Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1999 -> Jul -> Here

From: Ron Decker <decker@wt.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 22:13:55 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 12:54:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 22:40:44 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>>Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 05:42:32 -0500
>>From: Ron Decker <decker@wt.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>>>Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:42:53 +0100
>>>From: Neil Morris <Neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?

>>>Yes it was "done" under ambiant night conditions, ie darkness<g>,
>>>the BBC team used "nightvision" on the video camera to make the
>>>recording, and as Sean confirmed in an earlier post the circle
>>>researchers had got wind of the hoaxing attempt and were in the
>>>general area trying to track D+D+Co down, so use of any form of
>>>"lighting" out in the landscape would have been a dead givaway.
>
>>>It proved it could be done, thats all.
>>>It didn't/couldn't prove they were ALL hoaxes.
>
>>Neil,
>
>>With all due respect, this is the sort of thing those schooled
>>in the Amazing Randi branch of knowledge will use to confirm
>>that it -does- prove that the balance of crop circles are
>>hoaxes.
>
>>Their logic goes something like this: 'If I can reproduce it
>>through slight of hand, etc., then the (choose your paranormal
>>or otherwise unexplainable event) must be hoaxed by evil-minded,
>>avaricious charlatans bent on taking your money.'
>
>Yes, but what you forget is that cerealogists pre-D&D were
>asserting to anyone willing to listen (and buy their books) that
>crop circles could not be done by humans period. Remarkably,
>none of the prominent cerealogists of the time, ie., Meaden,
>Andrews, Delgado, Taylor, Wingfield, etc., tried (as far as I'm
>aware) to create their own circles to see if they _could_ be
>done. They were too busy publishing books remarking on the crop
>circles' alleged miraculous properties.

Dennis,

Let's see if I'm interpreting you correctly.  The cerealogists
you note _were/are_ evil-minded, avaricious charlatans bent on
taking the public's money?  Bastards!

If I'm not mistaken, the comment to which I replied dealt with
_all_ crop circles not being proved hoaxes by the activities of
D&D.

And I do recall seeing reports of people trying to duplicate
crop circles.

It usually went something like this:

Man creates crude circle in wheat with feet.  Camera zooms in
and voice-over notes that the properties of the just bent wheat
do not demonstrate the same properties of bent wheat in 'real'
crop circles (intertwining, etc., whatever).  So please don't
tell me that no one was attempting to make these things if for
no other reason than to demonstrate that the ones they made were
entirely different from those discovered in farmer's fields.

>Rather than cashing in on the phenomenon, D&D were routinely
>vilified and ridiculed by the English crop circle community. You
>forget, too, that the Centre for Crop Cirlce Studies sponsored
>its own hoax context, the results of which stunned many within
>cerealogy. Of those who originally brought the phenomenon to
>worldwide attention, you might ask, "Where are they now?" Why do
>you think Meaden has let the phenomenon lapse into well deserved
>obscurity? Why do you think Pat Delgado has disappeared from the
>picture entirely, as Colin Andrews seems to be in the process of
>doing? You don't hear too much about the phenomenal circles from
>Busty Taylor and George Wingfield these days, either. I wonder
>why? Because they know what you don't.

How noble of D&D (martyrs) not to cash in when they could.  I
guess that makes anyone who's made a buck off this and any other
anomalous phenomenon a snake oil salesman.

If these cerealogists were making such foolish statements to the
effect that the phenomena could not be the result of human
effort then they deserve to have their chairs pulled from
underneath them. In that regard D&D have done the subject a real
service.

But the fact that D&D faked a circle (and others as well) does
not mean that all crop circles are fakes.

>And before you accuse me of speaking from an armchair on the
>circles, guess again. I was even there when Steven Greer was
>waving his ridiculous flashlights around, the night before he
>got hoaxed by Irving and Schnabel.

I would never accuse you (nor did I) of being an armchair
anything.  Where did that come from?  Do you need credentials to
discuss whether one set of hoaxes makes the entire subject the
result of hoaxes?  I don't think so.  How about the UFO field?
Does one hoaxed UFO sighting negate the rest?

>>I ran into this sort of medieval thinking with my brother-
>>in-law, an avowed atheist.  He saw the PBS (?) program on Doug
>>and Dave and concluded that _all_ crop circles are manmade (by
>>D&D no less). It made no difference to him that D&D are not
>>cotinent-hopping circle hoaxers; they are responsible for crop
>>circles. Case closed. Mystery solved.

>>How many others out there in TV Land have come to the same
>>conclusion?

>As for your brother-in-law, you have my condolences. Is it too
>late to get another one? One, perhaps, who isn't an atheist, and
>who believes that an alien intelligence, by flattening patterns
>in wheat and other crops, is trying to tell us something really,
>really profound? One, in other words, who believes anything? I
>certainly hope there aren't any of those out there in TV (or
>Radio) Land. Nah, I thought not.

I'm afraid it _is_ too late to get another one.  He and my
sister love each other very much.  Personally I would have
preferred a non-atheist but you know how these things go; we
usually don't have much say in who our siblings marry.

You have, by the way, described my brother-in-law.  Just
substitute 'Origin of Species' for the Bible, Carl Sagan/Randi/
et al for Moses or Jesus and there he is.  He's the flip side of
the coin you're deriding.  Like most true believers he'll buy
anything if it's from the right source.

Unfortunately there are plenty of 'them' out there in TV Land.

What we don't often discuss are the ones like my brother-in-law.
If it's on Nova then, by God, it's the Gospel; Randi duplicates
some 'psychic' phenomenon, and the rest of it's got to be faked.
On and on.  How utterly ridiculous.  The professed adherence of
an individual to science doesn't necessarily make him a rational
creature.

Obviously you prefer my brother-in-law type of true believer to
the UFO/Bigfoot/Psychokinesis-believing true believer.  Whatever
makes you happy.  That's why God made chocolate and vanilla.

Very best regards,
Ron.