A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » General Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Ice meteors, climate, sceptics



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 30th 04, 12:07 PM
Brian Sandle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #22  
Old February 1st 04, 05:11 PM
Eric Hocking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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/cg...K&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.


  #23  
Old February 1st 04, 05:49 PM
Eric Hocking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.


  #24  
Old February 2nd 04, 04:24 AM
Brian Sandle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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/cg...K&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.
  #25  
Old February 3rd 04, 01:25 AM
Eric Hocking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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' a
[...]
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.


  #26  
Old February 3rd 04, 04:18 AM
Brian Sandle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #27  
Old February 3rd 04, 11:44 PM
Eric Hocking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.


  #28  
Old February 4th 04, 07:59 AM
Brian Sandle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #29  
Old February 5th 04, 12:46 AM
Eric Hocking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.
http://uk.f2.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/...lbum?.dir=/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.


  #30  
Old February 5th 04, 03:54 AM
Brian Sandle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
http://uk.f2.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/...lbum?.dir=/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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.