Conference hydra::dejavu

    
    You might want to check out the UFO notesfile for lots more info
    on the crop circles.  The OMNI magazine mentioned in the previous
    note is a special edition on UFO's.  Once you see the photographs
    of these circles (actually they are no longer circles, but rather
    symbols), it is very hard to accept that the wind has done this.
    
    I went to a channeling session a couple of months ago and someone
    asked about these circles - what are they and who is doing them.
    The answer was that they are being done by what we would call aliens,
    and that there are a couple of purposes.  One purpose is that these
    are forms of artistic expression! :-)  The other purpose is to gently
    let us know that they are there so we can get used to them and won't
    be too shocked when they become more visible to us.
    
    These symbols are now showing up all around the planet - started
    in England and they are now in Canada, Australia, the U.S., Japan
    (did I miss any?).  The latest one in the U.S. happened just this
    week in Moline, Illinois.  It is approximately a 64 feet in diameter
    circle.
    
    I find it interesting that as these start to appear in "new" 
    countries, they begin in their simpler form.  Will we begin to
    see the really complex symbols starting to appear in this country?
    
    Carole

    I'm probably just weird :-), but those circles don't seem that
    strange to me that I'd consider UFO involvement my *first*
    choice of explanation.
    
    The circle is the classic shape of stable
    energy and structural flow and, and the vortex is a form of circle
    with other forces acting on it.  I think of a soap bubble.  It is
    stable in a spherical form.   The tornado and the whirlpool are other 
    good *examples*,even if not the *cause*.  Strange Attractor patterns tend
    to be spiral-ish as well.  Cancer cells grow in a vortex pattern.  Many 
    galaxies retain their form as spirals.  Worth investigating, yes !  
    Phenomena like that may indicate connectedness patterns that are not yet 
    fully understood, even if not anything as interesting as alien 
    intelligence.
    
    	kind regards,
    
    	Todd

    I predict that the circles will begin to incorporate words into their
    designs... words like... 
    
    				NO WAR
    
    Mary :-)

		Oh, Mary, I like that....!!

    re: .4, NO WAR,
    What a spooky, compelling image !   I wonder what most people would do 
    if that did happen.  Explain it away as a hoax, or a random
    occurance, or might it spark the connected-ness undercurrent in 
    people ?

    Well Todd... when it starts showing up all over the world in different
    countries, they won't be able to casually dismiss it as a hoax and the
    crop symbols have long ago ceased to be a random occurance.
    
    What it might do is to make people look up for the first time in a 
    long time and search for the interconnected-ness undercurrent that
    right now carries them into the current of reality.  It might make
    people stop and consider what they do and why....  I'd settle for that 
    for now.
    
    Mary

    
    
    ...and, this would have the most impact if they showed up in
    each country's native language!  All at the same time!
    
    Carole

    Lets give it a shot, shall we? :-)

    I've been too busy to continue arguing about this in UFO's but I'll
    briefly state my opinion, and let those who wish to interpret this as
    supernatural or due to non-human intelligences have their say.

    There are basically two classes of patterns:

	1) Many simple (single circle) to moderately complex (large circe
	   with up to three annular rings and four evenly spaced, same
	   sized, smaller circles evenly spaced around the rings) patterns.
	   These have been showing up all around the world for at least
	   10 years, with some apparent descriptions going back centuries.
	   Most have appeared in the South of England.

	2) A few very complex figures, consisting of circles, rings, lines
	   squares.  These have only shown up recently -- since the
	   publicity about these figures has become intense.

    We know that some of the figures have been fakes.  The argument against
    all of them being fakes is:

	1) The effort to systematically fake large numbers of these at least
	   all across England and probably all over the world, at least
	   for over a decade and perhaps for centuries, would be immense
	   with very little gain.

	2) Simple techniques which have been attempted in duplicating the
	   effect produce results which are distinctly different to
	   experienced investigators.  This does *not* mean that there is
	   no way of faking them -- only that it is not easy to produce a
	   fake that an objective, experienced investigator will accept.

    The worldwide publicity that these patterns have received has made it
    much more likely that patterns will be noticed and reported in areas
    where conditions are such that they are only produced occasionally
    (whatever those conditions are).  Unfortunately, that same publicity
    gives many people a variety of strong motivations for faking the
    patterns (e.g., to get publicity, to prove the existence of ETs, to
    prove that the local investigators can be fooled, or just to see how
    hard it would be).

    If we just consider the first category, I think that meterological
    expanations are very plausible.  Perhaps, but not necessarily, the
    torroidal vortex (NOTE: not any previously known form of meteorlogical
    phenomenon) which has been proposed.  It seems to explain their form,
    their location, the few eyewitness accounts of their formation, their
    frequency, etc.  I find this a truly amazing, astounding phenomenon
    but plausible -- if your mind is not boggled two or three times a week
    by scientific discoveries you're not paying attention.

