtos.
    Rebuttable presumption is half of this blog: if one cropcircle can be man made, it stands to reason the rest are manmade!!
    So meurtos must be speaking horse shit!!

    A conspiracy theory is just a theory, untill it is proven true, & then it becomes a conspiracy. ….Gulf of Tonkin, Iran-contra, WMD,Mockingbird, Northwoods

    I looked at your “dutch/nuttyphysics” link. Did you ? Did you look at his homepage?
    The bloke went to Gulf war & Kosovo. He even admits he is a paid army shill.
    “If I receive theory crap, I will check your email, address, photo,family & entire history on the web.” This psycho is in military intel & isnt afraid of using this power to invade privacy rights. Patriot Act in personification!!!

    What a load of horse shit he was trying to push.Glowing metal can be mistaken for molten metal. Have you ever used an oxy-acetelene cutter?
    His response to Bldg 7 was “So what?”. He even agrees it looks like a demolition explosion. It doesnt strike you as being odd that a 45 stry bldg collapses on the same day as twin towers? So what? Is that an answer?

    I do look at all sides of a topic. Unlike you lot that go straight to the debunker blog site & repeat or link their horse shit as gospel. Even wikipedia has a pretty poor excuse for no NORAD fighter intercepts. A communication problem with the FAA.
    Still doesnt explain why hijacked planes were in the air for over45mins!!

    Poor irrational. I think you have gone back to your missed childhood & are running around the loungeroom firing your toy laser gun- PEW PEW!!
    Which psyop patch did you get? All your bases are ours? If we told you, we would have to kill you?
    And no, you are the only one coming out of the closet……..

    • conspiracykiller says :

      “Rebuttable presumption is half of this blog: if one cropcircle can be man made, it stands to reason the rest are manmade!!
      So meurtos must be speaking horse shit!!”

      Nice attempt at paraphrasing, however that’s not what he said.
      “A conspiracy theory is just a theory, untill it is proven true, & then it becomes a conspiracy. ….Gulf of Tonkin, Iran-contra, WMD,Mockingbird, Northwoods

      All of which are none events. Gulf of Tonkin was not a false flag, Northwoods was not a false flag, assuming you had even bothered to read the entirety of this blog and links I have provided you would be aware of this. One event does not prove another, you expect people to assume because a few members f a government at one time committed a felony act, that all other claimed events are to be treat with the same level. Sorry that’s not how the world works in real life.

      “I looked at your “dutch/nuttyphysics” link. Did you ? Did you look at his homepage?
      The bloke went to Gulf war & Kosovo. He even admits he is a paid army shill.
      “If I receive theory crap, I will check your email, address, photo,family & entire history on the web.” This psycho is in military intel & isnt afraid of using this power to invade privacy rights. Patriot Act in personification!!!”

      The fact you believe someone to be a shill because they would research idiots who post on his blog with abusive comments just shows how retarded you are. I used to also check out people who posted on my old blog. Also just because someone is a serviceman or ex serviceman does not make them an instant shill. I don’t know what planet you come from but if the following quote taken from nutty physics page translates to him being a shill then you are a hopeless basket case.

      “If you respond to anything on this site with abusive, threatening, or grossly stupid comments, you grant me permission to publish that comment with your e-mail address, as well as any other information I can discover, including but not limited to, your address, telephone number, employer and picture. You also grant me permission to forward your comments to law enforcement, your family and associates, your employer, pastor and therapist. And since I keep a file of such material, you grant me permission to do the same with anything you sent prior to this notice being posted.”

      You said:
      “His response to Bldg 7 was “So what?”. He even agrees it looks like a demolition explosion. It doesnt strike you as being odd that a 45 stry bldg collapses on the same day as twin towers? So what? Is that an answer?”

      You obviously didn’t check the other link, which explains exactly why building 7 fell.

      “I do look at all sides of a topic. Unlike you lot that go straight to the debunker blog site & repeat or link their horse shit as gospel.”

      Wrong again, I have read and watched every conspiracy theory documentary and article that cospiraloons claim as evidence of foul play. All of tm, and I mean all of them are fucking wrong. Nothing in them is right, Not a single claim can be substantiated by any of them.

    • alysdexia says :

      All theories are already proven, lest they be hýpotheses.

  98. deano says :

    Hilarious stratoblaster, very funny summary of 9/11. The way irrational loves PEW,PEW, PEW laser gun I think he is envious of your name -stratoblaster!
    So often we hear of Ocham’s Razor as a skeptical reason. That video confirms how much of a tangled,exaggerated,compilation of coincidental mishaps,denied witnesses,hidden inquiries, far fetched factors & events that amalgamate to become the enigma of the terrorist attack that is 9/11.

    • just me says :

      Life is about a duality.
      A 0 or a 1.
      It is, or, it is not…
      That is the one possibility, the simple one.

      The second possibility is that there is no distinct quantum separation between the 0 and the 1 but that it is a greyish area where the 0 becomes a 1.

      The matter of the fact is that it requires interaction between a duality to actually enter into this debate at all, where subjectivity interprets an external stimuli in order to gain information about both sides of the duality.

      The duality exists as a singularity but it has to divide itself in order to gain information on itself , and that is its awareness.

      One can not get away from the fact that what is observed is in fact created at two distinct levels, that is the objective layer or the physical, and the subjective layer or the (non physical).

      For an example, an apple is a distortion which creates the stimuli, of that which is interpreted as an apple by an isolated patch of subjectivity who interprets that stimuli. Different patches of isolated subjectivity will interpret the same stimuli caused by that distortion, and have different experiences of the distortion.

