Talk:Crop circles
Contents |
[edit] Do you really want to be rational?
If you want to be rational about things, you need to take a sober, realistic look at the subject, and not crowd articles with rubbish and pseudo-facts. I don't know how serious this article is meant to be, but here are a few issues, starting at the top:
"Crop circles are geometric designs of crushed or knocked-over crops" - name some crop circles which consist of "crushed" crops. I'll bet you can't come up with a single one.
"These strange things were initially made by two Englishmen in the late 1970s" - no they weren't. There are photos, diagrams and descriptions from reputable sources published before the 1970s.
"Gullible people, however, continue to believe they are made by flying saucers" - name one! Go on!
I can't be bothered ploughing through it all - but just to bring this to the attention of you "rationalists" there's no more truth in this than in your average pseudo-scientific cereologist article.— Unsigned, by: 94.7.40.171 / talk / contribs
- So - the crops are not "crushed" but "pressed flat"? Is that what you're saying?--Weirdstuff (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- You can only read the first sentence? Look again. There's more.
- There are photos of crop circles long before Doug and Dave, published at the time, not subsequently. Doug and Dave did NOT invent them in the late 1970s. Why is it rational to believe the unsubstantiated claims of these two guys? If they said they built Stonehenge for a laugh would you just believe that too?
- No-one says they are made by flying saucers. Who claims that?? Name a single researcher who says so, or a publication with that as its angle.
- You seem to think it's rational to just make things up without any facts to back them up!— Unsigned, by: 149.241.0.56 / talk / contribs
- I can't help but notice that you didn't mention any of these "reputable sources published before the 1970s". As for naming one gulllible person, here's an article from 2010 mentioning a few: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/7955868/Crop-circle-conundrum.html — Unsigned, by: Hertzy / talk / contribs
[edit] If aliens did it
... they would leave patterns in other 'easily marked surfaces': or use paint and other materials. (How soon after the first people learnt to write more than 'lists of things received by the temple of the God(dess) X/the King-Emperor' was the first 'Z was here'/'Y is a (negative word of choice)' scrawled somewhere? 171.33.197.73 (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
[edit] New research
Was in progress before several years, until now.
Look at sitemap
also photos lightning schematic picture, another lightning schematic picture
main idea of the whole web is, that Crop Circles are created similarly like photo - pictures, by electromagnetic waves radiated by lightnings. Also may appear similar process, like in Wilson Cloud Chamber.
Used only scientific methods of research, and skeptical point of view.
If interested, possible write more, right into the page Crop Circles in this wiki.
contact cropcirclesonline@gmail.com
Alchemist (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Cloud chambers detect ionizing radiation, not electromagnetic waves. Electromagnetic waves cannot create crop circles, unless the crops in question are conductive or magnetic. - Grant (Talk) 23:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Field of research
The article spells it both cereology and cerealogy. Which is correct? Thanos6 (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- WP has it as cereology which is good enough for me. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Rrstuv
Why do my changes keep getting reverted. I do not agree that they are counter-productive. Can you explain how or in what way they are counter-productive? rrstuv 01:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
My changes are included in the following link [1] — Unsigned, by: Rrstuv / talk / contribs
- An easier way to see your changes is to click the "Fossil record" link at the top of the article page, which takes you here. I do not think canvassing google+ will help your efforts here on RationalWiki. Stick around, and you may get used to the local wiki ways. Alec Sanderson (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- p.s. I protected the article for half an hour, with the reason being "counter-productive edit warring." That says nothing about the quality of Rrstuv's changes. It is the edit warring that is considered counter-productive. Alec Sanderson (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)