Re: Ice meteors, climate, sceptics

[Brian Sandle]

Brian Harmer > wrote:
> On 21 Jan 2004 20:12:43 GMT, Brian Sandle
> > wrote:

>>What is the largest block of ice that can form on a plane?


> And where on the airframe does it form? A block of ice of the
> magnitude shown on TV would not improve the flying qualities of a wing
> ... I assume that any such block could not be formed except near some
> outlet on the fuselage or at a junction between the fuselage and a
> flying surface.

Yes, well I always wondered whether these meteors should be on the
meteorology newsgroup. Maybe pilots would know know more about it.

Are there any condensation outlets on planes which form 5kg icicles near
them? Maybe some formation flyers would have seen them. When do they drop
off?

[Brian Sandle]

Gib Bogle > wrote:

> The suggestion I saw was that it fell from a wing, not from a toilet.

If these large blocks formed on wings they would affect the aerodynamics
wouldn't they?

> The physics involved in a massive block forming in a clear sky through
> natural causes is so mind-boggling as to be virtually inconceivable.
> Probably ice meteor incidence is correlated with aircraft traffic.

A normal tiny meteor can act as a nucleus for ice to form.

Meteors are heated by the heat from the air they compress in front of
them. Some of their surface melts off, but once they get into the denser
atmosphere they can be going rather slow take quite a while to land and
get cooled by the cold air.

There is nothing suspicious about water vapour in clear sky weather. Ever
noticed dew in clear weather? As the air cools in the evening it becomes
able to hold less water vapour. A supersaturated condition forms and water
is deposited on the nearest object available. Quite a lot of dew can be
formed in a few minuters when the dew point is reached. Same thing with
water being heated to 100 degrees Celsius in a smooth vessel. Then if
something rough is put in the steam is allowed to form and it may boil
over.

Where are the data about upper atmosphere temperature and global warming?

[Grant]

Brian Sandle wrote:

>>The physics involved in a massive block forming in a clear sky through
>>natural causes is so mind-boggling as to be virtually inconceivable.
>>Probably ice meteor incidence is correlated with aircraft traffic.
>
>
> A normal tiny meteor can act as a nucleus for ice to form.
>

You could calculate the time it takes to grow a 10kg chunk of ice under
the most extreme plausible conditions of atmospheric supersaturation.
See ch. 4 of Wallace and Hobbs.

But it would be a pointless exercise, because the answer would be
measured in weeks or months, and you could never hope to keep your chunk
of ice suspended in the atmosphere longer than a few minutes, once you
got past a few grams.

And you wouldn't get a clear chunk of ice anyway by this mechanism;
you'd get a big porous mass of ice crystals.


> Where are the data about upper atmosphere temperature and global warming?

Here's a factoid that might help put things into perspective: typical
water vapor concentrations in the upper atmosphere are below 4 parts per
million, relative to air. And air at, say, 50 km altitude has a density
on the order of 1 gram per cubic meter. So to grow a 10 kg chunk of ice
at that altitude would require you to figure out a way to quickly
condense onto one object *all* of the water vapor in 2.5 cubic
*kilometers* of ambient air.

Bottom line: I tend to think the stories about chunks of ice out of the
clear sky, while possibly true in some sense, have nothing to do with
meteorology in any form, let alone global warming.

Could someone be deliberately tossing junks of ice out of passing
aircraft? Recall the crop circle "mystery" -- it eventually was
acknowledged to be a hoax -- by the hoaxers themselves - after countless
"experts" had been quoted as saying, "it can't be a hoax."

[Brian Sandle]

Grant > wrote:
> Brian Sandle wrote:

>>>The physics involved in a massive block forming in a clear sky through
>>>natural causes is so mind-boggling as to be virtually inconceivable.
>>>Probably ice meteor incidence is correlated with aircraft traffic.
>>
>>
>> A normal tiny meteor can act as a nucleus for ice to form.
>>

> You could calculate the time it takes to grow a 10kg chunk of ice under
> the most extreme plausible conditions of atmospheric supersaturation.
> See ch. 4 of Wallace and Hobbs.

> But it would be a pointless exercise, because the answer would be
> measured in weeks or months, and you could never hope to keep your chunk
> of ice suspended in the atmosphere longer than a few minutes, once you
> got past a few grams.

Unless there is some sort of vortex.

> And you wouldn't get a clear chunk of ice anyway by this mechanism;
> you'd get a big porous mass of ice crystals.

Like hoar frost? It's incredibly patterened, but quite solid, not porous, I
think.

>> Where are the data about upper atmosphere temperature and global warming?

> Here's a factoid that might help put things into perspective: typical
> water vapor concentrations in the upper atmosphere are below 4 parts per
> million, relative to air. And air at, say, 50 km altitude has a density
> on the order of 1 gram per cubic meter. So to grow a 10 kg chunk of ice
> at that altitude would require you to figure out a way to quickly
> condense onto one object *all* of the water vapor in 2.5 cubic
> *kilometers* of ambient air.

Any reason for 50 km? Most of the air where vortices could do anything is in
the troposphere.

> Bottom line: I tend to think the stories about chunks of ice out of the
> clear sky, while possibly true in some sense, have nothing to do with
> meteorology in any form, let alone global warming.

> Could someone be deliberately tossing junks of ice out of passing
> aircraft?

I have heard of frogs raining down. Seemed genuine.


Recall the crop circle "mystery" -- it eventually was
> acknowledged to be a hoax -- by the hoaxers themselves - after countless
> "experts" had been quoted as saying, "it can't be a hoax."

Ha ha, yes. It became quite a hobby of the `sceptics' or pranksters to show
how it could be done. How did they hoax the real crop circles in which the
bent over wheat is said to keep growing - it is not trampled? Enlightenment
please.


(Though I think this example, from the shape of the block has been formed in
some sort of mold. Either that or cleaved off somehow.)

[Grant]

Brian Sandle wrote:

>
> Unless there is some sort of vortex.
>


not sure how a vortex would affect my arguments


>>And you wouldn't get a clear chunk of ice anyway by this mechanism;
>>you'd get a big porous mass of ice crystals.
>
>
> Like hoar frost? It's incredibly patterened, but quite solid, not porous, I
> think.
>

"Feathery" is the word that came to mind the last time I examined thick
hoarfrost. Porous in the sense that you have needle-like or dendritic
crystals growing into a feathery mass, as opposed to a uniform glaze of
ice. Note by the way that hoar froast, which grows by sublimation from
the vapor phase, is different than rime ice, which is less porous. The
latter involves the accretion of supercooled droplets and requires a
visible cloud. It's the same process involved in hail and graupel
formation, whereas hoar frost is more analogous the formation of snow.

>>>Where are the data about upper atmosphere temperature and global warming?
>
>
>>Here's a factoid that might help put things into perspective: typical
>>water vapor concentrations in the upper atmosphere are below 4 parts per
>>million, relative to air. And air at, say, 50 km altitude has a density
>>on the order of 1 gram per cubic meter. So to grow a 10 kg chunk of ice
>> at that altitude would require you to figure out a way to quickly
>>condense onto one object *all* of the water vapor in 2.5 cubic
>>*kilometers* of ambient air.
>
>
> Any reason for 50 km? Most of the air where vortices could do anything is in
> the troposphere.

If tropospheric vortices are involved in producing large chunks of ice,
then they're also producing clouds. I thought the issue at hand was one
of ice chunks falling out of the clear blue sky, and more specifically
out of the stratosphere. But maybe I haven't been reading closely enough.

>
>>Bottom line: I tend to think the stories about chunks of ice out of the
>>clear sky, while possibly true in some sense, have nothing to do with
>>meteorology in any form, let alone global warming.
>
>
>>Could someone be deliberately tossing junks of ice out of passing
>>aircraft?
>
>
> I have heard of frogs raining down. Seemed genuine.
>

I think the prevailing view on that is that the frogs were probably
swept up into the air by a tornado or waterspout. Although I have to
admit that most such accounts have aspects that are hard to explain, IF
you take them at face value.

>
> Recall the crop circle "mystery" -- it eventually was
>
>>acknowledged to be a hoax -- by the hoaxers themselves - after countless
>>"experts" had been quoted as saying, "it can't be a hoax."
>
>
> Ha ha, yes. It became quite a hobby of the `sceptics' or pranksters to show
> how it could be done. How did they hoax the real crop circles in which the
> bent over wheat is said to keep growing - it is not trampled? Enlightenment
> please.

That's precisely one of the arguments the "experts" used. And then the
hoaxers showed that it's really not that hard to bend the stems without
breaking them.

[Bob Harrington]

Brian Sandle wrote:

>> Recall the crop circle "mystery" -- it eventually was
>> acknowledged to be a hoax -- by the hoaxers themselves - after
>> countless "experts" had been quoted as saying, "it can't be a hoax."
>
> Ha ha, yes. It became quite a hobby of the `sceptics' or pranksters
> to show how it could be done. How did they hoax the real crop circles
> in which the bent over wheat is said to keep growing - it is not
> trampled? Enlightenment please.

The same way the %#&$ lawn keeps growing no matter how many "mow rows"
you apply to it? =)

The crop circle crowd seem to be awfully good at looking at something
not all that overly impressive and instantly deciding it was humanly
impossible. Others might call this "wishful thinking" or "delusion" -
kinda like the "Rods" scam from a few years back.

[Brian Sandle]

Grant > wrote:
> Brian Sandle wrote:

>>
>> Unless there is some sort of vortex.
>>


> not sure how a vortex would affect my arguments


>>>And you wouldn't get a clear chunk of ice anyway by this mechanism;
>>>you'd get a big porous mass of ice crystals.
>>
>>
>> Like hoar frost? It's incredibly patterened, but quite solid, not porous, I
>> think.
>>

> "Feathery" is the word that came to mind the last time I examined thick
> hoarfrost.

Though `feathery' gives the impression that it would be easy to break. But
it is soldily attached to whatever it grows on.

Porous in the sense that you have needle-like or dendritic
> crystals growing into a feathery mass, as opposed to a uniform glaze of
> ice.

Though not crushable as I have seen it, there were not filaments
projecting into the air.

Note by the way that hoar froast, which grows by sublimation from
> the vapor phase, is different than rime ice, which is less porous. The
> latter involves the accretion of supercooled droplets and requires a
> visible cloud. It's the same process involved in hail and graupel
> formation, whereas hoar frost is more analogous the formation of snow.

What I saw was a tremendous pattern on a car roof top where there had been
very slight air movement.

>>>>Where are the data about upper atmosphere temperature and global warming?
>>
>>
>>>Here's a factoid that might help put things into perspective: typical
>>>water vapor concentrations in the upper atmosphere are below 4 parts per
>>>million, relative to air. And air at, say, 50 km altitude has a density
>>>on the order of 1 gram per cubic meter. So to grow a 10 kg chunk of ice
>>> at that altitude would require you to figure out a way to quickly
>>>condense onto one object *all* of the water vapor in 2.5 cubic
>>>*kilometers* of ambient air.
>>
>>
>> Any reason for 50 km? Most of the air where vortices could do anything is in
>> the troposphere.

> If tropospheric vortices are involved in producing large chunks of ice,
> then they're also producing clouds. I thought the issue at hand was one
> of ice chunks falling out of the clear blue sky, and more specifically
> out of the stratosphere. But maybe I haven't been reading closely enough.

I don't think the original article mentioned stratoshpere, though I guess
that is the part of the atmosphere which would be cooling under global
warming? Your argument about the amount of water vapour there is quite
convincing. However what about clouds that form at 50km over the polar
regions?

>>
>>>Bottom line: I tend to think the stories about chunks of ice out of the
>>>clear sky, while possibly true in some sense, have nothing to do with
>>>meteorology in any form, let alone global warming.
>>
>>
>>>Could someone be deliberately tossing junks of ice out of passing
>>>aircraft?
>>
>>
>> I have heard of frogs raining down. Seemed genuine.
>>

> I think the prevailing view on that is that the frogs were probably
> swept up into the air by a tornado or waterspout.

Yes. How far could they be thrown?

Although I have to
> admit that most such accounts have aspects that are hard to explain, IF
> you take them at face value.

>>
>> Recall the crop circle "mystery" -- it eventually was
>>
>>>acknowledged to be a hoax -- by the hoaxers themselves - after countless
>>>"experts" had been quoted as saying, "it can't be a hoax."
>>
>>
>> Ha ha, yes. It became quite a hobby of the `sceptics' or pranksters to show
>> how it could be done. How did they hoax the real crop circles in which the
>> bent over wheat is said to keep growing - it is not trampled? Enlightenment
>> please.

> That's precisely one of the arguments the "experts" used. And then the
> hoaxers showed that it's really not that hard to bend the stems without
> breaking them.

Do you a ref? It seems the bend looks more like the sort in a plant which
has been grown in a pot then turned on its side. Though I cannot verify
that except pass the ref, which also gives they are produced very rapidly,
and the confusion engendered by "sceptics"' film arrangements.


Linkname: Discovery Channel Crop Circles
URL: http://www.oregonuforeview.com/discchancrop.html
Last Mod: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 02:22:04 GMT
size: 122 lines

[Eric Hocking]

"Bob Harrington" > wrote in message news:<yW%Pb.103902$5V2.398094@attbi_s53>...
> Brian Sandle wrote:
> >> Recall the crop circle "mystery" -- it eventually was
> >> acknowledged to be a hoax -- by the hoaxers themselves - after
> >> countless "experts" had been quoted as saying, "it can't be a hoax."
> >
> > Ha ha, yes. It became quite a hobby of the `sceptics' or pranksters
> > to show how it could be done. How did they hoax the real crop circles
> > in which the bent over wheat is said to keep growing - it is not
> > trampled? Enlightenment please.
>
> The same way the %#&$ lawn keeps growing no matter how many "mow rows"
> you apply to it? =)
>
> The crop circle crowd seem to be awfully good at looking at something
> not all that overly impressive and instantly deciding it was humanly
> impossible. Others might call this "wishful thinking" or "delusion" -
> kinda like the "Rods" scam from a few years back.

Sorry to drop in out of lurking, but I always found it amusing to
watch ET cropcircle proponents squirm when I pointed out at
sci.skeptic that;

During the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the UK in 2001 the
government closed all countryside footpaths, effectively blocking any
but the farmer from crop fields.

During the ban no crop circles were recorded in the English
countryside.

The first crop circle in England to be recorded was the day after the
walking ban was lifted in that county.

Very community minded is our ET.

--
Eric Hocking
www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke

[Brian Sandle]

Eric Hocking > wrote:
> "Bob Harrington" > wrote in message news:<yW%Pb.103902$5V2.398094@attbi_s53>...
>> Brian Sandle wrote:
>> >> Recall the crop circle "mystery" -- it eventually was
>> >> acknowledged to be a hoax -- by the hoaxers themselves - after
>> >> countless "experts" had been quoted as saying, "it can't be a hoax."
>> >
>> > Ha ha, yes. It became quite a hobby of the `sceptics' or pranksters
>> > to show how it could be done. How did they hoax the real crop circles
>> > in which the bent over wheat is said to keep growing - it is not
>> > trampled? Enlightenment please.
>>
>> The same way the %#&$ lawn keeps growing no matter how many "mow rows"
>> you apply to it? =)
>>
>> The crop circle crowd seem to be awfully good at looking at something
>> not all that overly impressive and instantly deciding it was humanly
>> impossible. Others might call this "wishful thinking" or "delusion" -
>> kinda like the "Rods" scam from a few years back.

> Sorry to drop in out of lurking, but I always found it amusing to
> watch ET cropcircle proponents squirm when I pointed out at
> sci.skeptic that;

> During the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the UK in 2001 the
> government closed all countryside footpaths, effectively blocking any
> but the farmer from crop fields.

> During the ban no crop circles were recorded in the English
> countryside.

> The first crop circle in England to be recorded was the day after the
> walking ban was lifted in that county.

> Very community minded is our ET.

Any decent scientist knows
(a) correlation is not causation
(b) to check the data.


(a) About 90% of the walkways were open in September 1991 in Britain.

Linkname: CropCircleInvestigated
URL: http://www.geocities.com/hbccufo/CropCircleInvestigated.html

Crop Circles Return Three Years Later
by Gordon Hoekstra
Citizen Staff, September, 2001
They'rrrrre baaaack !
Crop Circles have been discovered again in Vanderhoof, almost three years
to the day they were firs found in a ripe oat field just off the airport
runway.
[...] The researcher said tests performed on the oat samples
in a U.S. lab later confirmed the Crop Circles were genuine: that is to
say there were cellular changes in the oats not found in known hoaxes.


So that they occurred world over again at the end of foot and mouth in
Britain may or may not be just a coincidence.


(b) Though I now confound myself somewhat by giving this:


Linkname: Weird Wiltshire - Crop Circles - News Archive
URL:
http://www.thisispewsey.co.uk/wiltshire/leisure/weird/231001.html


First published on October 23
THE foot and mouth epidemic may have hampered the search for crop circles
in Wiltshire's corn fields but the people who spend time looking for them
still managed to record some incredible formations.
[...]
In spite of the foot and mouth restrictions which meant that the croppies
had to keep away from fields and could not fly overland, about 40
formations were officially recorded in Wiltshire.



Not sure how they did it.

[Eric Hocking]

Brian Sandle > wrote in message >...
> Eric Hocking > wrote:
<snip>
>
> > Sorry to drop in out of lurking, but I always found it amusing to
> > watch ET cropcircle proponents squirm when I pointed out at
> > sci.skeptic that;
>
> > During the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the UK in 2001 the
> > government closed all countryside footpaths, effectively blocking any
> > but the farmer from crop fields.
>
> > During the ban no crop circles were recorded in the English
> > countryside.
>
> > The first crop circle in England to be recorded was the day after the
> > walking ban was lifted in that county.
>
> > Very community minded is our ET.
>
> Any decent scientist knows
> (a) correlation is not causation

Fine - put forward another explanation for the correlation between
lifting footpath bans and the late 2001 appearance of circles in
British crops.

> (b) to check the data.

Ah, let's just do that shall we?

> (a) About 90% of the walkways were open in September 1991 in Britain.

Since I specifically stated 2001, what has this to do with my post?
Feb 27 2001 announcement on footpath closures.
<http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/newsrel/2001/010227d.htm>

> Linkname: CropCircleInvestigated
> URL: http://www.geocities.com/hbccufo/CropCircleInvestigated.html
>
<snip>
>
> So that they occurred world over again at the end of foot and mouth in
> Britain may or may not be just a coincidence.

I did not say worldwide - I quite specifically said "English" circles.
The fact remains that the first cropcircles to appear in BRITAIN, were
found and probably created (as per the cropcircle database site) in
late/end of May. Just as the FMD footpath restrictions were being
eased.

So, what caused the cessation of circlemaking in Britain that year?
Surely footpath closures wouldn't have had any effect on airborne ET?
The only restriction was on *human* access on the ground to crop
fields. I'm sure it's purely coincidental that the lifting of those
restrictions correlate with the first appearance of new circles in
May.

> (b) Though I now confound myself somewhat by giving this:
>
> Linkname: Weird Wiltshire - Crop Circles - News Archive
> URL:
> http://www.thisispewsey.co.uk/wiltshire/leisure/weird/231001.html
>
>
> First published on October 23
> THE foot and mouth epidemic may have hampered the search for crop circles
> in Wiltshire's corn fields but the people who spend time looking for them
> still managed to record some incredible formations.

All created in May after the FMD restrictions were eased. This as per
the cropcircle database site:
<http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=x&y=2001&c=UK&l=&k=&m=April>
<http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=x&y=2001&c=UK&l=&k=&m=May>

> [...]
> In spite of the foot and mouth restrictions which meant that the croppies
> had to keep away from fields and could not fly overland,

The above statement seems to imply that circles *might* have been
created prior to May 2001, but the croppies were unable to find them
merely due to to the fact that they were not allowed to do air
searches. That's patently untrue as per the Hansard record of May 9
<http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200001/cmhansrd/vo010509/text/10509w19.htm>
The aviation bans were that you could not fly *below* 500ft over
infected land or *below* 1000ft over the livestock cremation sites.
There was nothing to stop croppies flying over at 1500ft plus scouring
for circles.

So to claim that there *might* have been circles created before May is
moot, since they can't prove it happened and I can't prove it didn't.

> about 40
> formations were officially recorded in Wiltshire.

The NUMBER of circles is irrelevant, it is WHEN they appeared. Here's
part of my post from 2001, one of the council links is dead and see
this link for May 2001
<http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=x&y=2001&c=UK&l=&k=&m=May>

"This is the Hampshire County Council notice regarding F&M
http://www.hants.gov.uk/hcc/emergency/footmouth.html
Guess when it's dated? You got it 11 May. It links to an emergency
plan for
Hants: http://www.hants.gov.uk/hcc/emergency/scudamore.html
dated March.

