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: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 16:56:14 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 10:39:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Doug & Dave?


>Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 22:13:55 -0500
>From: Ron Decker <decker@wt.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>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?

>>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!

Ron,

I think maybe you ought to ask them, and then reread what I
said. And then refresh your history of the crop circle
phenomenon. When the Americans began arriving on the scene in
the early 1990s, the English were basically measuring the
circles, photographing them, and little else. Oh, yes, there
were a couple of dowsers afoot in the fields as well. My point
was: the people who originally popularized the phenomenon have
quietly withdrawn from same. Aren't you curious as to why? Why
don't you ask them?

>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.

I've told you nothing of the sort. I said that the original
proponents themselves didn't try to demonstrate whether complex
circles could be formed by human hands. That only occurred after
D&D went public and the Centre for Crop Circle Studies sponsored
its own (quite impressive) hoax contest. Read your history
again.

<snip>

>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.

Your words again, not mine.

>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.

A lot of people would probably agree with you.

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

I don't think anyone ever said it did. What is known is that
'miraculous' properties have been assigned to perfectly normal,
ie, manmade, circles. There is no reliable litmus test by which
the real thing can be separated from the chaff, despite
Levengood's protestations to the contrary.

>>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?

Where did your own above statements come from that intimated
that I referred to all cerealogists as money-grubbing charlatans
and bastards? I raised the armchair issue simply because it's
the first claim that's usually levelled whenever someone
criticizes someone else's pet theory. I wanted you to know that
I wasn't talking from book smarts, that I'd been there and done
that. In fact, I was a part of Michael Chorost's Project Argus,
the first systematic collection, as far as I'm aware, of crop
and soil samples associated with the circles. Now, try reading
your Levengood et al to see if they even remotely credit us with
same.

<snip>

>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.

Again, my condolences on your brother-in-law.

<snip>

>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.


Whatever.

And best regards to you, too.

Dennis