Ice meteors, climate, sceptics

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

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

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.

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Eric Hocking wrote:
Brian Sandle wrote in message
...
Eric Hocking wrote:
[...]
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.
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/p...ions/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.

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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...2/07/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/ar...tribution.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.