And of course, the first one in England turned up in? Hampshire - on
May
16. http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=uk01ab

When Wiltshire opened up
http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/download/news/sc10411_order.html

Lo and Behold! A crop circle turns up in Wiltshire.
http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=uk01aq "


> Not sure how they did it.

Waited in the pub until walking restrictions were lifted?

--
Eric Hocking
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" - P.J. O'Rourke.
http://www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk

[Brian Sandle]

Eric Hocking > wrote:
> Brian Sandle > wrote in message >...
>> Eric Hocking > wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> > Sorry to drop in out of lurking, but I always found it amusing to
>> > watch ET cropcircle proponents squirm when I pointed out at
>> > sci.skeptic that;
>>
>> > During the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the UK in 2001 the
>> > government closed all countryside footpaths, effectively blocking any
>> > but the farmer from crop fields.
>>
>> > During the ban no crop circles were recorded in the English
>> > countryside.
>>
>> > The first crop circle in England to be recorded was the day after the
>> > walking ban was lifted in that county.
>>
>> > Very community minded is our ET.
>>
>> Any decent scientist knows
>> (a) correlation is not causation

> Fine - put forward another explanation for the correlation between
> lifting footpath bans and the late 2001 appearance of circles in
> British crops.

>> (b) to check the data.

> Ah, let's just do that shall we?

>> (a) About 90% of the walkways were open in September 1991 in Britain.

> Since I specifically stated 2001, what has this to do with my post?

I meant 2001. It was in an offical PDF file which I cannot find again, with
the history of F&MD.

> Feb 27 2001 announcement on footpath closures.
> <http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/newsrel/2001/010227d.htm>

>> Linkname: CropCircleInvestigated
>> URL: http://www.geocities.com/hbccufo/CropCircleInvestigated.html
>>
> <snip>
>>
>> So that they occurred world over again at the end of foot and mouth in
>> Britain may or may not be just a coincidence.

> I did not say worldwide - I quite specifically said "English" circles.

But I am pointing out it could be world wide.

> The fact remains that the first cropcircles to appear in BRITAIN, were
> found and probably created (as per the cropcircle database site) in
> late/end of May. Just as the FMD footpath restrictions were being
> eased.

Search your database for any country April 2001, there is only one result,
and that is an acknowledged art work.

> So, what caused the cessation of circlemaking in Britain that year?
> Surely footpath closures wouldn't have had any effect on airborne ET?
> The only restriction was on *human* access on the ground to crop
> fields. I'm sure it's purely coincidental that the lifting of those
> restrictions correlate with the first appearance of new circles in
> May.

They started appearing world over in May.

>> (b) Though I now confound myself somewhat by giving this:
>>
>> Linkname: Weird Wiltshire - Crop Circles - News Archive
>> URL:
>> http://www.thisispewsey.co.uk/wiltshire/leisure/weird/231001.html
>>
>>
>> First published on October 23
>> THE foot and mouth epidemic may have hampered the search for crop circles
>> in Wiltshire's corn fields but the people who spend time looking for them
>> still managed to record some incredible formations.

> All created in May after the FMD restrictions were eased.

That is correlation not proven causation.

This as per
> the cropcircle database site:
> <http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=x&y=2001&c=UK&l=&k=&m=April>
> <http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=x&y=2001&c=UK&l=&k=&m=May>

>> [...]
>> In spite of the foot and mouth restrictions which meant that the croppies
>> had to keep away from fields and could not fly overland,

> The above statement seems to imply that circles *might* have been
> created prior to May 2001, but the croppies were unable to find them
> merely due to to the fact that they were not allowed to do air
> searches. That's patently untrue as per the Hansard record of May 9
> <http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200001/cmhansrd/vo010509/text/10509w19.htm>
> The aviation bans were that you could not fly *below* 500ft over
> infected land or *below* 1000ft over the livestock cremation sites.
> There was nothing to stop croppies flying over at 1500ft plus scouring
> for circles.

Maybe they misunderstood.

> So to claim that there *might* have been circles created before May is
> moot, since they can't prove it happened and I can't prove it didn't.

You like the correlation, and searching world wide back to Nov 2000 there are
very few. Just a couple on ice, one reported on ice too thin to walk on.


>> about 40
>> formations were officially recorded in Wiltshire.

> The NUMBER of circles is irrelevant, it is WHEN they appeared. Here's
> part of my post from 2001, one of the council links is dead and see
> this link for May 2001
> <http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=x&y=2001&c=UK&l=&k=&m=May>

> "This is the Hampshire County Council notice regarding F&M
> http://www.hants.gov.uk/hcc/emergency/footmouth.html
> Guess when it's dated? You got it 11 May. It links to an emergency
> plan for
> Hants: http://www.hants.gov.uk/hcc/emergency/scudamore.html
> dated March.

> And of course, the first one in England turned up in? Hampshire - on
> May
> 16. http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=uk01ab

> When Wiltshire opened up
> http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/download/news/sc10411_order.html

> Lo and Behold! A crop circle turns up in Wiltshire.
> http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=uk01aq "


>> Not sure how they did it.

> Waited in the pub until walking restrictions were lifted?

Somewhere I read it is admitted that some farmers create them as they get
grants for people to come on to their land.

Then the scientific tests should be different.

[Brian Sandle]

Brian Sandle > wrote:
> Eric Hocking > wrote:


>> Fine - put forward another explanation for the correlation between
>> lifting footpath bans and the late 2001 appearance of circles in
>> British crops.

http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/database/index.html

then go to foot and mouth.

2001 has very similar figures for April as 2000 and 2002.

[Dennis M. Rodgers]

The topic has diverged from anything meteorological. Please
drop sci.geo.meteorology from the list. Thank you.

Brian Sandle wrote:
> Brian Sandle > wrote:
>
>>Eric Hocking > wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Fine - put forward another explanation for the correlation between
>>>lifting footpath bans and the late 2001 appearance of circles in
>>>British crops.
>>
>
> http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/database/index.html
>
> then go to foot and mouth.
>
> 2001 has very similar figures for April as 2000 and 2002.

[Brian Sandle]

Dennis M. Rodgers > wrote:
> The topic has diverged from anything meteorological. Please
> drop sci.geo.meteorology from the list. Thank you.

Grant suggested that ice meteors be in the crop circle category of fakes.

But are they fakes, for if they aren't all then that argument may have to
be ruled out.

No-one has commented on polar stratospheric cloud. Grant pointed out how
thin the atmosphere is there. They occur in the winter. Maybe conditions
are sufficient to make clouds of water from cometary fragments. Can any
large fragments get through?

We touched on vortices. Vortex theory was advanced by Kelvin and Thomson,
but superceded by the particle theory, though particles were found to have
spin. Maybe spin can have a laser effect. Sorry about the dreaming. The
simple wind vortices would seem to produce too irregular a form to be
recognised as a crop circle.

Is there any theory of how smoke rings can bounce off one another, and can
that happen with any atmospheric clouds?

[Brian Sandle]

Dennis M. Rodgers > wrote:
> The topic has diverged from anything meteorological. Please
> drop sci.geo.meteorology from the list. Thank you.

Grant suggested that ice meteors be in the crop circle category of fakes.

But are they fakes, for if they aren't all then that argument may have to
be ruled out.

No-one has commented on polar stratospheric cloud. Grant pointed out how
thin the atmosphere is there. They occur in the winter. Maybe conditions
are sufficient to make clouds of water from cometary fragments. Can any
large fragments get through?

We touched on vortices. Vortex theory was advanced by Kelvin and Thomson,
but superceded by the particle theory, though particles were found to have
spin. Maybe spin can have a laser effect. Sorry about the dreaming. The
simple wind vortices would seem to produce too irregular a form to be
recognised as a crop circle.

Is there any theory of how smoke rings can bounce off one another, and can
that happen with any atmospheric clouds?

[Brian Sandle]

Brian Sandle > wrote:

> No-one has commented on polar stratospheric cloud. Grant pointed out how
> thin the atmosphere is there. They occur in the winter. Maybe conditions
> are sufficient to make clouds of water from cometary fragments. Can any
> large fragments get through?

> We touched on vortices. Vortex theory was advanced by Kelvin and Thomson,
> but superceded by the particle theory, though particles were found to have
> spin. Maybe spin can have a laser effect. Sorry about the dreaming. The
> simple wind vortices would seem to produce too irregular a form to be
> recognised as a crop circle.

> Is there any theory of how smoke rings can bounce off one another, and can
> that happen with any atmospheric clouds?

Grant said that if vortices were present which could form ice meteors then
there would be clouds, too. But is it possible to have in the upper
atmosphere a wind sort of like the Antarctic katabatic, 350 km/hr with a
clear sky?

What is the velocity of wind in the clear air turbulence which affects
aircraft?

[Brian Sandle]

Dennis M. Rodgers > wrote:
> Brian Sandle wrote:

>>
>> Is there any theory of how smoke rings can bounce off one another, and can
>> that happen with any atmospheric clouds?
>>

> Maybe you could find a science fiction newsgroup where this
> stuff might be well received. It has no relationship to the
> science of meteorology.

How about making some comment on the scientific quesitons I put, the high
cloud, the katabatic, the clear air turbulence. Then we can proceed.

[Eric Hocking]

[note sci.geo.meteorology dropped from followups as requested]

"Brian Sandle" > wrote in message
...
> Eric Hocking > wrote:
> > Brian Sandle > wrote in message
>...
> >> Eric Hocking > wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> > Sorry to drop in out of lurking, but I always found it amusing to
> >> > watch ET cropcircle proponents squirm when I pointed out at
> >> > sci.skeptic that;
> >>
> >> > During the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the UK in 2001 the
> >> > government closed all countryside footpaths, effectively blocking any
> >> > but the farmer from crop fields.
> >>
> >> > During the ban no crop circles were recorded in the English
> >> > countryside.
> >>
> >> > The first crop circle in England to be recorded was the day after the
> >> > walking ban was lifted in that county.
> >>
> >> > Very community minded is our ET.
> >>
> >> Any decent scientist knows
> >> (a) correlation is not causation
>
> > Fine - put forward another explanation for the correlation between
> > lifting footpath bans and the late 2001 appearance of circles in
> > British crops.
>
> >> (b) to check the data.
>
> > Ah, let's just do that shall we?
>
> >> (a) About 90% of the walkways were open in September 1991 in Britain.
>
> > Since I specifically stated 2001, what has this to do with my post?
>
> I meant 2001. It was in an offical PDF file which I cannot find again,
with
> the history of F&MD.

OK - so *most* of the rights of way were open by Sept 2001, this still has
nothing to do with my statement that there is a correlation between lack of
circle building while the blanket bans were in effect, does it? Further I
pointed out ath there is a correlation between the staged openings of rights
of way, county by county, and the appearance of the first circles in 2001 in
those counties corresponding with those openings.

> > Feb 27 2001 announcement on footpath closures.
> > <http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/newsrel/2001/010227d.htm>
> >> Linkname: CropCircleInvestigated
> >> URL:
http://www.geocities.com/hbccufo/CropCircleInvestigated.html
> > <snip>
> >> So that they occurred world over again at the end of foot and mouth in
> >> Britain may or may not be just a coincidence.
> > I did not say worldwide - I quite specifically said "English" circles.
>
> But I am pointing out it could be world wide.

A point that is quite irrelevant to the discussion though. Blanket bans on
countryside rights of way were only in place in Britain due to FMD in 2001.
What influence would these bans have on walking in a field in Canada or New
Zealand?

> > The fact remains that the first cropcircles to appear in BRITAIN, were
> > found and probably created (as per the cropcircle database site) in
> > late/end of May. Just as the FMD footpath restrictions were being
> > eased.
>
> Search your database for any country April 2001, there is only one result,
> and that is an acknowledged art work.

And this has what to do with my statement about the timing of crop circles
appearing in May in areas where blanket bans on access to rights of way were
being eased?

> > So, what caused the cessation of circlemaking in Britain that year?
> > Surely footpath closures wouldn't have had any effect on airborne ET?
> > The only restriction was on *human* access on the ground to crop
> > fields. I'm sure it's purely coincidental that the lifting of those
> > restrictions correlate with the first appearance of new circles in
> > May.
>
> They started appearing world over in May.

As they do each year - but in Britain and specifically England (ie as per my
initial point) they did not appear in fields that had blanket bans on
access. They only started to appear after these bans were lifted. At least
address the point I am making rather than going off on irrelevant tangents.

> >> (b) Though I now confound myself somewhat by giving this:
> >> Linkname: Weird Wiltshire - Crop Circles - News Archive
> >> URL:
> >>
http://www.thisispewsey.co.uk/wiltshire/leisure/weird/231001.html
> >> First published on October 23
> >> THE foot and mouth epidemic may have hampered the search for crop
circles
> >> in Wiltshire's corn fields but the people who spend time looking for
them
> >> still managed to record some incredible formations.
>
> > All created in May after the FMD restrictions were eased.
>
> That is correlation not proven causation.

Give reasonable alternatives to my point then. What caused the different
timing and distribution of circle building in 2001? The correlation between
the appearance of circles, county by county, and the lifting of blanket bans
in those counties, while quite a coincidence, is certainly a compelling
coincidence. Have you compared the timing and distribution of circles in
2001 when the bans were in place and those in 2000 and 2002 when no
countryside movement bans were in place?

> This as per
> > the cropcircle database site:
> >
<http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=x&y=2001&c=UK&l=&k=&m=Apri
l>
> >
<http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=x&y=2001&c=UK&l=&k=&m=May>
>
> >> [...]
> >> In spite of the foot and mouth restrictions which meant that the
croppies
> >> had to keep away from fields and could not fly overland,
>
> > The above statement seems to imply that circles *might* have been
> > created prior to May 2001, but the croppies were unable to find them
> > merely due to to the fact that they were not allowed to do air
> > searches. That's patently untrue as per the Hansard record of May 9
> >
<http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200001/cmhansrd/vo01
0509/text/10509w19.htm>
> > The aviation bans were that you could not fly *below* 500ft over
> > infected land or *below* 1000ft over the livestock cremation sites.
> > There was nothing to stop croppies flying over at 1500ft plus scouring
> > for circles.
>
> Maybe they misunderstood.

Maybe, regardless, their statement that they were not able to fly over
fields to look for circles is untrue. To imply that this is a reasonable
explanation for the lateness of sightings in 2001 holds much less water than
my statement that there were not cirlces being made because the people on
the *ground* who make the circles were banned from entering fields during
that time.

> > So to claim that there *might* have been circles created before May is
> > moot, since they can't prove it happened and I can't prove it didn't.
>
> You like the correlation, and searching world wide back to Nov 2000 there
are
> very few. Just a couple on ice, one reported on ice too thin to walk on.

What's with these irrelevant tangents? I'm not talking about worldwide, I'm
talking about the timing and distribution of circle building in England 2001
and what affect the FMD countryside ban had on it.

> >> about 40
> >> formations were officially recorded in Wiltshire.
>
> > The NUMBER of circles is irrelevant, it is WHEN they appeared. Here's
> > part of my post from 2001, one of the council links is dead and see
> > this link for May 2001
> >
<http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=x&y=2001&c=UK&l=&k=&m=May>
> > "This is the Hampshire County Council notice regarding F&M
> > http://www.hants.gov.uk/hcc/emergency/footmouth.html
> > Guess when it's dated? You got it 11 May. It links to an emergency
> > plan for
> > Hants: http://www.hants.gov.uk/hcc/emergency/scudamore.html
> > dated March.
> > And of course, the first one in England turned up in? Hampshire - on
> > May
> > 16. http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=uk01ab
> > When Wiltshire opened up
> > http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/download/news/sc10411_order.html
> > Lo and Behold! A crop circle turns up in Wiltshire.
> > http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=uk01aq "
> >> Not sure how they did it.
> > Waited in the pub until walking restrictions were lifted?
>
> Somewhere I read it is admitted that some farmers create them as they get
> grants for people to come on to their land.

Then you were misled.
Farmers do not receive grants for people coming onto their land. Who would
be giving out these grants by the way?
Farmers can claim some insurance for vandalism, it does not cover the cost
of the lost crop. Anecdotally, I have heard that circle builders have
offered some cash compensation at times, but the farmers lose more in
damaged crop than they make up in these nonexistent grants.
About all they can do is ask for an "entry fee" from people who want to
access their fields to view a circle.

> Then the scientific tests should be different.

What tests are these? Why should they be different? And what has that got
to do with the farmer anecdote above?

--
Eric Hocking
www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Attempting spam blocking - remove upper case to reply.

[Eric Hocking]

[sci.g.meteorology dropped from follow-ups]

"Brian Sandle" > wrote in message
...
> Brian Sandle > wrote:
> > Eric Hocking > wrote:
>
> >> Fine - put forward another explanation for the correlation between
> >> lifting footpath bans and the late 2001 appearance of circles in
> >> British crops.
>
> http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/database/index.html
>
> then go to foot and mouth.
>
> 2001 has very similar figures for April as 2000 and 2002.

Hmm, 3 in April 2000, 0 in April 2001 and 1 in 2002.
Noted the 2001 was by an artist. The comments on the next two are amusing
"Very amateurish looking" and "Fairly rough looking". Must have been
apprentice aliens trying it out for the first time!

As you suggested I do in an earlier post, check the data. Go also to the
county news releases on when and where the blanket bans were lifted and then
have a look at when and where the circles started to appear in 2001.

By limiting yourself to a single resource, you're not getting the whole
picture and limit the points of view you can put forward. In counter to the
cropcircleresearch site <http://www.circlemakers.org/> specifically
http://www.circlemakers.org/totc2001.html for their 2001 round up.

--
Eric Hocking
www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Attempting spam blocking - remove upper case to reply.

[Brian Sandle]

Eric Hocking > wrote:
> [note sci.geo.meteorology dropped from followups as requested]

We can go back there and report the results later.

> "Brian Sandle" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Eric Hocking > wrote:
>>
>> > Fine - put forward another explanation for the correlation between
>> > lifting footpath bans and the late 2001 appearance of circles in
>> > British crops.

You were saying late 2001, then more recently, see below you are
saying it was happening as they cam open in May.

>>
>> >> (b) to check the data.
>>
>> > Ah, let's just do that shall we?
>>
>> >> (a) About 90% of the walkways were open in September 1991 in Britain.
>>
>> > Since I specifically stated 2001, what has this to do with my post?
>>
>> I meant 2001. It was in an offical PDF file which I cannot find again,
> with
>> the history of F&MD.

> OK - so *most* of the rights of way were open by Sept 2001, this still has
> nothing to do with my statement that there is a correlation between lack of
> circle building while the blanket bans were in effect, does it? Further I
> pointed out ath there is a correlation between the staged openings of rights
> of way, county by county, and the appearance of the first circles in 2001 in
> those counties corresponding with those openings.

Where is the data?

>>
>> But I am pointing out it could be world wide.

> A point that is quite irrelevant to the discussion though. Blanket bans on
> countryside rights of way were only in place in Britain due to FMD in 2001.
> What influence would these bans have on walking in a field in Canada or New
> Zealand?

Exactly my point. Though NZ is southern hemisphere, the circles
start appearing across nothern hemisphere in May in it was pretty
much the same in 2001 as 2000 or 2002.

>> > The fact remains that the first cropcircles to appear in BRITAIN, were
>> > found and probably created (as per the cropcircle database site) in
>> > late/end of May. Just as the FMD footpath restrictions were being
>> > eased.

It had been a wet season and crops got started late, so so did
circles.

>> Search your database for any country April 2001, there is only one result,
>> and that is an acknowledged art work.

> And this has what to do with my statement about the timing of crop circles
> appearing in May in areas where blanket bans on access to rights of way were
> being eased?

Some might have been arranged by farmers for extra income after the
F&M trouble.
>>
>> They started appearing world over in May.

> As they do each year - but in Britain and specifically England (ie as per my
> initial point) they did not appear in fields that had blanket bans on
> access. They only started to appear after these bans were lifted. At least
> address the point I am making rather than going off on irrelevant tangents.

Data please.

>> That is correlation not proven causation.

> Give reasonable alternatives to my point then. What caused the different
> timing and distribution of circle building in 2001?

Wet season.

The correlation between
> the appearance of circles, county by county, and the lifting of blanket bans
> in those counties, while quite a coincidence, is certainly a compelling
> coincidence. Have you compared the timing and distribution of circles in
> 2001 when the bans were in place and those in 2000 and 2002 when no
> countryside movement bans were in place?