      Note that this does not really relate to objective knowledge about the apple, because in essence it is impossible to know the apple. Subjectivity can only go as far as to attempt to know the apple, but it will always remain to only be a subjective interpretation of the apple experience.

      If you get that, then one realizes that there is no right or wrong interpretation to what is being experienced. It is relative. But before you go ape an say, it can’t be, I have to agree that is also is not. It sounds like a contradiction but is not.

      The problem is inherent to logic. Logic is only logic, it can’t be more than logic.
      Awareness is more than logic. It incorporates emotional aspects as well. One needs to become aware in all aspects of one self to know one self…the logical, the emotional, biological, chemical, the spiritual and possibly others which I am not even aware of, before you can event attempt to define something objectively.
      But yet we succumb to our delusional ego which convinces us that we can trust our senses.

      How can something which does not know nor understand itself try to objectively define what anything is. This is mutual event, because as the exploration of the physical is conducted, so is the exploration of the non physical is conducted at the same time.

      I am not saying one should not speculate, in the contrast, I say one must speculate, but name calling and dis respect, to another sentient being in relation to your response (logical or emotional), to the experience of the other, is senseless and without compassion, love and the will to understand.

      As it is the ego’s way of blocking the self to explore more. As you judge so you be judged.

      Awareness is in itself a duality.
      As the ignorant is blissful but vulnerable to those who are more aware.
      Those who are more aware will most likely be cynical but less vulnerable to those who are less aware.

      As the saying goes:
      Knowledge is power.
      Power corrupts.
      Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
      In the presence of the Ego these sayings are true.

      In the absence o the Ego :
      Knowledge is truth.
      The truth will set you free.

      But in the way of this is the Ego. And our struggle if to remove the ego because is the cause of us not seeing what we see, but seeing what the ego wants us to see. And this is an individual path which each has to walk themselves. No one can dot it for you…no religious institution, political or governmental institution or any organization can do it for you.

      I am coming to my point:
      For some of the people on this blog the moon landing is a reality.
      For some of the people on this blog the moon landing is a hoax.
      For some of the people on this blog the crop circles are made by man.
      For some of the people on this blog the crop circles are made by aliens.
      And so be it for them.

      As for the truth, it might be more exotic than both of the viewpoints.
      We struggle to understand that up and down is the same thing. They are only a direction, but it is gravity which affects our definition. This hold to all aspect of life. For people, who are not interested in the nature of gravity, up is up and down is down. But for someone intrigued by gravity the questions remains a considerable mystery, and the more the topic is researched the more is discovered.

      The only difference between a conspiracy theorist and government worker is the time which the individual spent in doing research. There is a reason why the military use younger people more frequently to do their dirty work.

      Murder is murder, there is no excuse, not even war.
      War is not an excuse. it is a means.

      It becomes interesting where awareness actually manages to move from the one reality into the other because that is essence of growth.
      If someone always sits in one reality there is no progression or growth.
      Awareness has to question…always question and adapt and adjust to new information revealed.
      This give those who time the revealing of information so much power,because they are finely aware to what they are doing.

      But as with everything in life there is the duality amongst all groups of all levels of awareness.

      Authority is not necessary the truth, but the truth is necessarily the authority.
      Thus one can fiddle with perception of sentience to impact their awareness, but in the truth will reveal itself.

      My opinion on crop circles are that some are man made as well as some has other origins. As for what these origins are, that is purely speculative and so shall it remain until it is revealed. I think the important aspects is not in finding what is creating them, but I think the important aspect is in questioning their origin and to keep searching until it does become clear to the relative subjectivity of all those who question it.

      I believe there is far more to this world that which the common man perceive.
      But I will not inhibit your growth by settling your curiosity with my interpretation.

  99. Helez says :

    Hey Muertos, not sure if anyone mentioned it yet, but I think your Mona Lisa reproduction is actually pretty cool!

    Peace 2u,
    Helez

  100. Simon says :

    Could someone help me out, if possible with a link?
    I meet the same argument time over time again, the only thing I can’t seem to find a scientific reason for.
    Crop circle believers argument that “real” crop circles have bend stems ( but not broken ) and that this effect, with their words ” CAN’T BE REPLICATED AT ALL WHATSOEVER!”
    Could someone provide an explanation, and or link, to how that actually “can” be bend but not broken, by man?

    • conspiracykiller says :

      How do the know that it can’t be replicated ?

      Have all these people making the claim tried to create crop circles in full scale with all the possible methods ?

      The clear answer to this is no.

      The likely truth in this matter is the people making this claim have heard it stated elsewhere by someone they want to believe [another crop circle promoter]. They have neither verified its authenticity and have just repeated the claim ad infinitum as a thought stopping point.

      To state something as being impossible, which is as simple as not snapping some corn is bordering on outright dishonesty. Particularly if the person has put in no academic research and physical testing of the possibility of it. At best these people are denying the possibility that corn can be woven and laid down by humans without snapping, in order to maintain a belief system they hold dear, probably because of emotional investment or financial gain.

      Crops are not always brittle, and in fact it can be possible to lay them down while malleable. All it takes is to know when or how they can be malleable and to take advantage of this. Node bending should be compared with how old the affected crop was at the time the crop circle occurred.

      To put extra terrestrial or paranormal meaning into a bent node is desperation.

    • Anastasio says :

      First I would ask for evidence that every stem has been audited in order to prove that every stem in every ‘genuine’ crop circle was bent and not broken. Such claims are not useful to anyone unless they can shown to have merit.

      As to why something can be bent and not broken, it’s called Young’s Modulus and it’s a handy measurement of the elastic properties of a material that allow us to calculate just how far we can remove it from it’s natural resting position, and usually back again in one p