Here are the data of circles, with the 13 May Hampshire one still in
F&M territory. You give the F&M clearance dates for the UK places

May 1 2000 Germany 2002 Germany
May6 2001 Netherlands, 2002 UK-Wiltshire
May 11 2000 Canada
May 13 2001 Germany, UK-Hampshire (still F&M territory)
May 14 2000 Germany Italy Malaysia UK-Kent UK-Wiltshire
May 15 2000 UK-Leicestershire
May 17 2000 Germany 2001 Canada
May 20 2000 Germany UK-Hampshire UK-Avon UK-Wiltshire 2002 Germany
May 22 2000 USA 2001 Italy UK-Dorset USA
May 24 2000 Germany 2001 Germany
May 25 2000 Germany x3 2001 Germany UK-Wiltshire
May 26 2002 Germany
May 27 2000 UK-Hampshire
May 29 2001 UK-Wiltshire UK-Hertsforshire 2002 Canada
May 30 2000 UK-Wiltshire 2001 UK-Wiltshire x2 Yugoslavia 2003 Canada
May 31 2000 UK-Avon UK-Wilthsire 2001 UK-Wiltshire x2

plus in 2000 one in UK-Hampshire on an unknown date.


>> This as per
>> > the cropcircle database site:
>> >
> <http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=x&y=2001&c=UK&l=&k=&m=Apri
> l>
>> > There was nothing to stop croppies flying over at 1500ft plus scouring
>> > for circles.
>>
>> Maybe they misunderstood.

> Maybe, regardless, their statement that they were not able to fly over
> fields to look for circles is untrue. To imply that this is a reasonable
> explanation for the lateness of sightings in 2001 holds much less water than
> my statement that there were not cirlces being made because the people on
> the *ground* who make the circles were banned from entering fields during
> that time.

I don't think there is much statistical difference between the
years, even now I have mentioned weather.

>> > So to claim that there *might* have been circles created before May is
>> > moot, since they can't prove it happened and I can't prove it didn't.
>>
>> You like the correlation, and searching world wide back to Nov 2000 there
> are
>> very few. Just a couple on ice, one reported on ice too thin to walk on.

> What's with these irrelevant tangents? I'm not talking about worldwide, I'm
> talking about the timing and distribution of circle building in England 2001
> and what affect the FMD countryside ban had on it.

They seem to occur all around the world on the same days, sometimes.

May 14, 15 2000 there were 6, then only one till May 20 when another
4 showed world-wide. May 24-25 4
>>
>> Somewhere I read it is admitted that some farmers create them as they get
>> grants for people to come on to their land.

> Then you were misled.
> Farmers do not receive grants for people coming onto their land. Who would
> be giving out these grants by the way?

Perhaps it is stewardship grants for farmers farming in national
parks. More visitors more money?

> Farmers can claim some insurance for vandalism, it does not cover the cost
> of the lost crop. Anecdotally, I have heard that circle builders have
> offered some cash compensation at times, but the farmers lose more in
> damaged crop than they make up in these nonexistent grants.
> About all they can do is ask for an "entry fee" from people who want to
> access their fields to view a circle.

Which they would need after F&M, Though from 20th May 2000 till end
of May there were 7 or 8 in UK and in 2001 from 22 May till end 8.


>> Then the scientific tests should be different.

> What tests are these? Why should they be different? And what has that got
> to do with the farmer anecdote above?

Some look for haematite attracted by magnetic effects. Othe search
for Nitric Oxide formed by extremely short duration electric fields.
Some look for changes in cellular structure.

[Brian Sandle]

Eric Hocking > wrote:
> [sci.g.meteorology dropped from follow-ups]

> "Brian Sandle" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Brian Sandle > wrote:
>> > Eric Hocking > wrote:
>>
>> >> Fine - put forward another explanation for the correlation between
>> >> lifting footpath bans and the late 2001 appearance of circles in
>> >> British crops.
>>
>> http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/database/index.html
>>
>> then go to foot and mouth.
>>
>> 2001 has very similar figures for April as 2000 and 2002.

> Hmm, 3 in April 2000, 0 in April 2001 and 1 in 2002.

Go to the table I have made in the FMD & Cropcircles thread and see
if you think that there is much statistically between 0 and the
average of 1 & 3. for April, given the May picture over those years.

> Noted the 2001 was by an artist. The comments on the next two are amusing
> "Very amateurish looking" and "Fairly rough looking". Must have been
> apprentice aliens trying it out for the first time!

Do the human circle makers improve with experience?

> As you suggested I do in an earlier post, check the data.

Now I have posted the table.

Go also to the
> county news releases on when and where the blanket bans were lifted and then
> have a look at when and where the circles started to appear in 2001.

You might help with that. I already showed
13 May Hampshire -- still in F&M territory.
22 May Dorset
25 May Wiltshire started, but no more for 3 days, then 5 there.
29 May Hertsfordshire



> By limiting yourself to a single resource, you're not getting the whole
> picture and limit the points of view you can put forward. In counter to the
> cropcircleresearch site <http://www.circlemakers.org/> specifically
> http://www.circlemakers.org/totc2001.html for their 2001 round up.


Can't get much out of that.

[Eric Hocking]

"Brian Sandle" > wrote in message
...
> Eric Hocking > wrote:
> > [note sci.geo.meteorology dropped from followups as requested]
> We can go back there and report the results later.
> > "Brian Sandle" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Eric Hocking > wrote:
> >>
> >> > Fine - put forward another explanation for the correlation between
> >> > lifting footpath bans and the late 2001 appearance of circles in
> >> > British crops.
>
> You were saying late 2001, then more recently, see below you are
> saying it was happening as they cam open in May.

Not late 2001, but appeared late in 2001 (as compared to other years).
Perhaps poorly written, but my contention, from my very first post was that
the late(r) appearance in 2001 of the first circles coincided with
county-by-county reopening of access to the countryside.

> >> >> (b) to check the data.
> >> > Ah, let's just do that shall we?
> >> >> (a) About 90% of the walkways were open in September 1991 in
Britain.
> >> > Since I specifically stated 2001, what has this to do with my post?
> >> I meant 2001. It was in an offical PDF file which I cannot find again,
> > with
> >> the history of F&MD.
> > OK - so *most* of the rights of way were open by Sept 2001, this still
has
> > nothing to do with my statement that there is a correlation between lack
of
> > circle building while the blanket bans were in effect, does it? Further
I
> > pointed out ath there is a correlation between the staged openings of
rights
> > of way, county by county, and the appearance of the first circles in
2001 in
> > those counties corresponding with those openings.
>
> Where is the data?

In the crop circle database sightings and the announcements of countryside
access/restriction notices for each of the counties, as well as one of my
first posts giving the Hampshire and Wiltshire examples.

> >> But I am pointing out it could be world wide.
> > A point that is quite irrelevant to the discussion though. Blanket bans
on
> > countryside rights of way were only in place in Britain due to FMD in
2001.
> > What influence would these bans have on walking in a field in Canada or
New
> > Zealand?
> Exactly my point.

?? I ask what influence would UK bans have on the rest of the world and you
answere "Exactly my point"? Care to elaborate on what exactly your point is
wrt to the above?


> Though NZ is southern hemisphere, the circles

What has NZ being in the SHemisphere got to do with circles appearing in the
NH?

> start appearing across nothern hemisphere in May in it was pretty
> much the same in 2001 as 2000 or 2002.

Again - I was specifically talking about England and the effect FMD had on
circles built there. Introducing NZ or other countries to the discussion is
irrelevant to the point as countryside closures due to FMD were not in place
anywhere but the UK. Since you keep introducing this data - can you see any
difference in timing and distribution in the UK that differs in 2001 from
the patterns of other countries?

> >> > The fact remains that the first cropcircles to appear in BRITAIN,
were
> >> > found and probably created (as per the cropcircle database site) in
> >> > late/end of May. Just as the FMD footpath restrictions were being
> >> > eased.
> It had been a wet season and crops got started late, so so did
> circles.

Make up your mind. In your sentence above you state "across nothern
hemisphere in May in it was pretty much the same in 2001 as 2000 or 2002.".

So. Was it pretty much the same? Or was there a late "season"?

> >> Search your database for any country April 2001, there is only one
result,
> >> and that is an acknowledged art work.
> > And this has what to do with my statement about the timing of crop
circles
> > appearing in May in areas where blanket bans on access to rights of way
were
> > being eased?
> Some might have been arranged by farmers for extra income after the
> F&M trouble.

Pure speculation. Do you have a cite for farmers receiving extra income
received in this manner?

> >> They started appearing world over in May.
> > As they do each year - but in Britain and specifically England (ie as
per my
> > initial point) they did not appear in fields that had blanket bans on
> > access. They only started to appear after these bans were lifted. At
least
> > address the point I am making rather than going off on irrelevant
tangents.
>
> Data please.

Hampshire and Wiltshire examples have been provided, complete with URL to
government sources.

> >> That is correlation not proven causation.
> > Give reasonable alternatives to my point then. What caused the
different
> > timing and distribution of circle building in 2001?
> Wet season.

So you *do* agree that there is a difference in the timing and distribution
of circle building in 2001 in England?

> The correlation between
> > the appearance of circles, county by county, and the lifting of blanket
bans
> > in those counties, while quite a coincidence, is certainly a compelling
> > coincidence. Have you compared the timing and distribution of circles
in
> > 2001 when the bans were in place and those in 2000 and 2002 when no
> > countryside movement bans were in place?
> Here are the data of circles, with the 13 May Hampshire one still in
> F&M territory. You give the F&M clearance dates for the UK places

Hampshire never had any cases of FMD and only certain areas were restricted.
You actually cite the circle that I first noted to appear as restrictions
were being lifted in a FMD controlled area. It was noted that the people
from CropCircleResearch were given permission to enter the field. The
restriction in the area was on fields with stock, not crops.
Hampshire was one of the first counties to open up it's footpaths and
started the reassessment in early April.
http://www.hants.gov.uk/cxpuxn/c1659.html
Lastly, the Old Winchester Hill Fort is English Nature land and access from
the road is on paths from that are not on grazed land, but on the nature
reserve. <http://www.hants.gov.uk/maps/paths/su86.html>. While English
Nature closed their reserves, they reviewed their options from early April
as well. While the following list does not include Old Windmill Hill, you
can see that they were reassessing access from that date.
<http://www.english-nature.org.uk/news/story.asp?ID=263>
As you can see the property is also serviced by bridleways that did not have
the same restrictions as footpaths that crosed pasture or grazing land.

> May 1 2000 Germany 2002 Germany
> May6 2001 Netherlands,
> 2002 UK-Wiltshire

Well over by April 2002 - you stated yourself that 90% of paths were open by
September 2001, so no restrictions in 2002.

> May 11 2000 Canada
> May 13 2001 Germany,
> UK-Hampshire (still F&M territory)

Discussed above. Access to the field was being granted.
<http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/database/reports/uk01ab.html>

> May 14 2000 Germany Italy Malaysia UK-Kent UK-Wiltshire
> May 15 2000 UK-Leicestershire
> May 17 2000 Germany 2001 Canada
> May 20 2000 Germany UK-Hampshire UK-Avon UK-Wiltshire 2002 Germany
> May 22 2000 USA 2001 Italy UK-Dorset USA
> May 24 2000 Germany 2001 Germany
> May 25 2000 Germany x3 2001 Germany UK-Wiltshire
> May 26 2002 Germany
> May 27 2000 UK-Hampshire

Of the 26 above, only 9 occur in the UK and of them only 1 appears in 2001?

> May 29 2001 UK-Wiltshire UK-Hertsforshire 2002 Canada
> May 30 2000 UK-Wiltshire 2001 UK-Wiltshire x2 Yugoslavia 2003 Canada
> May 31 2000 UK-Avon UK-Wilthsire 2001 UK-Wiltshire x2

Now - we're late in May (remember my point about the circles appearing late
in 2001 and after FMD restrictions were eased) and a whole plethora of
circles start to burst forward in the UK. Odd that Wiltshire should be one
of the starting points, the fact is it's the epicentre of the "phenomena"
and as I pointed out in my first post, the Hampshire and Wiltshire circles
were the first to appear for 2001 and this coincided with the easing of FMD
restrictions in those areas.

> plus in 2000 one in UK-Hampshire on an unknown date.
> >> This as per
> >> > the cropcircle database site:
> >
<http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=x&y=2001&c=UK&l=&k=&m=Apri
> > l>
> >> > There was nothing to stop croppies flying over at 1500ft plus
scouring
> >> > for circles.
> >> Maybe they misunderstood.
> > Maybe, regardless, their statement that they were not able to fly over
> > fields to look for circles is untrue. To imply that this is a
reasonable
> > explanation for the lateness of sightings in 2001 holds much less water
than
> > my statement that there were not cirlces being made because the people
on
> > the *ground* who make the circles were banned from entering fields
during
> > that time.
>
> I don't think there is much statistical difference between the

If you are to merely take gross number built, no, but if you look closer at
the timing and distribution there is.

> years, even now I have mentioned weather.

This only after I provided the crop builders site who mentioned weather in
their 2001 review. In 2002 and 2000 tey point out that April is always a
"sedate start".

> > What's with these irrelevant tangents? I'm not talking about worldwide,
I'm
> > talking about the timing and distribution of circle building in England
2001
> > and what affect the FMD countryside ban had on it.
>
> They seem to occur all around the world on the same days, sometimes.

But not in the UK in 2001. That is the whole point, thank you for
underlining that for me.

> May 14, 15 2000 there were 6, then only one till May 20 when another
> 4 showed world-wide. May 24-25 4

So far you have admitted that:

a. There is a difference in the timing of the appearance of circles in the
UK in 2001 (weather you say)
b. There is no statistical difference between the years.

Which is it?

> >> Somewhere I read it is admitted that some farmers create them as they
get
> >> grants for people to come on to their land.
> > Then you were misled.
> > Farmers do not receive grants for people coming onto their land. Who
would
> > be giving out these grants by the way?
>
> Perhaps it is stewardship grants for farmers farming in national
> parks. More visitors more money?

Speculation - please provide a cite. The stewardship scheme is for farmers
to set aside more land NOT to have crops on.
<http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2002/021107b.htm>. And certainly the
government would not be coughing up cash to pay for vandalised crops.

> > Farmers can claim some insurance for vandalism, it does not cover the
cost
> > of the lost crop. Anecdotally, I have heard that circle builders have
> > offered some cash compensation at times, but the farmers lose more in
> > damaged crop than they make up in these nonexistent grants.
> > About all they can do is ask for an "entry fee" from people who want to
> > access their fields to view a circle.
>
> Which they would need after F&M,

What would who need after F&M? Entry fees to their fields? This
practically always takes the form of an honour box - it would hardly cover
the crop loss.

> Though from 20th May 2000 till end
> of May there were 7 or 8 in UK and in 2001 from 22 May till end 8.

It's also important to look at *where* they were, not just the number for a
month.

> >> Then the scientific tests should be different.
> > What tests are these? Why should they be different? And what has that
got
> > to do with the farmer anecdote above?
>
> Some look for haematite attracted by magnetic effects. Othe search
> for Nitric Oxide formed by extremely short duration electric fields.
> Some look for changes in cellular structure.

OK, but that only answered my first question. You said the tests should be
different - why?

--
Eric Hocking
www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Attempting spam blocking - remove upper case to reply.

[Eric Hocking]

"Brian Sandle" > wrote in message
...
> Eric Hocking > wrote:
> > [sci.g.meteorology dropped from follow-ups]
> > "Brian Sandle" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Brian Sandle > wrote:
> >> > Eric Hocking > wrote:
> >> >> Fine - put forward another explanation for the correlation between
> >> >> lifting footpath bans and the late 2001 appearance of circles in
> >> >> British crops.
> >>
> >> http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/database/index.html
> >>
> >> then go to foot and mouth.
> >>
> >> 2001 has very similar figures for April as 2000 and 2002.
>
> > Hmm, 3 in April 2000, 0 in April 2001 and 1 in 2002.
>
> Go to the table I have made in the FMD & Cropcircles thread and see
> if you think that there is much statistically between 0 and the
> average of 1 & 3. for April, given the May picture over those years.

I addressed it there. So you are saying that there is NO statistical
difference between the years?

> > Noted the 2001 was by an artist. The comments on the next two are
amusing
> > "Very amateurish looking" and "Fairly rough looking". Must have been
> > apprentice aliens trying it out for the first time!
>
> Do the human circle makers improve with experience?

The designs have certainly become more elaborate over the years, so, yes.

> > As you suggested I do in an earlier post, check the data.
> Now I have posted the table.

Which I have addressed.

> Go also to the
> > county news releases on when and where the blanket bans were lifted and
then
> > have a look at when and where the circles started to appear in 2001.
>
> You might help with that. I already showed
> 13 May Hampshire -- still in F&M territory.

Not this particular one, no, it was not in a controlled area in Hampshire at
the time.

> 22 May Dorset

Next to Bournemouth International Airport - where there are no footpaths
needed to access the field, only a main road.

> 25 May Wiltshire started, but no more for 3 days, then 5 there.

This was below the Pewsey White Horse which also does not require footpath
access as the field is next to a road.

> 29 May Hertsfordshire

Again, in a field next to the B655 - no footpath access required.

> > By limiting yourself to a single resource, you're not getting the whole
> > picture and limit the points of view you can put forward. In counter to
the
> > cropcircleresearch site <http://www.circlemakers.org/> specifically
> > http://www.circlemakers.org/totc2001.html for their 2001 round up.
>
> Can't get much out of that.

You got your weather argument out of it - unfortunately this disagrees with
your contention that there is NO difference between 2001 and the years
preceding and following it.

--
Eric Hocking
www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Attempting spam blocking - remove upper case to reply.

[Brian Sandle]

Eric Hocking > wrote:
> "Brian Sandle" > wrote in message

> I
>> > pointed out ath there is a correlation between the staged openings of
> rights
>> > of way, county by county, and the appearance of the first circles in
> 2001 in
>> > those counties corresponding with those openings.
>>
>> Where is the data?

> In the crop circle database sightings and the announcements of countryside
> access/restriction notices for each of the counties, as well as one of my
> first posts giving the Hampshire and Wiltshire examples.

From your refs I only find the FP, BY, BR areas reopened Apr 11. Not the SU
area for the 11 May Hampshire circle.


>> >> But I am pointing out it could be world wide.
>> > A point that is quite irrelevant to the discussion though. Blanket bans
> on
>> > countryside rights of way were only in place in Britain due to FMD in
> 2001.
>> > What influence would these bans have on walking in a field in Canada or
> New
>> > Zealand?
>> Exactly my point.

> ?? I ask what influence would UK bans have on the rest of the world and you
> answere "Exactly my point"? Care to elaborate on what exactly your point is
> wrt to the above?

That there is something other than the bans going on.


>> Though NZ is southern hemisphere, the circles

> What has NZ being in the SHemisphere got to do with circles appearing in the
> NH?

YOU brought up NZ.

>> start appearing across nothern hemisphere in May in it was pretty
>> much the same in 2001 as 2000 or 2002.

> Again - I was specifically talking about England and the effect FMD had on
> circles built there. Introducing NZ or other countries to the discussion is
> irrelevant to the point as countryside closures due to FMD were not in place
> anywhere but the UK. Since you keep introducing this data - can you see any
> difference in timing and distribution in the UK that differs in 2001 from
> the patterns of other countries?

UK has always had a few more.

In 2001
May 22: 3 show from around the world. Italy, UK-Dorset, USA.
May 23: 0
May 24: Germany
May 25: 2 from around the world Germany, UK-Wiltshire
May 26: 0
May 27: 0
May 28: 0
May 29: 2 from UK, Wiltshire, Hertsfordshire
May 30: 3 from around world, UK-Wiltshire x2 (1 more than last year), Yugoslavia
May 31: 2 from UK-Wiltshire, same as last year.

There were none on May 29 in 2000, but 2000 had one on May 27 and 3 on May
20.

There was one indeterminate date in 2000, so from May 20 2000 to May 31 2000
there were 7 or 8 in UK.

From May 22 2001 to May 31 2001 there were 9 in UK.

Taking the small sample size I do not see any statistically significant
difference.

In 2001 from May 22 to May 31, only on one day did just one appear (Germany)
Either there were none (4 days) or two or more (5 days)

>> >> > The fact remains that the first cropcircles to appear in BRITAIN,
> were
>> >> > found and probably created (as per the cropcircle database site) in
>> >> > late/end of May. Just as the FMD footpath restrictions were being
>> >> > eased.
>> It had been a wet season and crops got started late, so so did
>> circles.

> Make up your mind. In your sentence above you state "across nothern
> hemisphere in May in it was pretty much the same in 2001 as 2000 or 2002.".

> So. Was it pretty much the same? Or was there a late "season"?

I wrote that before checking the actual dates. I do not see much difference
now.

>> >> Search your database for any country April 2001, there is only one
> result,
>> >> and that is an acknowledged art work.
>> > And this has what to do with my statement about the timing of crop
> circles
>> > appearing in May in areas where blanket bans on access to rights of way
> were
>> > being eased?
>> Some might have been arranged by farmers for extra income after the
>> F&M trouble.

> Pure speculation. Do you have a cite for farmers receiving extra income
> received in this manner?

Actually from your ref:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/newsrel/2001/010227d.htm
**************
Farmers who provide access for the general public to their farmland under the
MAFF "green schemes" - the Countryside Stewardship Scheme, the
Environmentally Sensitive Areas Scheme and the Countryside Access Scheme
-will not be expected to provide access during the present situation.
[...]
Under the Countryside Stewardship, Environmentally Sensitive Areas and
Countryside Access Schemes, farmers and other land managers receive payments
to provide access to their land for the general public. At present there are
around 1,500 agreements under these Schemes which together provide over 700
miles of permissive footpaths and over 14,000 hectares of open access,
principally to farmland.
**************

Couldn't remember where I had read it!

>> >> They started appearing world over in May.
>> > As they do each year - but in Britain and specifically England (ie as
> per my
>> > initial point) they did not appear in fields that had blanket bans on
>> > access. They only started to appear after these bans were lifted. At
> least
>> > address the point I am making rather than going off on irrelevant
> tangents.
>>
>> Data please.

> Hampshire and Wiltshire examples have been provided, complete with URL to
> government sources.

I can only see restrictions being removed on April 11.

>> >> That is correlation not proven causation.
>> > Give reasonable alternatives to my point then. What caused the
> different
>> > timing and distribution of circle building in 2001?
>> Wet season.

> So you *do* agree that there is a difference in the timing and distribution
> of circle building in 2001 in England?

I thought there might be a couple of days shift, but now I don't think there
is a really significant shift.

>> The correlation between
>> > the appearance of circles, county by county, and the lifting of blanket
> bans
>> > in those counties, while quite a coincidence, is certainly a compelling
>> > coincidence. Have you compared the timing and distribution of circles
> in
>> > 2001 when the bans were in place and those in 2000 and 2002 when no
>> > countryside movement bans were in place?
>> Here are the data of circles, with the 13 May Hampshire one still in
>> F&M territory. You give the F&M clearance dates for the UK places

> Hampshire never had any cases of FMD and only certain areas were restricted.
> You actually cite the circle that I first noted to appear as restrictions
> were being lifted in a FMD controlled area.

In Hampshire. How did it relate map-co-ordinate-wise, to restriction?

It was noted that the people
> from CropCircleResearch were given permission to enter the field.

"The field was taped off as Foot and Mouth precautions still operate in
Hampshire despite not having had any cases so far during the outbreak."

The
> restriction in the area was on fields with stock, not crops.
> Hampshire was one of the first counties to open up it's footpaths and
> started the reassessment in early April.
> http://www.hants.gov.uk/cxpuxn/c1659.html

"Although Hampshire has no confirmed cases of Foot and Mouth disease, certain
areas are subject to infected area status, because of outbreaks in
neighbouring counties. These areas will not be eligible for re-opening until
restrictions are lifted in full.

In addition, all rural paths which continue to carry an official closed sign
remain closed until further notice."

Doesn't that mean a `taped off area'?

> Lastly, the Old Winchester Hill Fort is English Nature land and access from
> the road is on paths from that are not on grazed land, but on the nature
> reserve. <http://www.hants.gov.uk/maps/paths/su86.html>. While English
> Nature closed their reserves, they reviewed their options from early April
^^^^^^^^^^^
not May.

> as well. While the following list does not include Old Windmill Hill, you
> can see that they were reassessing access from that date.
> <http://www.english-nature.org.uk/news/story.asp?ID=263>

April?

> As you can see the property is also serviced by bridleways that did not have
> the same restrictions as footpaths that crosed pasture or grazing land.

No I can't.

>> May 1 2000 Germany 2002 Germany
>> May6 2001 Netherlands,
>> 2002 UK-Wiltshire

> Well over by April 2002 - you stated yourself that 90% of paths were open by
> September 2001, so no restrictions in 2002.

>> May 11 2000 Canada
>> May 13 2001 Germany,
>> UK-Hampshire (still F&M territory)

> Discussed above. Access to the field was being granted.
> <http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/database/reports/uk01ab.html>

>> May 14 2000 Germany Italy Malaysia UK-Kent UK-Wiltshire
>> May 15 2000 UK-Leicestershire
>> May 17 2000 Germany 2001 Canada
>> May 20 2000 Germany UK-Hampshire UK-Avon UK-Wiltshire 2002 Germany
>> May 22 2000 USA 2001 Italy UK-Dorset USA
>> May 24 2000 Germany 2001 Germany
>> May 25 2000 Germany x3 2001 Germany UK-Wiltshire
>> May 26 2002 Germany
>> May 27 2000 UK-Hampshire

> Of the 26 above, only 9 occur in the UK and of them only 1 appears in 2001?

>> May 29 2001 UK-Wiltshire UK-Hertsforshire 2002 Canada
>> May 30 2000 UK-Wiltshire 2001 UK-Wiltshire x2 Yugoslavia 2003 Canada
>> May 31 2000 UK-Avon UK-Wilthsire 2001 UK-Wiltshire x2

> Now - we're late in May (remember my point about the circles appearing late
> in 2001 and after FMD restrictions were eased) and a whole plethora of
> circles start to burst forward in the UK. Odd that Wiltshire should be one
> of the starting points, the fact is it's the epicentre of the "phenomena"
> and as I pointed out in my first post, the Hampshire and Wiltshire circles
> were the first to appear for 2001 and this coincided with the easing of FMD
> restrictions in those areas.

I don't figure that. Restrictions were coming off in April.

There were 6 in Wiltshire in 2001, 4 in 2001, 1 in 2002. Statistically it
says nothing significant.

>> plus in 2000 one in UK-Hampshire on an unknown date.
>> >> This as per
>> >> > the cropcircle database site:
>> >
> <http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cgi-bin/CCdb?d=x&y=2001&c=UK&l=&k=&m=Apri
>> > l>
>> >> > There was nothing to stop croppies flying over at 1500ft plus
> scouring
>> >> > for circles.
>> >> Maybe they misunderstood.
>> > Maybe, regardless, their statement that they were not able to fly over
>> > fields to look for circles is untrue. To imply that this is a
> reasonable
>> > explanation for the lateness of sightings in 2001 holds much less water
> than
>> > my statement that there were not cirlces being made because the people
> on
>> > the *ground* who make the circles were banned from entering fields
> during
>> > that time.
>>
>> I don't think there is much statistical difference between the

> If you are to merely take gross number built, no, but if you look closer at
> the timing and distribution there is.

Restrictions off in April and a couple extra in Wiltshire at the end of May.


>> years, even now I have mentioned weather.

> This only after I provided the crop builders site who mentioned weather in
> their 2001 review.

Bit misleading, as other things about their site.

In 2002 and 2000 tey point out that April is always a
> "sedate start".



>> > What's with these irrelevant tangents? I'm not talking about worldwide,
> I'm
>> > talking about the timing and distribution of circle building in England
> 2001
>> > and what affect the FMD countryside ban had on it.
>>
>> They seem to occur all around the world on the same days, sometimes.

> But not in the UK in 2001. That is the whole point, thank you for
> underlining that for me.

Also 2 occurred on May 31 in 2000 in UK, wihtout occurring in any other
country. But 2002 was rather thin. So no significant effect.

>> May 14, 15 2000 there were 6, then only one till May 20 when another
>> 4 showed world-wide. May 24-25 4

> So far you have admitted that:

> a. There is a difference in the timing of the appearance of circles in the
> UK in 2001 (weather you say)

Changed mind.

> b. There is no statistical difference between the years.

> Which is it?

I still do see see any significant difference.

>> >> Somewhere I read it is admitted that some farmers create them as they
> get
>> >> grants for people to come on to their land.
>> > Then you were misled.
>> > Farmers do not receive grants for people coming onto their land. Who
> would
>> > be giving out these grants by the way?
>>
>> Perhaps it is stewardship grants for farmers farming in national
>> parks. More visitors more money?

> Speculation - please provide a cite. The stewardship scheme is for farmers
> to set aside more land NOT to have crops on.
> <http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2002/021107b.htm>. And certainly the
> government would not be coughing up cash to pay for vandalised crops.

'Under the Countryside Stewardship, Environmentally Sensitive Areas and
Countryside Access Schemes, farmers and other land managers receive payments
to provide access to their land for the general public. At present there are
around 1,500 agreements under these Schemes which together provide over 700
miles of permissive footpaths and over 14,000 hectares of open access,
principally to farmland.'

So how is funding calculated?


>> > Farmers can claim some insurance for vandalism, it does not cover the
> cost
>> > of the lost crop. Anecdotally, I have heard that circle builders have
>> > offered some cash compensation at times, but the farmers lose more in
>> > damaged crop than they make up in these nonexistent grants.
>> > About all they can do is ask for an "entry fee" from people who want to
>> > access their fields to view a circle.
>>
>> Which they would need after F&M,

> What would who need after F&M? Entry fees to their fields? This
> practically always takes the form of an honour box - it would hardly cover
> the crop loss.

Unless they could then claim they had had public on their land.

>> Though from 20th May 2000 till end
>> of May there were 7 or 8 in UK and in 2001 from 22 May till end 8.

> It's also important to look at *where* they were, not just the number for a
> month.

Covered.

>> >> Then the scientific tests should be different.
>> > What tests are these? Why should they be different? And what has that
> got
>> > to do with the farmer anecdote above?
>>
>> Some look for haematite attracted by magnetic effects. Othe search
>> for Nitric Oxide formed by extremely short duration electric fields.
>> Some look for changes in cellular structure.

> OK, but that only answered my first question. You said the tests should be
> different - why?

Show if the crops were the work of hoaxsters or not.

[Eric Hocking]

"Brian Sandle" > wrote in message
...
> Eric Hocking > wrote:
> > "Brian Sandle" > wrote in message
> > I
> >> > pointed out ath there is a correlation between the staged openings of
> > rights
> >> > of way, county by county, and the appearance of the first circles in
> > 2001 in
> >> > those counties corresponding with those openings.
> >> Where is the data?
> > In the crop circle database sightings and the announcements of
countryside
> > access/restriction notices for each of the counties, as well as one of
my
> > first posts giving the Hampshire and Wiltshire examples.
>
> From your refs I only find the FP, BY, BR areas reopened Apr 11. Not the
SU
> area for the 11 May Hampshire circle.

You ignored my other post that points out that the Hampshire site is not on
farmland, but on an English Nature reserve, accessed from the road by a path
on their property and not a footpath. Note the conditions from the county
council on this <http://www.hants.gov.uk/hcc/emergency/scudamore.html>

> >> >> But I am pointing out it could be world wide.
> >> > A point that is quite irrelevant to the discussion though. Blanket
bans
> > on
> >> > countryside rights of way were only in place in Britain due to FMD in
> > 2001.
> >> > What influence would these bans have on walking in a field in Canada
or
> > New
> >> > Zealand?
> >> Exactly my point.
> > ?? I ask what influence would UK bans have on the rest of the world and
you
> > answere "Exactly my point"? Care to elaborate on what exactly your
point is
> > wrt to the above?
>
> That there is something other than the bans going on.

You call that elaboration do you. "something" is going on. Care to
speculate and provide cites for your counter-argument?

> >> Though NZ is southern hemisphere, the circles
> > What has NZ being in the SHemisphere got to do with circles appearing in
the
> > NH?
> YOU brought up NZ.

And you realise full well that it was in response to your continued
introduction of the "worldwide" discussion, where I have persistently
reminded you that I am discussing the UK and FMD specifically. I could have
just as readily said "the price of tea in China".

> >> start appearing across nothern hemisphere in May in it was pretty
> >> much the same in 2001 as 2000 or 2002.
> > Again - I was specifically talking about England and the effect FMD had
on
> > circles built there. Introducing NZ or other countries to the
discussion is
> > irrelevant to the point as countryside closures due to FMD were not in
place
> > anywhere but the UK. Since you keep introducing this data - can you see
any
> > difference in timing and distribution in the UK that differs in 2001
from
> > the patterns of other countries?
> UK has always had a few more.

That, as you well know, is not the point and I've pointed it out in just
about every post so far. It is not the number, but the
timing and distribution of the appearance of circles that is being
discussed.

> In 2001
> May 22: 3 show from around the world. Italy, UK-Dorset, USA.

Next to the B road running past the airport - no footpath access required.

> May 23: 0
> May 24: Germany
> May 25: 2 from around the world Germany, UK-Wiltshire

This was below the Pewsey White Horse which also does not require footpath
access as the field is next to a road.

> May 26: 0
> May 27: 0
> May 28: 0
> May 29: 2 from UK, Wiltshire, Hertsfordshire

Again, in a field next to the B655 - no footpath access required

> May 30: 3 from around world, UK-Wiltshire x2 (1 more than last year),

Both in a field opposite The Barge Inn. Not an insignificant point. Also -
footpath access not needed either from the road or the canal.

> Yugoslavia
> May 31: 2 from UK-Wiltshire, same as last year.

The bug? <http://home.clara.net/lucypringle/photos/2001/uk01aj.html#pic2> .
You'll notice the road running past the field - not footpath access
required. Can't find the second one

> There were none on May 29 in 2000, but 2000 had one on May 27 and 3 on May
> 20.
> There was one indeterminate date in 2000, so from May 20 2000 to May 31
2000
> there were 7 or 8 in UK.
> From May 22 2001 to May 31 2001 there were 9 in UK.
> Taking the small sample size I do not see any statistically significant
> difference.

I'll repeat - the total number is not the issue. Look at the location
difference between the years and then consider footpath access in 2001.

> In 2001 from May 22 to May 31, only on one day did just one appear
(Germany)
> Either there were none (4 days) or two or more (5 days)
>
> >> >> > The fact remains that the first cropcircles to appear in BRITAIN,
> > were
> >> >> > found and probably created (as per the cropcircle database site)
in
> >> >> > late/end of May. Just as the FMD footpath restrictions were being
> >> >> > eased.
> >> It had been a wet season and crops got started late, so so did
> >> circles.
>
> > Make up your mind. In your sentence above you state "across nothern
> > hemisphere in May in it was pretty much the same in 2001 as 2000 or
2002.".
>
> > So. Was it pretty much the same? Or was there a late "season"?
>
> I wrote that before checking the actual dates. I do not see much
difference
> now.

Oh, so now that your contradiction has been pointed out, you are dropping
one of your pieces of evidence? The fact is, it was a wet winter, you might
have been onto something there - oh, but this would require you to not see
the correlation. Odd that you're not so dismissive of the importance of
correlations when they suit you. Shuttle and ozone come to mind.

OK, so we can dismiss a wet winter as a possible cause for the lack of
appearances of circles in FMD restricted areas?

<snip>
> >> Some might have been arranged by farmers for extra income after the
> >> F&M trouble.
> > Pure speculation. Do you have a cite for farmers receiving extra income
> > received in this manner?
> Actually from your ref:
> http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/newsrel/2001/010227d.htm
> **************
> Farmers who provide access for the general public to their farmland under
the
> MAFF "green schemes" - the Countryside Stewardship Scheme, the
> Environmentally Sensitive Areas Scheme and the Countryside Access Scheme
> -will not be expected to provide access during the present situation.
<snip for space only>

> Couldn't remember where I had read it!

These are 10 year agreements.
<http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/schemes/css/default.htm>
"Farmers and land managers enter 10-year agreements to manage land in an
environmentally beneficial way in return for annual payments. Grants are
also available towards capital works such as hedge laying and planting,
repairing dry stone walls, etc."

An "attendence record" is not a requirement and the amount of the grant is
not dependent on the number of visitors that might access their land under
these schemes, as was you initial contention. Read the conditions on the
application form, especially those on page 53 that relate to the necessary
records required by a farmer;
<http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/regulat/forms/erdp/css/info-apply03.pdf>
"You must record all the management that has been carried out such as hay
cutting dates and stocking levels, and details of pesticide and fertiliser
applications. You must also keep relevant records such as receipted
invoices. Defra may ask to see these during inspections and may take
copies." Nothing about visitor records required. Also see 'Force Majeure'
on page 55 which protects the farmer in the case of a breach of the
conditions which specifically waives these conditions of application where,
"... a breach is due to things beyond your control, that could not have been
avoided by reasonable action, sanctions may not be imposed providing your
local Defra office is notified in writing within ten working days of you, or
your representative, being in a position to do so.
Examples of 'force majeure' are:
[...]
an epizootic (such as foot and mouth disease)
affecting part or all the agreement holder's livestock."

So. No incentive for a farmer to prop up his income to cover FMD as any
scheme
is protected from that impact.

> >> >> They started appearing world over in May.
> >> > As they do each year - but in Britain and specifically England (ie as
> > per my
> >> > initial point) they did not appear in fields that had blanket bans on
> >> > access. They only started to appear after these bans were lifted.
At
> > least
> >> > address the point I am making rather than going off on irrelevant
> > tangents.
> >>
> >> Data please.
>
> > Hampshire and Wiltshire examples have been provided, complete with URL
to
> > government sources.
>
> I can only see restrictions being removed on April 11.

These have been discussed in at least two previous posts. Check the news
announcement archives at both of these counties' websites to see the
progressive opening of the countyside in 2001. But for these two - no
footpath access required (fo the 3rd time).

> >> >> That is correlation not proven causation.
> >> > Give reasonable alternatives to my point then. What caused the
> > different
> >> > timing and distribution of circle building in 2001?
> >> Wet season.
> > So you *do* agree that there is a difference in the timing and
distribution
> > of circle building in 2001 in England?
> I thought there might be a couple of days shift, but now I don't think
there
> is a really significant shift.

It's not just the timing, but the distribution. The ones that *do* turn up
in areas that had FMD restrictions on access paths to them, do so only after
these restrictions have been lifted.

<snip>
> >> Here are the data of circles, with the 13 May Hampshire one still in
> >> F&M territory. You give the F&M clearance dates for the UK places
> > Hampshire never had any cases of FMD and only certain areas were
restricted.
> > You actually cite the circle that I first noted to appear as
restrictions
> > were being lifted in a FMD controlled area.
> In Hampshire. How did it relate map-co-ordinate-wise, to restriction?

Since you state that this circle was in F&M territory - you back your
statement. I've put my case on this one at least three times.

> It was noted that the people
> > from CropCircleResearch were given permission to enter the field.
> "The field was taped off as Foot and Mouth precautions still operate in
> Hampshire despite not having had any cases so far during the outbreak."

With all due respect to them - they "misunderstood" the restriction on
flying over these fields as well, claiming this to be a reason for the
lateness of teh 2001 season.

From the Hampshire County:
http://www.hants.gov.uk/cxpuxn/c1719.html 10 May 2001
At the beginning of April the County Council adopted a strategy for the
gradual re-opening of paths and countryside sites following individual risk
assessments. Almost 20% of the rights of way network and the majority of
countryside sites are already open. Six out of seven of the Council's major
country parks are also open and remaining restrictions relate directly to
grazing livestock.
[... Note the point about fields for *livestock*]

Now have a look at the field. Next to a road and bordering the English
Nature Reserve (a major country park?). No footpath access required and no
livestock in the field, therefore no necessity for the ban to remain. The
fact that the farmer let them into the field supports the fact that access
limitations had been lifted in this area.

In any case, the circle research people are undecided on it's origins, "We
were left with contradictory findings and therefore I feel unable to give an
opinion." So if it doesn't show "clear signs" (by their definition) - does
this one count? Or perhaps it's manmade?

> The
> > restriction in the area was on fields with stock, not crops.
> > Hampshire was one of the first counties to open up it's footpaths and
> > started the reassessment in early April.
> > http://www.hants.gov.uk/cxpuxn/c1659.html
> "Although Hampshire has no confirmed cases of Foot and Mouth disease,
certain
> areas are subject to infected area status, because of outbreaks in
> neighbouring counties. These areas will not be eligible for re-opening
until
> restrictions are lifted in full.
> In addition, all rural paths which continue to carry an official closed
sign
> remain closed until further notice."
> Doesn't that mean a `taped off area'?

Nothis relates directly to signed footpaths and fields with stock in them.
Just as it states. See the statement from the 10th for further elaboration
on the conditions.

> > Lastly, the Old Winchester Hill Fort is English Nature land and access
from
> > the road is on paths from that are not on grazed land, but on the nature
> > reserve. <http://www.hants.gov.uk/maps/paths/su86.html>. While English
> > Nature closed their reserves, they reviewed their options from early
April
^^^^^^^^^^^
> not May.
> > as well. While the following list does not include Old Windmill Hill,
you
> > can see that they were reassessing access from that date.
> > <http://www.english-nature.org.uk/news/story.asp?ID=263>
> April?

Yes, April was when Hampshire council started reviewing the ban status in a
county that had not one outbreak of FMD.
The status of that at May 10 can be found in my link above.

> > As you can see the property is also serviced by bridleways that did not
have
> > the same restrictions as footpaths that crosed pasture or grazing land.
> No I can't.

You looked at the map I quoted then?<
http://www.hants.gov.uk/maps/paths/su86.html> It clearly shows the
bridleways in green. This aerial photo also shows the proximity to the road
<http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/database/p/uk01ab3.jpg> and this one,
<http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/database/p/uk01ab.jpg> , the wooded area,
likely to be the NNR. Although this map from English Nature is pretty
terrible, it shows the extent of the woods in relationship to the bridleways
(red on this map)
<http://www.english-nature.org.uk/about/teams/team_photo/winchesterhill.pdf>

Can you see it now?

<snip your list, as you don't seem to want to discuss it>

> > Now - we're late in May (remember my point about the circles appearing
late
> > in 2001 and after FMD restrictions were eased) and a whole plethora of
> > circles start to burst forward in the UK. Odd that Wiltshire should be
one
> > of the starting points, the fact is it's the epicentre of the
"phenomena"
> > and as I pointed out in my first post, the Hampshire and Wiltshire
circles
> > were the first to appear for 2001 and this coincided with the easing of
FMD
> > restrictions in those areas.
>
> I don't figure that. Restrictions were coming off in April.

They were reviewed and begun to be eased in April, yes.
And as they progressively were eased, circles started to appear in the areas
where restrictions were lifted.

> There were 6 in Wiltshire in 2001, 4 in 2001, 1 in 2002. Statistically it
> says nothing significant.

Because, as you have all the way through this discussion, you ignore the
*location* of them.
If I have 4 fields, each of which had a circle made in 2000, then in 2001 3
of them were closed but 4 circles were built in the remaining one,
statistically, there is no significant difference. That, is my point in a
nutshell. Address the location and restrictions on those locations - not
just the total number. Much as if I lay with head out of the door in the
snow and my feet in a lit fireplace, on average, I'm comfortable.

<snip>
> > If you are to merely take gross number built, no, but if you look
closer at
> > the timing and distribution there is.
>
> Restrictions off in April and a couple extra in Wiltshire at the end of
May.

As I said - look closer at the timing and distribution. Examples have been
given

> >> years, even now I have mentioned weather.
> > This only after I provided the crop builders site who mentioned weather
in
> > their 2001 review.
> Bit misleading, as other things about their site.

A bit like the Research team misunderstanding the overflight laws during the
FMD restrictions?
I take it, then, that you don't think weather had any affect on the crops in
2001.

<snip>
> >> They seem to occur all around the world on the same days, sometimes.
> > But not in the UK in 2001. That is the whole point, thank you for
> > underlining that for me.
>
> Also 2 occurred on May 31 in 2000 in UK, wihtout occurring in any other
> country. But 2002 was rather thin. So no significant effect.

Unless you observe also that although the UK circles occur on the same date,
they didn't occur in the same place. One not even in the same county - so
there is not an established pattern being established in your example, only
a coincidence of dates.

> >> May 14, 15 2000 there were 6, then only one till May 20 when another
> >> 4 showed world-wide. May 24-25 4
> > So far you have admitted that:
> > a. There is a difference in the timing of the appearance of circles in
the
> > UK in 2001 (weather you say)
>
> Changed mind.

Once the contradiction was pointed out. It seemed like a good counter
argument to my points up until then.

> > b. There is no statistical difference between the years.
> > Which is it?
> I still do see see any significant difference.

Then do as I have done, and compare the location and timing of circles
between 2000 and 2002 for the UK. Wiltshire is your best bet as it has the
largest set to compare to and is annually the most significantly active area
for the UK.

> >> >> Somewhere I read it is admitted that some farmers create them as
they
> > get
> >> >> grants for people to come on to their land.
> >> > Then you were misled.
> >> > Farmers do not receive grants for people coming onto their land. Who
<snip>
> > <http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2002/021107b.htm>. And certainly the
> > government would not be coughing up cash to pay for vandalised crops.
> 'Under the Countryside Stewardship, Environmentally Sensitive Areas and
> Countryside Access Schemes, farmers and other land managers receive
payments
> to provide access to their land for the general public. At present there
are
> around 1,500 agreements under these Schemes which together provide over
700
> miles of permissive footpaths and over 14,000 hectares of open access,
> principally to farmland.'
> So how is funding calculated?

I've provided that earlier in this post.

<snip>
> > What would who need after F&M? Entry fees to their fields? This
> > practically always takes the form of an honour box - it would hardly
cover
> > the crop loss.
> Unless they could then claim they had had public on their land.

Uh, what has farmers claiming they had had [the] public on their land got to
do with grant schemes or crop damage compensation/insurance claims.

> >> Though from 20th May 2000 till end
> >> of May there were 7 or 8 in UK and in 2001 from 22 May till end 8.
> > It's also important to look at *where* they were, not just the number
for a
> > month.
> Covered.

I think so. Problem is, you keep harping on about total number and don't
address the location of the 2001 circles with relation to FMD.

<snip>
> >> Some look for haematite attracted by magnetic effects. Othe search
> >> for Nitric Oxide formed by extremely short duration electric fields.
> >> Some look for changes in cellular structure.
> > OK, but that only answered my first question. You said the tests should
be
> > different - why?
>
> Show if the crops were the work of hoaxsters or not.

See this is where we have our greatest problem with not seeing the trend
here. You start out with the premise that circles are not manmade, and I do
not. Occam's Razor and all that:

1. Circles are man made. Demonstrated and admitted to by many people.
Proponents accept that "some" circles are "hoaxers", ie man made.
2. Circles are created by visitors from other planets, vortices,
magnetic/electicronic/electric pulses etc. No evidence for which which has
been proven.

I go for the more prosaic answer - 1.
That'd explain why FMD restrictions may have affected the distribution and
timing of UK circles built in 2001.

Look at the distribution in the Wiltshire set (SU grid references), month by
month. Put them side by side on a timeline. There's a shift - I've
proposed an explanation.

--
Eric Hocking
www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Attempting spam blocking - remove upper case to reply.

[Brian Sandle]

Eric Hocking > wrote:
[..]

How about you do a nice little table of when and where crop circles
appeared in UK with the dates that restrictions were lifted, as that is
your claim and it is a bit hard to look up. Then we can try to decide what
percentage level of significance can be attached to any correlation in the
data set, given the amount of data.

[Eric Hocking]

"Brian Sandle" > wrote in message
...
> Eric Hocking > wrote:
> [..]

Wow, that's a great deal of discussion you've decided to ignore there.

> How about you do a nice little table of when and where crop circles
> appeared in UK with the dates that restrictions were lifted, as that is
> your claim and it is a bit hard to look up. Then we can try to decide what
> percentage level of significance can be attached to any correlation in the
> data set, given the amount of data.

I had this discussion back when it when it happened, often with the
cropcircleresearcher site hosts and contributors themselves. You think I've
not already charted this data and had this discussion over 2 years ago?

I'm not going to be dragged, yet again, into a discussion only to have it
culminate with the entire post being deleted and ignored. I smacks too much
of the blinkered approach by "believers" of ignoring facts that they don't
like (remember the weather?).

Two examples below, descriptions from the UK database, summing up why I
think it's next to pointless discussing this subject "scientifically" with
proponents of non-humans being circle builders.

1: The word 'Sexsmith' within a circle - presumably made as a hoax to
promote the Canadian rock singer of the same name?
2. A series of letters, forming the word 'COCK' - presumably indicating it's
status as a hoax."

Now there's scientific, unbiased analysis if ever I saw it.

--
Eric Hocking
www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Attempting spam blocking - remove upper case to reply.

[Brian Sandle]

Eric Hocking > wrote:
> "Brian Sandle" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Eric Hocking > wrote:
>> [..]

> Wow, that's a great deal of discussion you've decided to ignore there.

It would be easier after seeing your data.

>> How about you do a nice little table of when and where crop circles
>> appeared in UK with the dates that restrictions were lifted, as that is
>> your claim and it is a bit hard to look up. Then we can try to decide what
>> percentage level of significance can be attached to any correlation in the
>> data set, given the amount of data.

> I had this discussion back when it when it happened, often with the
> cropcircleresearcher site hosts and contributors themselves. You think I've
> not already charted this data and had this discussion over 2 years ago?

So it should be no trouble to repeat it, or else I have to assume it does not
stand up to scrutiny.

> I'm not going to be dragged, yet again, into a discussion only to have it
> culminate with the entire post being deleted and ignored. I smacks too much
> of the blinkered approach by "believers" of ignoring facts that they don't
> like (remember the weather?).

That is still a little bit possible - a day or two later, but there is not
really a large enough sample to say.

> Two examples below, descriptions from the UK database, summing up why I
> think it's next to pointless discussing this subject "scientifically" with
> proponents of non-humans being circle builders.

> 1: The word 'Sexsmith' within a circle - presumably made as a hoax to
> promote the Canadian rock singer of the same name?
> 2. A series of letters, forming the word 'COCK' - presumably indicating it's
> status as a hoax."

> Now there's scientific, unbiased analysis if ever I saw it.

There is nothing to stop people having fun.

And there is also a bit of a sinister side to pretence. When I used to write
on talk.euthanasia quite a bit someone wrote a `manifesto' of the Church of
Euthanasia under my name (though a different email address). And their
associations seem not too savoury.

[Eric Hocking]

"Brian Sandle" > wrote in message
...
> Eric Hocking > wrote:
> > "Brian Sandle" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Eric Hocking > wrote:
> >> [..]
> > Wow, that's a great deal of discussion you've decided to ignore there.
> It would be easier after seeing your data.

Going to have to move this from an old PC (and work out how to make pages
without html coding by hand - new ISP) so give me a day or two.

> >> How about you do a nice little table of when and where crop circles
> >> appeared in UK with the dates that restrictions were lifted, as that is
> >> your claim and it is a bit hard to look up. Then we can try to decide
what
> >> percentage level of significance can be attached to any correlation in
the
> >> data set, given the amount of data.
> > I had this discussion back when it when it happened, often with the
> > cropcircleresearcher site hosts and contributors themselves. You think
I've
> > not already charted this data and had this discussion over 2 years ago?
> So it should be no trouble to repeat it, or else I have to assume it does
not
> stand up to scrutiny.

This is one of my initial plots. It's a basic timeline (X-axis is date) and
Y-axis is cumulative totals. This plots only the circles in the database
for Wiltshire (in fact SU OS Grid Ref.). The only tinkering is that I
removed circles that the researcher team deemed to be caused by wind damage
or "hoaxes". I chose Wiltshire county as each year it makes up 1/2 of the
total circles found in the UK and, unlike Hampshire, had infected farms so
the resources for checking shutdown and reopenings is a little easier. That
said, at this point in time many of the notices are no longer on the
government site. MAFF is now DEFRA, and they copped a lot of stick,
deservedly in my opinion, of their management of the crisis.

The red line is 2001.
=/31c
a>

> > I'm not going to be dragged, yet again, into a discussion only to have
it
> > culminate with the entire post being deleted and ignored. I smacks too
much
> > of the blinkered approach by "believers" of ignoring facts that they
don't
> > like (remember the weather?).
>
> That is still a little bit possible - a day or two later, but there is not
> really a large enough sample to say.

It's not a day or two - see the initial chart.

> > Two examples below, descriptions from the UK database, summing up why I
> > think it's next to pointless discussing this subject "scientifically"
with
> > proponents of non-humans being circle builders.
>
> > 1: The word 'Sexsmith' within a circle - presumably made as a hoax to
> > promote the Canadian rock singer of the same name?
> > 2. A series of letters, forming the word 'COCK' - presumably indicating
it's
> > status as a hoax."
> > Now there's scientific, unbiased analysis if ever I saw it.
>
> There is nothing to stop people having fun.

My problem is that in the database, these obviously man-made circles are
"perhaps hoaxes". Not an unbiased approach to analysing the "phenomenon",
in my opinion.

> And there is also a bit of a sinister side to pretence. When I used to
write
> on talk.euthanasia quite a bit someone wrote a `manifesto' of the Church
of
> Euthanasia under my name (though a different email address). And their
> associations seem not too savoury.

I've had kooks from sci.skeptic attempt to go "real life" on me too - and
been threatened with legal proceedings and had my website suspended due to
some rather damning evidence hosted their that showed a well known "psychic"
being caught on video, cheating at his most famous parlour trick.

--
Eric Hocking
www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Attempting spam blocking - remove upper case to reply.

[Brian Sandle]

Eric Hocking > wrote:
> This is one of my initial plots. It's a basic timeline (X-axis is date) and
> Y-axis is cumulative totals. This plots only the circles in the database
> for Wiltshire (in fact SU OS Grid Ref.). The only tinkering is that I
> removed circles that the researcher team deemed to be caused by wind damage
> or "hoaxes".

Good.

I chose Wiltshire county as each year it makes up 1/2 of the
> total circles found in the UK and, unlike Hampshire, had infected farms so
> the resources for checking shutdown and reopenings is a little easier. That
> said, at this point in time many of the notices are no longer on the
> government site.

So you have to take back some grumbles at me.

MAFF is now DEFRA, and they copped a lot of stick,
> deservedly in my opinion, of their management of the crisis.

> The red line is 2001.
> =/31c
> a>

The is the step in the graph about 25 -31 May 2001. All the graphs have steps
in them from time to time.

before then 2002 had 1 circle, 2000 3, 1999 5 or 6. The beginning dates for
the years is a fairly evenly spread distribution. Some year has to be first
and some last.


>> > I'm not going to be dragged, yet again, into a discussion only to have
> it
>> > culminate with the entire post being deleted and ignored. I smacks too
> much
>> > of the blinkered approach by "believers" of ignoring facts that they
> don't
>> > like (remember the weather?).
>>
>> That is still a little bit possible - a day or two later, but there is not
>> really a large enough sample to say.

> It's not a day or two - see the initial chart.

Even srpead from year to year for start.

> I've had kooks from sci.skeptic attempt to go "real life" on me too - and
> been threatened with legal proceedings and had my website suspended due to
> some rather damning evidence hosted their that showed a well known "psychic"
> being caught on video, cheating at his most famous parlour trick.

Though sometimes they are mimmicking themselves or showing what a conjurer
would do, and it gets taken as them faking.

[Eric Hocking]

Brian Sandle > wrote in message >...
> Eric Hocking > wrote:
> > This is one of my initial plots. It's a basic timeline (X-axis is date) and
> > Y-axis is cumulative totals. This plots only the circles in the database
> > for Wiltshire (in fact SU OS Grid Ref.). The only tinkering is that I
> > removed circles that the researcher team deemed to be caused by wind damage
> > or "hoaxes".
> Good.
> I chose Wiltshire county as each year it makes up 1/2 of the
> > total circles found in the UK and, unlike Hampshire, had infected farms so
> > the resources for checking shutdown and reopenings is a little easier. That
> > said, at this point in time many of the notices are no longer on the
> > government site.
>
> So you have to take back some grumbles at me.

All the information I quoted for discussion had valid URLs. It just
takes a bit of persistence and Google. For instance, the PDF document
of the "history" of the 2001 outbreak? Was probably this one.
<http://www.nao.gov.uk/publications/nao_reports/01-02/0102939.pdf> The
appendix one is the chronology of the outbreak.

> MAFF is now DEFRA, and they copped a lot of stick,
> > deservedly in my opinion, of their management of the crisis.
> > The red line is 2001.
> > =/31c
> > a>
>
> The is the step in the graph about 25 -31 May 2001.

No. 25th May is the first circle listed in the database for 2001

> All the graphs have steps
> in them from time to time.

What you need now to do is understand what the graph is telling you.

Look at it again, this is what it tells you.

FIRST circles appear:
1999 - 12/4
2000 - 26/4
2002 - 6/5

2001 - 25/5

6 weeks later than 1999, 4 weeks later than 2000 and 3 weeks later
than 2002

This is exactly the correlation that I have been talking about and you
have been refusing to admit. The first circles in 2001 were LATE.

> before then 2002 had 1 circle, 2000 3, 1999 5 or 6. The beginning dates for
> the years is a fairly evenly spread distribution. Some year has to be first
> and some last.

The "average" date for the first circle to appear in those 4 years is
2nd May. 2002 and 2001 are the only years to be later than this, by 4
days and 23 days respectively. Not my idea of an even spread.

Going back to 1992, the average date is 25th April - 2001 is *27* days
later that this. The only other years later than this average is 1993
(3 days) and 1996 (17 days). With a standard deviation of 13 over the
10 years, only 2 years stand out. 1996 and 2001.

An aside, it's pure coincidence that in March 1996 the BSE epidemic
came to a head and that mass slaughters took place in the UK

So to say that there is a "fairly evenly spread distribution" is to
ignore the evidence.

> >> > I'm not going to be dragged, yet again, into a discussion only to have
> it
> >> > culminate with the entire post being deleted and ignored. I smacks too
> much
> >> > of the blinkered approach by "believers" of ignoring facts that they
> don't
> >> > like (remember the weather?).
> >>
> >> That is still a little bit possible - a day or two later, but there is not
> >> really a large enough sample to say.
> > It's not a day or two - see the initial chart.
> Even srpead from year to year for start.

Not chronologically they are not. 2001 is later than all previous TEN
years as well as later than 2002. See the numbers above. Check them
yourself - you have a table of the dates, since you quoted them at me
before snipping my entire reply.

> > I've had kooks from sci.skeptic attempt to go "real life" on me too - and
> > been threatened with legal proceedings and had my website suspended due to
> > some rather damning evidence hosted their that showed a well known "psychic"
> > being caught on video, cheating at his most famous parlour trick.
>
> Though sometimes they are mimmicking themselves or showing what a conjurer
> would do, and it gets taken as them faking.

"mimmicking[sic] themselves" ? Name one instance of this.

One.

I have never, ever, heard a self-confessed "psychic" or similar EVER
say they were mimicking their act or showing how a conjurer might do
it. I have heard one admit to cheating (only when caught) so, "I
didn't disappoint my audience".

Riiigghhtttt.

In the example I gave, the "psychic" kept a continual banter of "I'm
doing this with my mind" - even while the video clearly showed him
performing the "feat" with his hands.

This is the same one who a judge decide that the cost of a ticket (and
court costs?) to one of his shows should be reimbursed to a punter who
charged that "he had failed to perform the supernormal feats of
telepathy, parapsychology, and telekinesis he advertised. Instead...
[his] act consisted merely of sleight-of-hand and stage tricks.

--
Eric Hocking

[Brian Sandle]

Eric Hocking > wrote:
> Brian Sandle > wrote in message >...
>> Eric Hocking > wrote:
[...]
>> > The red line is 2001.
>> > =/31c
>> > a>
>>
>> The is the step in the graph about 25 -31 May 2001.

> No. 25th May is the first circle listed in the database for 2001

Yes May 25 is the first. Then there are several but groups of several can
occur at any time.

>> All the graphs have steps
>> in them from time to time.

> What you need now to do is understand what the graph is telling you.

> Look at it again, this is what it tells you.

> FIRST circles appear:
> 1999 - 12/4
> 2000 - 26/4
> 2002 - 6/5

> 2001 - 25/5

> 6 weeks later than 1999, 4 weeks later than 2000 and 3 weeks later
> than 2002

> This is exactly the correlation that I have been talking about and you
> have been refusing to admit. The first circles in 2001 were LATE.

>> before then 2002 had 1 circle, 2000 3, 1999 5 or 6. The beginning dates for
>> the years is a fairly evenly spread distribution. Some year has to be first
>> and some last.

> The "average" date for the first circle to appear in those 4 years is
> 2nd May. 2002 and 2001 are the only years to be later than this, by 4
> days and 23 days respectively. Not my idea of an even spread.

> Going back to 1992, the average date is 25th April - 2001 is *27* days
> later that this. The only other years later than this average is 1993
> (3 days) and 1996 (17 days). With a standard deviation of 13 over the
> 10 years, only 2 years stand out. 1996 and 2001.

> An aside, it's pure coincidence that in March 1996 the BSE epidemic
> came to a head and that mass slaughters took place in the UK

> So to say that there is a "fairly evenly spread distribution" is to
> ignore the evidence.

Dates of first appearance in Wiltshire according to database, undetermined
dates omitted.

80 Aug 15, 82 Aug 1, 88 Jul 15, 89 Jul4, 87 Jul 1, 91 Jun 9, 96 Jun 1,
01 May 25, 93 May 14, 92 May 10, 95 May 8, 02 May 6, 98 May 4, 90 May 2,
00 & 03 Apr 26, 94 Apr 23, 97 Apr 20, 99 Apr 12

So they have only been appearing in April since 2000. Could be hoaxes with
the more complex patterns more recently. I have not yet got through to the
FMD dates, but if there are more hoaxes now they could be interrupting those.

Taking the range of reported ones in Wiltshire back to 77 (unknown date) teh
1981 May 25 has 11 before and 7 after - It is pretty much to the middle.

What has been said about fairy rings on people lawns? Can the same thing
happen in a crop? Even on people's skin a fungal infection will sread out in
a circular fashion.


>> > It's not a day or two - see the initial chart.
>> Even srpead from year to year for start.

> Not chronologically they are not. 2001 is later than all previous TEN
> years as well as later than 2002.

Not for date of first occurence.

See the numbers above. Check them
> yourself - you have a table of the dates, since you quoted them at me
> before snipping my entire reply.

I still have it in mind to go back to that.

>
>> > I've had kooks from sci.skeptic attempt to go "real life" on me too - and
>> > been threatened with legal proceedings and had my website suspended due to
>> > some rather damning evidence hosted their that showed a well known "psychic"
>> > being caught on video, cheating at his most famous parlour trick.
>>
>> Though sometimes they are mimmicking themselves or showing what a conjurer
>> would do, and it gets taken as them faking.

> "mimmicking[sic] themselves" ? Name one instance of this.

> One.

> I have never, ever, heard a self-confessed "psychic" or similar EVER
> say they were mimicking their act or showing how a conjurer might do
> it. I have heard one admit to cheating (only when caught) so, "I
> didn't disappoint my audience".

> Riiigghhtttt.

> In the example I gave, the "psychic" kept a continual banter of "I'm
> doing this with my mind" - even while the video clearly showed him
> performing the "feat" with his hands.

I think this is sort of meant to build the energy so that real things can
start to happen?



> This is the same one who a judge decide that the cost of a ticket (and
> court costs?) to one of his shows should be reimbursed to a punter who
> charged that "he had failed to perform the supernormal feats of
> telepathy, parapsychology, and telekinesis he advertised. Instead...
> [his] act consisted merely of sleight-of-hand and stage tricks.

When USA was broadcasting its space feats on radio into USSR in the Russian
language it didn't prove anything to the Russian people because the energy
was jammed.

[Eric Hocking]

"Brian Sandle" > wrote in message
...
> Eric Hocking > wrote:
> > Brian Sandle > wrote in message
>...
> >> Eric Hocking > wrote:
> [...]
> >> > The red line is 2001.
> >> >
=/31c
> >> > a>
> >> The is the step in the graph about 25 -31 May 2001.
> > No. 25th May is the first circle listed in the database for 2001
> Yes May 25 is the first. Then there are several but groups of several can
> occur at any time.

OK, so we at least agree when the first circle in 2001 was recorded.

> >> All the graphs have steps
> >> in them from time to time.
> > What you need now to do is understand what the graph is telling you.
> > Look at it again, this is what it tells you.
> > FIRST circles appear:
> > 1999 - 12/4
> > 2000 - 26/4
> > 2002 - 6/5
> > 2001 - 25/5
> > 6 weeks later than 1999, 4 weeks later than 2000 and 3 weeks later
> > than 2002
> > This is exactly the correlation that I have been talking about and you
> > have been refusing to admit. The first circles in 2001 were LATE.
> >> before then 2002 had 1 circle, 2000 3, 1999 5 or 6. The beginning dates
for
> >> the years is a fairly evenly spread distribution. Some year has to be
first
> >> and some last.
> > The "average" date for the first circle to appear in those 4 years is
> > 2nd May. 2002 and 2001 are the only years to be later than this, by 4
> > days and 23 days respectively. Not my idea of an even spread.
> > Going back to 1992, the average date is 25th April - 2001 is *27* days
> > later that this. The only other years later than this average is 1993
> > (3 days) and 1996 (17 days). With a standard deviation of 13 over the
> > 10 years, only 2 years stand out. 1996 and 2001.
> > An aside, it's pure coincidence that in March 1996 the BSE epidemic
> > came to a head and that mass slaughters took place in the UK
> > So to say that there is a "fairly evenly spread distribution" is to
> > ignore the evidence.
> Dates of first appearance in Wiltshire according to database, undetermined
> dates omitted.
> 80 Aug 15, 82 Aug 1, 88 Jul 15,

Trying a bit hard here aren't you? There was only 1 circle recorded for
1980, 4 for 82 and only 8 in 88. Hell, in the 10 years from 1980 there is a
TOTAL of only 64 circles recorded. Hardly a comprehensive data set to derive
much of a trend for anything from.

> 89 Jul4, 87 Jul 1, 91 Jun 9, 96 Jun 1,
> 01 May 25, 93 May 14, 92 May 10, 95 May 8, 02 May 6, 98 May 4, 90 May 2,
> 00 & 03 Apr 26, 94 Apr 23, 97 Apr 20, 99 Apr 12
> So they have only been appearing in April since 2000.

The crop circle researchers' database wasn't begun until 1993 - so the
sources for these are pretty tenuous as well as the data being practically
non-existent before then. Oh, and if you read the database correctly,
you'll see that there are circles recorded for April in 94, 97, 98 and 99.
So I don't know where you get the 2000 statement from

Let's compare data 3 or 4 years either side of 2001, at least we might have
a degree of confidence in the data as well as having a quantity that we
might be able to derive a trend from?

See /my_photos>
for updated charts.

Since 1997, average date (including the 2001 date) for the first circle to
be recorded is 27th April. Out of those years only for 2001 and 2002 have
recorded circles later than this date. 2002 was only 8 days late, but 2001
is 4 WEEKS later than all the rest. If you average the years NOT including
2001, the average first date is 22nd April. All the years first dates fall
within 14 days of this date. 2001 is nearly FIVE WEEKS later.

How can you not see this as a significant difference?

> Could be hoaxes with
> the more complex patterns more recently.

Instead of wild conjecturing why don't you check out the data? All the data
above, as I indicated earlier and you acknowledged, do not include those
deemed by the database owners to be caused by wind damage or "hoaxes". I
have only categorised the data as the collectors of the data have.

> I have not yet got through to the
> FMD dates, but if there are more hoaxes now they could be interrupting
those.

One, I have no idea what you mean, interrupting what, exactly.
Two, of the 335 circles recorded since 1997 for Wiltshire, 29 of them were
"hoaxes". That's an average of 9% every year. In 2001, there were 4
"hoaxes" out of a total of 44 circles recorded. I'll let you work out the
maths on that bit, but you'll find that there's not much deviation in
pattern there. If anything, the number of hoaxes per year is on the decline
in that data set.

> Taking the range of reported ones in Wiltshire back to 77 (unknown date)
teh
> 1981 May 25 has 11 before and 7 after - It is pretty much to the middle.

Let's see, what are the total number of circles recorded for those years?

Year Wiltshire / UK
76 0 / 2
77 0 / 16
78 0 / 9
79 0 / 1
80 1 / 1
81 0 / 1
83 0 / 2
84 0 / 4
85 0 / 3
86 0 / 8

So in 10 years, 1 circle was recorded and only 47 for the whole of the UK.
Not a terribly useful data set there and you're deriving trends from this?

In 5 year periods, here's the average number recorded.
1980-84 3
1985-89 11
1990-94 111
1995-99 110
2000-03 105

Split it anyway you wish, but really, the records before the database was
started up really can't be relied upon for determining trends.

> What has been said about fairy rings on people lawns?

You tell me. What has been said about fairy rings beyond them being a
perfectly well understood botanic phenomenon? ie,
<http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/plantanswers/turf/publications/fairyring
s.html>

> Can the same thing
> happen in a crop? Even on people's skin a fungal infection will sread out
in
> a circular fashion.

And this has what to do with the discussion? How about trying to stick to
the subject instead of going off on fanciful and unrelated misdirections?

> >> > It's not a day or two - see the initial chart.
> >> Even srpead from year to year for start.
> > Not chronologically they are not. 2001 is later than all previous TEN
> > years as well as later than 2002.
>
> Not for date of first occurence.

You want to check the numbers again?

> See the numbers above. Check them
> > yourself - you have a table of the dates, since you quoted them at me
> > before snipping my entire reply.
>
> I still have it in mind to go back to that.

Do that. Especially in light of you accusing ME of avoiding answering your
questions. At least I don't snip entire posts - the usenet equivalent of
sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating I'm not listening, I'm not
listening...

<snip>
> > In the example I gave, the "psychic" kept a continual banter of "I'm
> > doing this with my mind" - even while the video clearly showed him
> > performing the "feat" with his hands.
>
> I think this is sort of meant to build the energy so that real things can
> start to happen?

What, bogus psychic repeats "I'm doing this with my mind", video shows him
at that point in time doing the trick with his hands, this is building up
energy so "real things can start to happen"? Real things DID start to
happen, he was caught out cheating.

> > This is the same one who a judge decide that the cost of a ticket (and
> > court costs?) to one of his shows should be reimbursed to a punter who
> > charged that "he had failed to perform the supernormal feats of
> > telepathy, parapsychology, and telekinesis he advertised. Instead...
> > [his] act consisted merely of sleight-of-hand and stage tricks.
>
> When USA was broadcasting its space feats on radio into USSR in the
Russian
> language it didn't prove anything to the Russian people because the energy
> was jammed.

What on EARTH has that got to do with things? I give you two examples (that
I can back with cites) of a psychic cheating (yet another obfuscation you've
introduced to the discussion) and you answer some with lame conjecture on
"building energy "and then some non sequitur about Russian radio.

I won't even ask for a cite for the "energy jamming". One, it has nothing
to do with with crop circles and two, Russian ham radio operators, as well
as others around the world were able to monitor the moonshot communications
throughout this period.

Forget about moon shots, fairy rings and fake psychics, how about addressing
the data and arguments put forth without deleting the bits you don't want to
answer or acknowledge and without flying of on weird unrelated tangents.

--
Eric Hocking
www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Attempting spam blocking - remove upper case to reply.

[Brian Sandle]

The parent thread article continues to be discsussed on
alt.paranormal.crop-circles, where our other replies, missing from
nz.general, are.


Finding out the sources of these circles could be quite topical at the
moment, with New Zealand film series Lord of the Rings in the running for
Oscar.

Linkname: Who Was The Lord Of The Rings? : Laurence Gardner
URL: http://www.graal.co.uk/lordoftherings.html
Last Mod: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:36:20 GMT
size: 143 lines

[...]

The sacred power of the Ring was traditionally symbolized by a ritual
dance, as performed in legend by Apollo and the Muses. During the
Inquisition of the Middle Ages, however, the Ring Dance (often
performed around a maypole, market cross or mulberry bush) was
prohibited by the Church, for it was reckoned to be a devilish act
which would conjure evil spirits. Had the bishops consulted their own
records they would have seen that, in the early days of Christianity,
St. Augustine wrote at length about a particular Ring Dance of old
Judaea, which (according to his sources) was performed by Jesus and
the Apostles.

Even though the very word Church comes from the old Greek word 'circe'
(defining a circle or ring), the Inquisitors paid no heed to the fact
that their own establishment was based on the ancient Temple Rings of
Assembly. From the Greco-Phoenician word 'Phare' (whence derives
Pharaoh) meaning a Great House, these auspicious gatherings were known
as Phare Rings - or Fairy Rings as they were later phonetically
called. In practice, the Arthurian Round Table was a Ring of Assembly,
while monuments such as Stonehenge and Newgrange also bear witness to
the original Ring culture.
[...]

J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings tells of the hobbit Frodo
Baggins and his friends who, with the aid of the wizard Gandalf,
embark on a perilous journey to cast the Ring of the evil Lord Sauron
into the hellfire of the Mount of Doom. The Ring, which binds various
others within its awesome power, is having a negative effect on the
environment of Middle-earth, and it must be destroyed. Meanwhile,
although the Elves have driven out Sauron's dark forces, they (aided
by the Orcs and Black Riders) gather in the Land of Mordor, where they
plot to retrieve the Ring. As in all such stories, however, the Ring
carries its own curse, and will destroy those who attempt to interfere
with its magic.
[...]

So maybe we have a hint there of Eric Hocking's (subconscious?) need to
suppress.

The papal machine went so far as to slaughter some 35,000 Ring Lord
supporters in a savage campaign from 1209.
[...]

With the ref to the Round Table I thought I might also include
alt.freemasonry in this. The Freemasons had secret recognition signs to
avoid being slaughtered. And kansan1225 might like to look at the crop
circles database and decide about the dates.


The Ring, having no beginning nor end, was a symbol of eternal
justice, and the appointed Ring Lords (such as Ur-Nammu and
Hammurabi), who emulated their gods, were considered the wisest and
most just of men and were said to be the Shining Ones. Made of pure
gold, the judicial Ring was held in ceremony along with a delineated
rod known as the Rule, with which to measure the Ring's justice. The
Ring Lord who held the Rule was the designated 'ruler'. In time the
Rings became more ornate and were worn on the Lords' heads, eventually
to become crowns, while the Rules in turn became royal sceptres.
[...]

And we also see the more ornate crop `circles'. Who/what is doing it?
Should we call these creations hoaxes rather than religious symbols? Are
there any of the original types which begat the following?

[Eric Hocking]

Brian Sandle > wrote in message >...
> The parent thread article continues to be discsussed on
> alt.paranormal.crop-circles, where our other replies, missing from
> nz.general, are.
<snip>
> [...]
>
> So maybe we have a hint there of Eric Hocking's (subconscious?) need to
> suppress.

HOw about keeping my name out of your bizarre conspiracy theories
Brian and address the points of the discussion that I raise instead.

Personal attacks are unbecoming at the best of times, but to imply
that an atheist is consciously or subconsiously a papal apologist
should be beyond even your most wild conjectures.

--
Eric Hocking

[Brian Sandle]

In alt.paranormal.crop-circles Eric Hocking > wrote:
> Brian Sandle > wrote in message >...
>> The parent thread article continues to be discsussed on
>> alt.paranormal.crop-circles, where our other replies, missing from
>> nz.general, are.
> <snip>
>> [...]
>>
>> So maybe we have a hint there of Eric Hocking's (subconscious?) need to
>> suppress.

> HOw about keeping my name out of your bizarre conspiracy theories
> Brian and address the points of the discussion that I raise instead.

> Personal attacks are unbecoming at the best of times, but to imply
> that an atheist is consciously or subconsiously a papal apologist
> should be beyond even your most wild conjectures.

Actually an atheist, or `a-theist' is actually reacting against theists,
or followers of gods or supernatural powers.

I don't think it is a personal attack, just an observation of
possible sceptic motivation. Are sceptics witch burners?

If we agree that witches ought to be burnt, then we need to find out
(i) which of their creations are supernatural, (ii) which creations are
part of their rituals, and though may be intended to portray the
supernatural, are not actually created supernaturally. Then we have to
decide whether (i) or (ii) or both are causes for burning.

Or are some of them (iii) something not understood, like ball lightning.
Then do we burn witches whom we think caused it, a sort of thing which has
happened. Last evening we had a TV program about schools in the 1950s and
punishments and admonishments were handed out on misunderstandings, it
seemed.

Maybe you feel, Eric, that if you can point to crop circles being `hoaxes'
that you can defuse the situation. If some of them don't happen when
naughty people are not supposed to go onto crop areas then that is a
reason that all crop circles are `hoaxes', jokes or some sort of graffiti,
and witches do not have to be burned. But you want to go so far as to
remove the term, `fairy rings' from the scientific literature, which seems
to indicate a hypersensitivity.

[Eric Hocking]

Brian Sandle > wrote in message >...
> In alt.paranormal.crop-circles Eric Hocking > wrote:
> > Brian Sandle > wrote in message >...
> >> The parent thread article continues to be discsussed on
> >> alt.paranormal.crop-circles, where our other replies, missing from
> >> nz.general, are.
> <snip>
> >> [...]
> >> So maybe we have a hint there of Eric Hocking's (subconscious?) need to
> >> suppress.
>
> > HOw about keeping my name out of your bizarre conspiracy theories
> > Brian and address the points of the discussion that I raise instead.
>
> > Personal attacks are unbecoming at the best of times, but to imply
> > that an atheist is consciously or subconsiously a papal apologist
> > should be beyond even your most wild conjectures.
>
> Actually an atheist, or `a-theist' is actually reacting against theists,
> or followers of gods or supernatural powers.

OK, so I was wrong about this being beyond your most wild conjectures.

Sorry, Brian. You do not get to define my belief (or lack of belief)
system.

> I don't think it is a personal attack, just an observation of
> possible sceptic motivation. Are sceptics witch burners?

No. There is no such thing as (magical) witches, therefore, there is
nothing to burn. Now DROWNING, there's a different matter (A DUCK! A
DUCK!)

> If we agree that witches ought to be burnt,

*We* do not, therefore the rest of your points mean little to me.

<snip>

> Maybe you feel, Eric, that if you can point to crop circles being `hoaxes'

Again with the conjecture. Thanks very much for attempting to voice
what you think my feelings on the matter are, but frankly , I can
speak for myself. All you are doing with this conjecture is
demonstrating your own biases in the matter.


> that you can defuse the situation. If some of them don't happen when
> naughty people are not supposed to go onto crop areas then that is a

Correction - NONE of the circles were created when FMD restrictions
were in place.


> reason that all crop circles are `hoaxes', jokes or some sort of graffiti,

I do not call them "hoaxes" - but, neither do I call them "real",
which seems to imply that ET or something makes circles. Manmade,
rather than "hoax", is a better description.

> and witches do not have to be burned. But you want to go so far as to
> remove the term, `fairy rings' from the scientific literature, which seems
> to indicate a hypersensitivity.

Whoa, when you get stuck in a non sequitur loop you really like to go
to town don't you?

When did I say that I wanted to "remove the term, `fairy rings' from
the scientific literature", and what the HELL does it have to do with
the discussion in the first place?

--
Eric Hocking

[Brian Sandle]

In alt.paranormal.crop-circles Eric Hocking > wrote:
> Brian Sandle > wrote in message >...
>> In alt.paranormal.crop-circles Eric Hocking > wrote:
>> > Brian Sandle > wrote in message >...
>> >> The parent thread article continues to be discsussed on
>> >> alt.paranormal.crop-circles, where our other replies, missing from
>> >> nz.general, are.
>> <snip>
>> >> [...]
>> >> So maybe we have a hint there of Eric Hocking's (subconscious?) need to
>> >> suppress.
>>
>> > HOw about keeping my name out of your bizarre conspiracy theories
>> > Brian and address the points of the discussion that I raise instead.
>>
>> > Personal attacks are unbecoming at the best of times, but to imply
>> > that an atheist is consciously or subconsiously a papal apologist
>> > should be beyond even your most wild conjectures.
>>
>> Actually an atheist, or `a-theist' is actually reacting against theists,
>> or followers of gods or supernatural powers.

> OK, so I was wrong about this being beyond your most wild conjectures.

> Sorry, Brian. You do not get to define my belief (or lack of belief)
> system.

To be an atheist has to involve a belief that some people are under
control of belief.

>
>> I don't think it is a personal attack, just an observation of
>> possible sceptic motivation. Are sceptics witch burners?

> No. There is no such thing as (magical) witches, therefore, there is
> nothing to burn.

Though sceptics seem to get very emotionally involved in trying to
persuade about that.

Now DROWNING, there's a different matter (A DUCK! A
> DUCK!)

Or baptism by immersion?


>> If we agree that witches ought to be burnt,

> *We* do not, therefore the rest of your points mean little to me.

i.e. that what is not understood should be denied,

> <snip>

>> Maybe you feel, Eric, that if you can point to crop circles being `hoaxes'

> Again with the conjecture.

So you are not trying to give that idea of crop cirlces all being hoaxes?

Thanks very much for attempting to voice
> what you think my feelings on the matter are, but frankly , I can
> speak for myself. All you are doing with this conjecture is
> demonstrating your own biases in the matter.

Or trying to get yours explicitly stated.

>> that you can defuse the situation. If some of them don't happen when
>> naughty people are not supposed to go onto crop areas then that is a

> Correction - NONE of the circles were created when FMD restrictions
> were in place.

Unless farmers give permission for the crop circle to be made then the
makers are being naughty and are not supposed to be there doing it. So
if hoaxers are doing it they are doing when restrictions of another sort
are in place.

>> reason that all crop circles are `hoaxes', jokes or some sort of graffiti,

> I do not call them "hoaxes" - but, neither do I call them "real",
> which seems to imply that ET or something makes circles. Manmade,
> rather than "hoax", is a better description.

Yes, maybe religious symbols following the circle tradition which may have
had roots as I quoted.

http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/database/index.html

I wonder if kansan2125 is looking into the dates.

>> and witches do not have to be burned. But you want to go so far as to
>> remove the term, `fairy rings' from the scientific literature, which seems
>> to indicate a hypersensitivity.

> Whoa, when you get stuck in a non sequitur loop you really like to go
> to town don't you?

> When did I say that I wanted to "remove the term, `fairy rings' from
> the scientific literature",
You wrote:

> > Why introduce fairies into the discussion?
****
I wrote:

> The term has captivated scientists. They use it a lot: see Medline. Even
> fairiefungin a potent toxin.

You wrote:

Junk scientists get as much print space as any on Medline.
****


and what the HELL does it have to do with
> the discussion in the first place?

Things not understood later become understood.

[Eric Hocking]

Brian Sandle > wrote in message >...
<snip>
> > Sorry, Brian. You do not get to define my belief (or lack of belief)
> > system.
>
> To be an atheist has to involve a belief that some people are under
> control of belief.

Brian? Brian? Try reading my post again.
"You do not get to define my belief (or lack of belief) system."
The above is only YOUR interpretation of what an atheist is, and, as
usual, it is incorrect.

> >> I don't think it is a personal attack, just an observation of
> >> possible sceptic motivation. Are sceptics witch burners?
>
> > No. There is no such thing as (magical) witches, therefore, there is
> > nothing to burn.
>
> Though sceptics seem to get very emotionally involved in trying to
> persuade about that.

Incorrect, yet again. I made a statement - no emotion involved, not
attempts at persuasion, just a statement.

> Now DROWNING, there's a different matter (A DUCK! A
> > DUCK!)
>
> Or baptism by immersion?

Or lack of humour or realisation that a MOVIE might have been hinted
at.

> >> If we agree that witches ought to be burnt,
> > *We* do not, therefore the rest of your points mean little to me.
>
> i.e. that what is not understood should be denied,

Wrong again. What do you think science, and for that matter
scepticism, is all about. Attempting to understand the mysteries of
the universe. No denial there, but short shrift is usually given to
fantasy and fairy tales.

> > <snip>
> >> Maybe you feel, Eric, that if you can point to crop circles being `hoaxes'
> > Again with the conjecture.
>
> So you are not trying to give that idea of crop cirlces all being hoaxes?

I have, in spite of your diversion attempts, tried (and I believe
succeeded) in showing that the crop circle proponent's arguments that
FMD (pedestrian) restrictions had no impact on circle building in 2001
in the UK is unsupportable. What can be concluded from that is up to
those that have been lurking.

> Thanks very much for attempting to voice
> > what you think my feelings on the matter are, but frankly , I can
> > speak for myself. All you are doing with this conjecture is
> > demonstrating your own biases in the matter.
>
> Or trying to get yours explicitly stated.

YOU are not in a position to "explicitly state" my views or feelings.
You don't know me and until 2 weeks ago had never heard of me.

Lastly, my feelings on the matter are as irrelevant as fairy rings are
to the discussion. Try playing the ball instead of the man.

> >> that you can defuse the situation. If some of them don't happen when
> >> naughty people are not supposed to go onto crop areas then that is a
> > Correction - NONE of the circles were created when FMD restrictions
> > were in place.
>
> Unless farmers give permission for the crop circle to be made then the
> makers are being naughty and are not supposed to be there doing it.

"Being naughty"?! How exquisitely coy.
No, you're right, they're very naughty little boys, and when caught
face a fine for property damage.

> [So] if hoaxers are doing it they are doing when restrictions of another sort
> are in place.

As I said, I'm not here to analyse "hoaxers'" motives.
There's a huge difference between a £100 fine and a slap on the wrist
and a £5,000 fine, a conviction, and the possibility of spreading a
disease that can wipe out your neighbour's livelihood. Then again,
the farmer's might be promoting it so that they can get more money
from the Countryside Stewardship Scheme - oh, no, we've already
unclenched that straw, haven't we.

Why don't you try a little perspective here?

> >> reason that all crop circles are `hoaxes', jokes or some sort of graffiti,
> > I do not call them "hoaxes" - but, neither do I call them "real",
> > which seems to imply that ET or something makes circles. Manmade,
> > rather than "hoax", is a better description.

> Yes, maybe religious symbols following the circle tradition which may have
> had roots as I quoted.
> http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/database/index.html
> I wonder if kansan2125 is looking into the dates.

Nothing but speculation from you, is there? How about some of your
own original thoughts rather than just regurgitating other peoples
views. Then back them with data.

> >> and witches do not have to be burned. But you want to go so far as to
> >> remove the term, `fairy rings' from the scientific literature, which seems
> >> to indicate a hypersensitivity.
> > Whoa, when you get stuck in a non sequitur loop you really like to go
> > to town don't you?
> > When did I say that I wanted to "remove the term, `fairy rings' from
> > the scientific literature",
> You wrote:
> > > Why introduce fairies into the discussion?
> ****
> I wrote:
> > The term has captivated scientists. They use it a lot: see Medline. Even
> > fairiefungin a potent toxin.
> You wrote:
> Junk scientists get as much print space as any on Medline.
> ****

Ayup - nothing there about removing the term from scientific
literature. Just a comment that scientific literature is open to all
sorts of junk science.

No literary censorship there my dear boy, only criticism of poor
science.

> and what the HELL does it have to do with
> > the discussion in the first place?
>
> Things not understood later become understood.

Truly profound. Hang fire while I write that down...

Nah, why bother - what's not understood about fairy rings Brian? I
even quoted a refernce page for you that explains them.

Scientifically.

That used the term "fairy ring"

--
Eric Hocking

[Brian Sandle]

Eric Hocking > wrote:

[...]
> I have, in spite of your diversion attempts, tried (and I believe
> succeeded) in showing that the crop circle proponent's arguments that
> FMD (pedestrian) restrictions had no impact on circle building in 2001
> in the UK is unsupportable. What can be concluded from that is up to
> those that have been lurking.

I thought river flows might give some indication of weather.

http://www.nwl.ac.uk/ih/nrfa/monthly_summaries/2002/07/rv00.html

gives the flows of a number of UK rivers but unfortunately only from
1999 to 2002. I have tried to estimate the flows from the
logarithmic scales on the diagram for the Itchen river which flows
in Hampshire and might give some indication for the weather
situation in Wiltshire/Hampshire area. If as you say you work with
govt info maybe you know of a better source.


And the crop circles I have taken from
http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/articles/distribution.html


Year 1999 2000 2001 2002

Mar+Ap+May flow 18 24 35 22
Apr+May circs 24 14 9 4

Mar+Ap flow 13 15 25 15
Apr circs 9 3 0 1

FMD Yes(1)/No(0)0 0 1 0

This amount of data is not really sufficient, but it is interesting
what turns up is a -0.49 correlation between Itchen river Mar Apr
May flows and Apr+May crop circles {call it r(flows-circles)}. I am
risking using the Pearson correlation. And the Mar+Apr flows and the
Apr circles correlation is -0.67.

Also there turns up a correlation of river flow to FMD

Jan Feb Mar Apr May
0.94 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.68

May being when it was finished there?
But anyway taking the Mar Apr May flows figures, since weather might
stop hoaxers,

r(flows-fmd) = 0.94.

And is there a correlation between FMD & circles?

Yes, r(fmd-circles) = -0.29, a small negative correlation, rather

less than from above

r(flows-circles) = -0.49.


Then what happens when partial correlation is used to get a feel for
removing affects of the factors?

When the effects of the rivers are nullified then FMD becomes
*positively* related to circles.

r(fmd-circles.flows) = 0.57 instead of -0.29

and for completeness

r(flows-fmd.circles) = 0.96 instead of 0.94, no change, rather
indicating circles not causative,

r(flows-circles.fmd) = -0.66 instead of -0.49, not much
change indicating FMD not really causative.

With that small amount of data, so far, some of that could be by
chance.

[Eric Hocking]

Brian Sandle > wrote in message >...
> Eric Hocking > wrote:
>
> [...]
> > I have, in spite of your diversion attempts, tried (and I believe
> > succeeded) in showing that the crop circle proponent's arguments that
> > FMD (pedestrian) restrictions had no impact on circle building in 2001
> > in the UK is unsupportable. What can be concluded from that is up to
> > those that have been lurking.
>
> I thought river flows might give some indication of weather.

Only of rainfall in the catchment area, surely? While *you* might
think river flow gives some indication of weather, you have not shown
it to be so. The rest of your calculations, while interesting, do not
show anything of the sort.

Why not just check the monthly weather figures from the Government
Meteorological Bureau?

<http://www.met-office.gov.uk/climate/uk/>

Monthly numbers are available to 1998, but your best bet is from 1999
as the data is tabulated.

> http://www.nwl.ac.uk/ih/nrfa/monthly_summaries/2002/07/rv00.html
>
> gives the flows of a number of UK rivers but unfortunately only from
> 1999 to 2002. I have tried to estimate the flows from the
> logarithmic scales on the diagram for the Itchen river which flows
> in Hampshire and might give some indication for the weather
> situation in Wiltshire/Hampshire area. If as you say you work with
> govt info maybe you know of a better source.

You really do read a lot into other people's posts don't you? I
didn't say I "work with govt info" - other than the references I've
provided in this thread.

> And the crop circles I have taken from
> http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/articles/distribution.html

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You've jumped from *thinking* that river flow *may*
correlate to weather (uh, what about sunshine and temperature,
especially wrt crops?) straight to *proving* a correlation between
river flow to crop circle emergence and FMD? Try showing the logic of
this before attempting to force the numbers.

> Year 1999 2000 2001 2002
>
> Mar+Ap+May flow 18 24 35 22
> Apr+May circs 24 14 9 4
>
> Mar+Ap flow 13 15 25 15
> Apr circs 9 3 0 1
>
> FMD Yes(1)/No(0)0 0 1 0
> "
> This amount of data is not really sufficient, but it is interesting
> what turns up is a -0.49 correlation between Itchen river Mar Apr
> May flows and Apr+May crop circles {call it r(flows-circles)}. I am
> risking using the Pearson correlation. And the Mar+Apr flows and the
> Apr circles correlation is -0.67.

You're risking more than choosing the correct correlation technique.
You've yet to show that the Itchen River flow has any relationship to
weather conditions. As for river flow, have you factored in seasonal
abstraction from river systems?

> Also there turns up a correlation of river flow to FMD
>
> Jan Feb Mar Apr May
> 0.94 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.68
>
> May being when it was finished there?

This "correlation" implies what? River flow affects government
decisions on lifting FMD restrictions?

> But anyway taking the Mar Apr May flows figures, since weather might
> stop hoaxers,

You are yet to show that the Itchen River flow readings actually has
any reflection on the weather pattern trends.

> r(flows-fmd) = 0.94.
> And is there a correlation between FMD & circles?
> Yes, r(fmd-circles) = -0.29, a small negative correlation, rather
> less than from above
> r(flows-circles) = -0.49.
>
> Then what happens when partial correlation is used to get a feel for
> removing affects of the factors?
>
> When the effects of the rivers are nullified then FMD becomes
> *positively* related to circles.
>
> r(fmd-circles.flows) = 0.57 instead of -0.29
> and for completeness
> r(flows-fmd.circles) = 0.96 instead of 0.94, no change, rather
> indicating circles not causative,
> r(flows-circles.fmd) = -0.66 instead of -0.49, not much
> change indicating FMD not really causative.
> With that small amount of data, so far, some of that could be by
> chance.

And also shows that you can "prove" anything with forced numbers and
illogical connections. You need first to show that there is a logical
connection between a single river's flow trend as an indicator of
weather conditions (rainfall, temperature, sunshine).

How about using *weather* data directly for the county, instead of
attempting to derive this data from a single river monitoring station?

--
Eric Hocking

[Brian Sandle]

Eric Hocking > wrote:
> Brian Sandle > wrote in message >...
>> Eric Hocking > wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>> > I have, in spite of your diversion attempts, tried (and I believe
>> > succeeded) in showing that the crop circle proponent's arguments that
>> > FMD (pedestrian) restrictions had no impact on circle building in 2001
>> > in the UK is unsupportable. What can be concluded from that is up to
>> > those that have been lurking.
>>
>> I thought river flows might give some indication of weather.

> Only of rainfall in the catchment area, surely? While *you* might
> think river flow gives some indication of weather, you have not shown
> it to be so.

They may be a better indication than weather of what the ground is like. They
do not increase flow until the ground is saturated. (Though, not appropriate
to UK in my knowledge, fast run off can occur off baked land.)

The rest of your calculations, while interesting, do not
> show anything of the sort.

> Why not just check the monthly weather figures from the Government
> Meteorological Bureau?

> <http://www.met-office.gov.uk/climate/uk/>

> Monthly numbers are available to 1998, but your best bet is from 1999
> as the data is tabulated.

It would be complex factoring in evapotranspiration. Since there are only 4
years it is not really worth it.

>> http://www.nwl.ac.uk/ih/nrfa/monthly_summaries/2002/07/rv00.html
>>
>> gives the flows of a number of UK rivers but unfortunately only from
>> 1999 to 2002. I have tried to estimate the flows from the
>> logarithmic scales on the diagram for the Itchen river which flows
>> in Hampshire and might give some indication for the weather
>> situation in Wiltshire/Hampshire area. If as you say you work with
>> govt info maybe you know of a better source.

> You really do read a lot into other people's posts don't you? I
> didn't say I "work with govt info" - other than the references I've
> provided in this thread.

>> And the crop circles I have taken from
>> http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/articles/distribution.html

> Whoa, whoa, whoa. You've jumped from *thinking* that river flow *may*
> correlate to weather (uh, what about sunshine and temperature,
> especially wrt crops?)

Extra flows indicate the ground cannot hold the water, therefore there has
been less sunshine and temperature.

straight to *proving* a correlation between
> river flow to crop circle emergence and FMD? Try showing the logic of
> this before attempting to force the numbers.

How am I `forcing' the numbers?

>> Year 1999 2000 2001 2002
>>
>> Mar+Ap+May flow 18 24 35 22
>> Apr+May circs 24 14 9 4
>>
>> Mar+Ap flow 13 15 25 15
>> Apr circs 9 3 0 1
>>
>> FMD Yes(1)/No(0)0 0 1 0
>> "
>> This amount of data is not really sufficient, but it is interesting
>> what turns up is a -0.49 correlation between Itchen river Mar Apr
>> May flows and Apr+May crop circles {call it r(flows-circles)}. I am
>> risking using the Pearson correlation. And the Mar+Apr flows and the
>> Apr circles correlation is -0.67.

> You're risking more than choosing the correct correlation technique.
> You've yet to show that the Itchen River flow has any relationship to
> weather conditions. As for river flow, have you factored in seasonal
> abstraction from river systems?

It is only very rough. Besides seasonal effects should be similar from year
to year and factor out.


>> Also there turns up a correlation of river flow to FMD
>>
>> Jan Feb Mar Apr May
>> 0.94 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.68
>>
>> May being when it was finished there?

> This "correlation" implies what?


That for some reason Itchen river flow was high at the same time FMD was
present.

River flow affects government
> decisions on lifting FMD restrictions?

Presumably the restricitions were lifted when it was thought there was less
risk. I doubt there would have been any talk of rivers transporting FMD. When
the land dried a bit stock could get out into the fields and have a bit less
close contact and so less chance for transmission of FMD.


>> But anyway taking the Mar Apr May flows figures, since weather might
>> stop hoaxers,

> You are yet to show that the Itchen River flow readings actually has
> any reflection on the weather pattern trends.

Next you will be asking me to prove that day is going to be lighter than
night.

>> r(flows-fmd) = 0.94.
>> And is there a correlation between FMD & circles?
>> Yes, r(fmd-circles) = -0.29, a small negative correlation, rather
>> less than from above
>> r(flows-circles) = -0.49.
>>
>> Then what happens when partial correlation is used to get a feel for
>> removing affects of the factors?
>>
>> When the effects of the rivers are nullified then FMD becomes
>> *positively* related to circles.
>>
>> r(fmd-circles.flows) = 0.57 instead of -0.29

which indicates flows are connected to cause.

>> and for completeness
>> r(flows-fmd.circles) = 0.96 instead of 0.94, no change, rather
>> indicating circles not causative,
>> r(flows-circles.fmd) = -0.66 instead of -0.49, not much
>> change indicating FMD not really causative.
>> With that small amount of data, so far, some of that could be by
>> chance.

> And also shows that you can "prove" anything with forced numbers and
> illogical connections.


Here is the formula for you to have some fun:

r(po.y)= [r(po)-r(py).r(oy)]/sqr.root[1-{r(py)}^2].sqr.root[1-{r(oy)}^2]

(Bruning & Kintz).

where r(po.y) is the partial correlation between p and o, partialling out y.

r(po) is the non-partial correlation between p and o, &c for p & y, o & y.


When the partial correlation tends to zero that means the partialled out
variable is causal and the non-partial correlation is spurious.

When the partial correlation is no different from the non-partial, that means
the partailled out variable is not causal.


You need first to show that there is a logical
> connection between a single river's flow trend as an indicator of
> weather conditions (rainfall, temperature, sunshine).

> How about using *weather* data directly for the county, instead of
> attempting to derive this data from a single river monitoring station?

The first crop circle for 2001 was in Hampshire at latitude 50 deg 58.6 min
north, longitude 1 deg 5.9 mins west. That is only 10 or 20 miles from the
Itchen river (which has its mouth near Southampton). It is not a big reiver
and seems to have its source on the same side of South Downs.

[Eric Hocking]

Brian Sandle > wrote in message >...
> Eric Hocking > wrote:
> > Brian Sandle > wrote in message >...
> >> Eric Hocking > wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> > I have, in spite of your diversion attempts, tried (and I believe
> >> > succeeded) in showing that the crop circle proponent's arguments that
> >> > FMD (pedestrian) restrictions had no impact on circle building in 2001
> >> > in the UK is unsupportable. What can be concluded from that is up to
> >> > those that have been lurking.
> >>
> >> I thought river flows might give some indication of weather.
>
> > Only of rainfall in the catchment area, surely? While *you* might
> > think river flow gives some indication of weather, you have not shown
> > it to be so.
>
> They may be a better indication than weather of what the ground is like.

You're saying that a single river's flow pattern taken from one
station on the river is a better indicator of a region's weather that
the weather data gathered by the Bureau of Meteorological's database
from over 30 stations throughout the region?
<http://www.met-office.gov.uk/climate/uk/networks/climnet2.html>

That's not logical.

Why is it that you chose to ignore the rainfall data at the site you
gleaned the river flow data from, as well as the hydrological summary
put together by experts AND the groundwater discussion.

Why is that Brian? If I were a cynical person I might mention the
phrase "data mining". Why don't you put your (incorrect) assumption
on the data into the full context of the information provided.

> They
> do not increase flow until the ground is saturated. (Though, not appropriate
> to UK in my knowledge, fast run off can occur off baked land.)

Your knowledge of UK weather and water reserves is limited then - and
you would have realised this if you had actually read the monthly
summaries relating to rainfall, river flow and groundwater on the site
you decided to ONLY use river flow data from.

FYI. Earlier this year we experienced torrential rain after a longer
and drier than usual summer in 2003. Water companies reported that
the rivers/reservoirs and especially groundwater reserves were not
being replenished because of the rain running of the dry earth.
Again, your assumptions do not reflect the facts.

> The rest of your calculations, while interesting, do not
> > show anything of the sort.
> > Why not just check the monthly weather figures from the Government
> > Meteorological Bureau?
> > <http://www.met-office.gov.uk/climate/uk/>
> > Monthly numbers are available to 1998, but your best bet is from 1999
> > as the data is tabulated.
>
> It would be complex factoring in evapotranspiration.

Sod complex factoring - all you want to know is weather conditions in
the region. This is supplied in better detail and accuracy by weather
station data than unsound derivations from river flow data that you do
not completely understand.

> Since there are only 4
> years it is not really worth it.

You obviously didn't look or try too hard. The data sets go back to
1855, and the three prime weather indicators (as far as crops may be
concerned, rainfall, hours of sunshine and min/max temperatures) are
available back to 1895.
ie <http://www.met-office.gov.uk/climate/uk/stationdata/southamptondata.txt>

<snip>
> > Whoa, whoa, whoa. You've jumped from *thinking* that river flow *may*
> > correlate to weather (uh, what about sunshine and temperature,
> > especially wrt crops?)
>
> Extra flows indicate the ground cannot hold the water,

Incorrect and not just for physical reasons stated above.
There are economical, political and social conditions that can affect
river flow. Not the least of which is the changes in water
abstraction licensing in the UK, let alone changes in irrigation
practices in the UK agricultural industry.

Your entire set of calculations are based on incorrect assumptions and
therefore of little use.

> been less sunshine and temperature.

As shown above, if you do not fully understand the data gathering
process, let alone the data itself, adding in external factors such as
pressures on water resources in a region, why attempt to derive
weather conditions, probably incorrectly, when you have a WEATHER
resource available to you?

Here's a timeline of weather conditions and crops in Hampshire.
/>

I'll do the sums for you:
Month Sun Mean Cum.
Jan Hours Temp Rainfall
->Aug (C) (mm)

1999 1102 10.7 771
2000 1127 10.4 732
2001 1193 10.1 719
2002 1054 10.6 854

Well whaddayano? 2001 had the MOST sunshine, the LOWEST mean
temperature and LEAST rainfall for those years. I'll fully admit that
this is for the entire SW, but it does not gel with your conclusions
very well at all. Oh, before you ask, numbers for Mar, Apr ,May are:

1999 406 9.5 259
2000 451 8.8 306
2001 454 8.5 288
2002 466 9.1 300

> straight to *proving* a correlation between
> > river flow to crop circle emergence and FMD? Try showing the logic of
> > this before attempting to force the numbers.
>
> How am I `forcing' the numbers?

See below, but first, show the logic of your reasoning that river flow
*should* have any relationship to crop circle timing in any year.

> >> Year 1999 2000 2001 2002
> >> Mar+Ap+May flow 18 24 35 22
> >> Apr+May circs 24 14 9 4

For one thing, you make the same mistake as on the researcher's page.
You cannot use the total number of circles recorded in a month to show
a timeline trend. Using an example I've used before:

I have 4 fields and one month (say May) a circle is built in each one
on the 1st.
By your method 4 circles are recorded for May.

Next year, 3 of the fields are closed to the public, but 4 circles are
built in the remaining field, on the 31st.
By your method 4 circles are recorded for May.

This is further compounded by you combining the totals, so yes, you
are forcing the numbers, or at least misrepresenting them for
correlation you are attempting to show.

The issue is, and has always been, *timing* of the appearance not
number of appearances.

> >> Mar+Ap flow 13 15 25 15
> >> Apr circs 9 3 0 1
> >>
> >> FMD Yes(1)/No(0)0 0 1 0

Incorrect data there. If FMD Yes/No is supposed to indicate where FMD
restrictions are in place, you'd be better of showing month by month
trends. Total for the year is ridiculous, it shows nothing.

<snip>
> > You're risking more than choosing the correct correlation technique.
> > You've yet to show that the Itchen River flow has any relationship to
> > weather conditions. As for river flow, have you factored in seasonal
> > abstraction from river systems?
>
> It is only very rough. Besides seasonal effects should be similar from year
> to year and factor out.

The whole point of this part of the thread was for you to show that
changes in weather conditions from year-to-year affect the timing of
the appearance of circles in the UK. You are now saying that the
weather, being similar from year to year, factors OUT of the
equations?

Which is it Brian. Does weather affect the appearance of circles or
not. If not - what was all the statistics rubbish in aid of?


> >> Also there turns up a correlation of river flow to FMD

You are yet to provide a logical and reasonable justification for
attempting to *find* a correlation. Until you do this is just
numerology.

> >> Jan Feb Mar Apr May
> >> 0.94 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.68

Different set of data again. You go on later to compare annual totals
with monthly correlations yet you do not show the working.

> >> May being when it was finished there?
> > This "correlation" implies what?
>
> That for some reason Itchen river flow was high at the same time FMD was
> present.

One last one - why did you only use the Itchen River data when there
is more than over a dozen stations in the Hampsire area you could have
included? Not only that, you take the data in isolation. Try putting
it in context with the rest of the available hydrological data
available at that site.

> River flow affects government
> > decisions on lifting FMD restrictions?
>
> Presumably the restricitions were lifted when it was thought there was less
> risk. I doubt there would have been any talk of rivers transporting FMD. When
> the land dried a bit stock could get out into the fields and have a bit less
> close contact and so less chance for transmission of FMD.

Show a cite for this presumption. You won't be able to, because it is
wrong, but I'd like to see how you came to this incorrect assumption.
I documented exactly what the determination process by the government
was. THis is pure obfuscation, Brian.

> >> But anyway taking the Mar Apr May flows figures, since weather might
> >> stop hoaxers,
>
> > You are yet to show that the Itchen River flow readings actually has
> > any reflection on the weather pattern trends.
>
> Next you will be asking me to prove that day is going to be lighter than
> night.

At least that would be logic that any reasonable person could follow.
But since YOU are putting forward the contention that the river
station data CAN be used to reflect weather pattern trends, it IS up
to you to show it.

You went up this particular creek - and I think you'll find you forgot
the paddle.

> >> r(flows-fmd) = 0.94.
> >> And is there a correlation between FMD & circles?
> >> Yes, r(fmd-circles) = -0.29, a small negative correlation, rather
> >> less than from above
> >> r(flows-circles) = -0.49.
> >> Then what happens when partial correlation is used to get a feel for
> >> removing affects of the factors?
> >> When the effects of the rivers are nullified then FMD becomes
> >> *positively* related to circles.
> >>
> >> r(fmd-circles.flows) = 0.57 instead of -0.29
>
> which indicates flows are connected to cause.

No it doesn't - it's just illogical numerology (how's THAT for an
tautology?).
It's also a contradiction of your own conviction that correlation
isn't causation.
Again I ask, which is it Brian?

> >> and for completeness
> >> r(flows-fmd.circles) = 0.96 instead of 0.94, no change, rather
> >> indicating circles not causative,
> >> r(flows-circles.fmd) = -0.66 instead of -0.49, not much
> >> change indicating FMD not really causative.
> >> With that small amount of data, so far, some of that could be by
> >> chance.
> > And also shows that you can "prove" anything with forced numbers and
> > illogical connections.
> Here is the formula for you to have some fun:
>
<snip>

You need to show that there is a logical connection between the data
befor you can attempt to derive and analyse correlations. You've yet
to do so.

Manipulating the data in isolation and also ignoring the other station
data doesn't help either.

> When the partial correlation tends to zero that means the partialled out
> variable is causal and the non-partial correlation is spurious.
> When the partial correlation is no different from the non-partial, that means
> the partailled out variable is not causal.

When the data is taken in isolation, misunderstood and incomplete, ALL
conclusions are spurious.

> You need first to show that there is a logical
> > connection between a single river's flow trend as an indicator of
> > weather conditions (rainfall, temperature, sunshine).
>
> > How about using *weather* data directly for the county, instead of
> > attempting to derive this data from a single river monitoring station?
>
> The first crop circle for 2001 was in Hampshire at latitude 50 deg 58.6 min
> north, longitude 1 deg 5.9 mins west. That is only 10 or 20 miles from the
> Itchen river (which has its mouth near Southampton). It is not a big reiver
> and seems to have its source on the same side of South Downs.

.... and you ignore the dozen or so other station data.
.... and you are yet to show a logical connection between river flow
and weather
.... and you are yet to show a logical connection between weather and
FMD
.... and you are yet to show a logical connection between river flow
and FMD

I suggest you read the guidelines and summaries on the NRFA site
before you waste any more time crunching unconnected data.

--
Eric Hocking

[Brian Sandle]

In alt.freemasonry Eric Hocking > wrote:
> Brian Sandle > wrote in message >...
>> Eric Hocking > wrote:
>> > Brian Sandle > wrote in message >...
>> >> Eric Hocking > wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >> > I have, in spite of your diversion attempts, tried (and I believe
>> >> > succeeded) in showing that the crop circle proponent's arguments that
>> >> > FMD (pedestrian) restrictions had no impact on circle building in 2001
>> >> > in the UK is unsupportable. What can be concluded from that is up to
>> >> > those that have been lurking.
>> >>
>> >> I thought river flows might give some indication of weather.
>>
>> > Only of rainfall in the catchment area, surely? While *you* might
>> > think river flow gives some indication of weather, you have not shown
>> > it to be so.
>>
>> They may be a better indication than weather of what the ground is like.

> You're saying that a single river's flow pattern taken from one
> station on the river

The river sums the water as it comes in. If any is being taken out I presume
it will be less in wet weather.

is a better indicator of a region's weather that
> the weather data gathered by the Bureau of Meteorological's database
> from over 30 stations throughout the region?
> <http://www.met-office.gov.uk/climate/uk/networks/climnet2.html>

The Itchen river is closer to the Hamphsire site than most of those stations.
There are not 30 in the region - only a few, and mainly near the coast.


> That's not logical.

> Why is it that you chose to ignore the rainfall data at the site you
> gleaned the river flow data from, as well as the hydrological summary
> put together by experts AND the groundwater discussion.

I was just wanting a quick result.

Ground water is a bit deeper. I think it takes longer to refill. That
happens when stress is taken off the wells. Rainfall, as I said, sums into
the river.

> Why is that Brian? If I were a cynical person I might mention the
> phrase "data mining".

I was looking for the weather and came across the river data. I did not go
searching out what fits to that point. I did then take a look at which months
of river flow fitted best. More on data choice below.

Why don't you put your (incorrect) assumption
> on the data into the full context of the information provided.

I think it is pretty good.

>> They
>> do not increase flow until the ground is saturated. (Though, not appropriate
>> to UK in my knowledge, fast run off can occur off baked land.)

> Your knowledge of UK weather and water reserves is limited then - and
> you would have realised this if you had actually read the monthly
> summaries relating to rainfall, river flow and groundwater on the site
> you decided to ONLY use river flow data from.

Comment on your data below.

> FYI. Earlier this year we experienced torrential rain after a longer
> and drier than usual summer in 2003. Water companies reported that
> the rivers/reservoirs and especially groundwater reserves were not
> being replenished because of the rain running of the dry earth.

Yes the water was being lost. The reservoirs would still have to be used.

> Again, your assumptions do not reflect the facts.

I put that bit in brackets because it happens later in the season. I didn't
realise an island country with a latitude like UK's would get very dry.

>> The rest of your calculations, while interesting, do not
>> > show anything of the sort.
>> > Why not just check the monthly weather figures from the Government
>> > Meteorological Bureau?
>> > <http://www.met-office.gov.uk/climate/uk/>
>> > Monthly numbers are available to 1998, but your best bet is from 1999
>> > as the data is tabulated.
>>
>> It would be complex factoring in evapotranspiration.

> Sod complex factoring - all you want to know is weather conditions in
> the region.

The weather was introduced as an explanation for late crops. But river flows
sum the weather and give even more of a picture than the weather.

This is supplied in better detail and accuracy by weather
> station data than unsound derivations from river flow data that you do
> not completely understand.

But there are few in the area.

>> Since there are only 4
>> years it is not really worth it.

> You obviously didn't look or try too hard. The data sets go back to
> 1855, and the three prime weather indicators (as far as crops may be
> concerned, rainfall, hours of sunshine and min/max temperatures) are
> available back to 1895.
> ie <http://www.met-office.gov.uk/climate/uk/stationdata/southamptondata.txt>

I might look for river flows back further and relate crops circles.

> <snip>
>> > Whoa, whoa, whoa. You've jumped from *thinking* that river flow *may*
>> > correlate to weather (uh, what about sunshine and temperature,
>> > especially wrt crops?)
>>
>> Extra flows indicate the ground cannot hold the water,

> Incorrect and not just for physical reasons stated above.
> There are economical, political and social conditions that can affect
> river flow. Not the least of which is the changes in water
> abstraction licensing in the UK, let alone changes in irrigation
> practices in the UK agricultural industry.

More will be taken out in dry weather.

> Your entire set of calculations are based on incorrect assumptions and
> therefore of little use.

Where is a measure of surface ground saturation? And I not fungi do not grow
until the ground dries a bit. Not that I am saying it is fungi, but that in
some cases it may be.

>> been less sunshine and temperature.

> As shown above, if you do not fully understand the data gathering
> process, let alone the data itself, adding in external factors such as
> pressures on water resources in a region, why attempt to derive
> weather conditions, probably incorrectly, when you have a WEATHER
> resource available to you?

> Here's a timeline of weather conditions and crops in Hampshire.
> />

> I'll do the sums for you:
> Month Sun Mean Cum.
> Jan Hours Temp Rainfall
> ->Aug (C) (mm)

> 1999 1102 10.7 771
> 2000 1127 10.4 732
> 2001 1193 10.1 719
> 2002 1054 10.6 854

> Well whaddayano? 2001 had the MOST sunshine, the LOWEST mean
> temperature and LEAST rainfall for those years. I'll fully admit that
> this is for the entire SW, but it does not gel with your conclusions
> very well at all. Oh, before you ask, numbers for Mar, Apr ,May are:

Yes, why did you give up to August? I did not look at river flows that far.

> 1999 406 9.5 259
> 2000 451 8.8 306
> 2001 454 8.5 288
> 2002 466 9.1 300

From your graph, thanks, the rain eased by May in 2001. That would drop the
total for those three months.

The slope of the cumulative rainfall graph shows the amount of rain effect.
Note a long constant slope in 2001, starting from only 100 in mid Jan and
going to nearly 500 by mid Apr. And only about 50 hours of sun to mid March.
There was not much sun in 2002 either in that time, but the slope of the
rainfall graph tapered off. Circles were also a bit few in 2002, BTW.


>> straight to *proving* a correlation between
>> > river flow to crop circle emergence and FMD? Try showing the logic of
>> > this before attempting to force the numbers.
>>
>> How am I `forcing' the numbers?

> See below, but first, show the logic of your reasoning that river flow
> *should* have any relationship to crop circle timing in any year.

I need some help with statistical education.

There is always the warning against doing lots of correlations and taking the
ones you think you like. If there is 5% chance of any particular result
happening by chance then the more you take the more likely your result is by
chance.

So you are told to think out a theory and test it by stats.

I feel that that is now rather hit and miss. Your theory and the stats still
have a 5% chance of being wrong. What is needed is an analysis which deals
with that. That usually means wait until 20 more people have repeated your
work, doesn't it?

My approach would be to look for all correlations with knowledge that 5% are
by chance, to acknowledge that but to try to build a pattern of what is
happening using the partial correlations to help, and to decide on further
directions, not to wait the years for people to check the one correlation you
have done.

I tend to develop reasoning after seeing a pattern.

>> >> Year 1999 2000 2001 2002
>> >> Mar+Ap+May flow 18 24 35 22
>> >> Apr+May circs 24 14 9 4

> For one thing, you make the same mistake as on the researcher's page.
> You cannot use the total number of circles recorded in a month to show
> a timeline trend.

If there are fewer circles then they are likely to start later.

> Using an example I've used before:

> I have 4 fields and one month (say May) a circle is built in each one
> on the 1st.
> By your method 4 circles are recorded for May.

> Next year, 3 of the fields are closed to the public, but 4 circles are
> built in the remaining field, on the 31st.
> By your method 4 circles are recorded for May.

Yes, but fewer show Apr - May.

> This is further compounded by you combining the totals, so yes, you
> are forcing the numbers, or at least misrepresenting them for
> correlation you are attempting to show.

> The issue is, and has always been, *timing* of the appearance not
> number of appearances.

I could go back and give 0 for none that month and 1 if any occurred. Might
not be too different.

>> >> Mar+Ap flow 13 15 25 15
>> >> Apr circs 9 3 0 1
>> >>
>> >> FMD Yes(1)/No(0)0 0 1 0

> Incorrect data there. If FMD Yes/No is supposed to indicate where FMD
> restrictions are in place, you'd be better of showing month by month
> trends. Total for the year is ridiculous, it shows nothing.

It is not total for year it is only if FMD was present in the tiem just
preceding when the circles normally appear.

> <snip>
>> > You're risking more than choosing the correct correlation technique.
>> > You've yet to show that the Itchen River flow has any relationship to
>> > weather conditions. As for river flow, have you factored in seasonal
>> > abstraction from river systems?
>>
>> It is only very rough. Besides seasonal effects should be similar from year
>> to year and factor out.

> The whole point of this part of the thread was for you to show that
> changes in weather conditions from year-to-year affect the timing of
> the appearance of circles in the UK. You are now saying that the
> weather, being similar from year to year, factors OUT of the
> equations?

> Which is it Brian. Does weather affect the appearance of circles or
> not. If not - what was all the statistics rubbish in aid of?

Seasonal abstraction I thought meant that more water is drawn in the dry
season of each year. In a wet year that will be below average.

>> >> Also there turns up a correlation of river flow to FMD

> You are yet to provide a logical and reasonable justification for
> attempting to *find* a correlation. Until you do this is just
> numerology.

See above theory.


>> >> Jan Feb Mar Apr May
>> >> 0.94 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.68

> Different set of data again. You go on later to compare annual totals
> with monthly correlations yet you do not show the working.

Just giving the individual months before combining.

>> >> May being when it was finished there?
>> > This "correlation" implies what?
>>
>> That for some reason Itchen river flow was high at the same time FMD was
>> present.

> One last one - why did you only use the Itchen River data when there
> is more than over a dozen stations in the Hampsire area you could have
> included?

Not in your map on that side of South Downs.

Not only that, you take the data in isolation. Try putting
> it in context with the rest of the available hydrological data
> available at that site.

Where is the surface ground saturation data?

>> River flow affects government
>> > decisions on lifting FMD restrictions?
>>
>> Presumably the restricitions were lifted when it was thought there was less
>> risk. I doubt there would have been any talk of rivers transporting FMD. When
>> the land dried a bit stock could get out into the fields and have a bit less
>> close contact and so less chance for transmission of FMD.

> Show a cite for this presumption. You won't be able to, because it is
> wrong, but I'd like to see how you came to this incorrect assumption.

They have less contact with the other animals' excrement or drinking water so
probability of rapid spread reduces.

> I documented exactly what the determination process by the government
> was. THis is pure obfuscation, Brian.

I just presumed that when the disease was controlled the restricitons were
removed. It did not become controlled while the animals were cramped
together.


>> >> But anyway taking the Mar Apr May flows figures, since weather might
>> >> stop hoaxers,
>>
>> > You are yet to show that the Itchen River flow readings actually has
>> > any reflection on the weather pattern trends.
>>
>> Next you will be asking me to prove that day is going to be lighter than
>> night.

> At least that would be logic that any reasonable person could follow.
> But since YOU are putting forward the contention that the river
> station data CAN be used to reflect weather pattern trends, it IS up
> to you to show it.

The important summed weather effect is likely to be reflected in river flows.

> You went up this particular creek - and I think you'll find you forgot
> the paddle.

Allow me to associate ideas. A paddle control on an old computer could be
hooked up to record surface ground resistance therefore water saturation.

>> >> r(flows-fmd) = 0.94.
>> >> And is there a correlation between FMD & circles?
>> >> Yes, r(fmd-circles) = -0.29, a small negative correlation, rather
>> >> less than from above
>> >> r(flows-circles) = -0.49.
>> >> Then what happens when partial correlation is used to get a feel for
>> >> removing affects of the factors?
>> >> When the effects of the rivers are nullified then FMD becomes
>> >> *positively* related to circles.
>> >>
>> >> r(fmd-circles.flows) = 0.57 instead of -0.29
>>
>> which indicates flows are connected to cause.

> No it doesn't - it's just illogical numerology (how's THAT for an
> tautology?).

I didn't say they are cause. Somehow they are likely to be connected to it.

> It's also a contradiction of your own conviction that correlation
> isn't causation.
> Again I ask, which is it Brian?

Correlation is not causation, but partial correlation hints at causation.

>> >> and for completeness
>> >> r(flows-fmd.circles) = 0.96 instead of 0.94, no change, rather
>> >> indicating circles not causative,
>> >> r(flows-circles.fmd) = -0.66 instead of -0.49, not much
>> >> change indicating FMD not really causative.
>> >> With that small amount of data, so far, some of that could be by
>> >> chance.
>> > And also shows that you can "prove" anything with forced numbers and
>> > illogical connections.
>> Here is the formula for you to have some fun:
>>
> <snip>

Snipped the formula? Don't you like it?

> You need to show that there is a logical connection between the data
> befor you can attempt to derive and analyse correlations. You've yet
> to do so.

See again, above theory.

> Manipulating the data in isolation and also ignoring the other station
> data doesn't help either.

There wasn't any closer. Also you included irrelevant months.

>> When the partial correlation tends to zero that means the partialled out
>> variable is causal and the non-partial correlation is spurious.
>> When the partial correlation is no different from the non-partial, that means
>> the partailled out variable is not causal.

> When the data is taken in isolation, misunderstood and incomplete, ALL
> conclusions are spurious.

That is not the technical sense of the word. As I said the old way is to wait
for people to repeat your experiment. I think there is better way to do
things.

>> You need first to show that there is a logical
>> > connection between a single river's flow trend as an indicator of
>> > weather conditions (rainfall, temperature, sunshine).
>>
>> > How about using *weather* data directly for the county, instead of
>> > attempting to derive this data from a single river monitoring station?
>>
>> The first crop circle for 2001 was in Hampshire at latitude 50 deg 58.6 min
>> north, longitude 1 deg 5.9 mins west. That is only 10 or 20 miles from the
>> Itchen river (which has its mouth near Southampton). It is not a big reiver
>> and seems to have its source on the same side of South Downs.

> ... and you ignore the dozen or so other station data.

list them.

> ... and you are yet to show a logical connection between river flow
> and weather

It shows on your diagram.

> ... and you are yet to show a logical connection between weather and
> FMD

Many diseases are seasonal. Humans can get more fungal diseases in hot humid
weather when the sweat provides the environment.

Lack of sunlight reduces vitamin D an important immune regulator, helpful
against TB I think.

> ... and you are yet to show a logical connection between river flow
> and FMD

Cooped up animals meant it could be spread easily and rapidly.

> I suggest you read the guidelines and summaries on the NRFA site
> before you waste any more time crunching unconnected data.

National Rural Fire Authority?

Now if I were dealing with a summer disease I might correlate to fire risk,
since that would indicate moisture.