    I think that the second category of patterns would preclude this
    explanation, however, *if we accept that all the patterns must have the
    same cause*.  There is no reason to accept this latter, however (and if
    we did we would have to accept that cause to be fraud since some
    patterns have unquestionably been fraudulent).  I have not seen, so
    far, any reason to exclude fraud as an explanation for most of the
    figures in the second category.  They are not so many or so widespread
    that (given the worldwide publicity) the arguments against fraud for
    the first category can be applied.  Some other second category figures
    may have been produced by chance alignments of independent figures
    and/or completely unrelated terrain features (I have seen a photograph
    of one claimed category 2 figure -- one of the simpler ones -- which
    was quite clearly to me a chance and rather rough alignment of two
    category 1 figures which appeared to be of different ages to my
    admittedly untrained eye).

    So far I have heard no reports on the category 2 figures by anyone who
    (a) has examined a significant number of the category 1 figures and (b)
    seemed to me willing to entertain any possibility other than non-human
    intelligences as the source.  In other words they may not even be
    particularly sophisticated fakes, particularly if the encorporate
    existing category 1 patterns.  Even if some do appear to an expert the
    same as category 1 patterns, this may only mean that someone has come
    up with a more sophisticated means of counterfeiting the effect.

    Note that I am *not* claiming to *know* that the category 2 figures are
    fakes.  I am only saying that I do not have any valid reason for
    thinking that they are not.  Until I do, I will continue to consider
    that the most plausible explanation for these patterns is a fascinating
    new weather phenomenon for the vast majority of them, with a few fakes
    and misinterpretations thrown in.

					Topher

    Remember what Dylan said Toph... "you don't have to be weatherman to
    know which way the wind is blowing".
    
    Mary :-)

    Very true Mary, which is why I'm always surprised when someone stands
    there with their hair and clothing pulled straight out east, pointing
    north and saying "It goes that-a-way -- that's more interesting."

    (very much :-)).

				    Topher

    re: .10,
    
>if your mind is not boggled two or three times a week
>    by scientific discoveries you're not paying attention.
    
    Ooooh, you said a mouthful, my friend.  :-)  
    Enjoyed your analysis.
    	
    	Todd

Well, my personal opinion is: its not done by aliens, and it ain't the
weather. Its an energy form we're not familiar with and its saying "if
you build it, he will come."  ;')

Jay

>    				DRINK YOG-SOTHOTH INTERGALACTIC COLA

Thanks! You made my week :-)

    .13
    
    You're a true capitolist Paul :-) .... 
    
    Mary

    Jay - 
    
    I don't know about "he will come" but certainly "people will come" has
    already proven to be true.  (Maybe it's a quirky dialect!)  
    
    ;-)  ;-)
    
    Nanci

    
    I think its Houdini still trying to communicate his secret message:
       "Its cold over here".
    
    Mike
    

    About this weather theory...

    I've seen some pretty strong wind blow wheat/tall grass around.  The
    plant takes a beating, but it doesn't lay down.  When the wind stops,
    it perks back up.  The photos I've seen look as if the grass/whatever
    has been "pressed" upon with some significant weight or such.  How
    would these vortex's do this?

    Terry

RE: .20 (Terry)

    A number of possibly contributing factors:

	1) They appear to be highly electrically charged (as are many more
	   conventional whirlwinds).  Enough so to, according to
	   eyewitnesses, glow orange in the dark.  (Other forms of powerful
	   whirlwinds, which are powered by solar energy, will not form
	   in complete darkness so this has not been observed for them).
	   The intense electrostatic field may interact with the plants
	   structure/matabolism to contribute to the affect.

	2) The winds within the toroid could be very strong -- even
	   tornadal in force.  A tornado can certainly flatten wheat.

	3) The winds in question would not be blowing the wheat straight
	   down or across as an ordinary wind, or even a tornado would
	   do.  The wind in question is spiraling vertically (sounds weird
	   but this effect is well known and even commonplace -- one
	   particularly visible example o fthis kind of stable fluid flow
	   is a smoke ring.  It just has not previously been observed
	   meteorlogically).  It might therefore be twisting each stalk
	   as well as pushing it over.

    Can I demonstrate that these are sufficient to do the job?  No.  Is it
    plausible that they might?  I think so.

					    Topher

        How I would love it sometime if everyone would just let 
    something "be!"  It's such a drag that everyone who owns a 
    microscope or a scientific calculator wants to run out and
    analyze everything to its magical death.  
        Do you want to know why real magic doesn't exist in the 
    realities of so many people?  
    
        Because they won't let it.
    
    
    Frederick
    

    
    Gee, Frederick, it kind of sounds like you're leading toward the
    
      	      "Because God/Goddess/ATI made it that way." 
    
    side.
    
    Cindy

re.20
Doubtful.. I have seen wheat fields take a good beating from hail storms
the stalks always return to the up right soon after the storm the real damage
is from the wheat kernels being knocked off(from the farmers standing).
The majority of the US's wheat fields are also in tornado country
(kansas,No & So Dakota,ect) and have survived quite well so far without
any crop circles being formed. A tornado is a wind vortex of huge
dimension not a scrawny little dust devil like these scientists are suggesting.

-j

    Like Fred, I prefer to watch and wait. I can tolerate the ambiguity of
    not knowing for awhile longer. It's a wonderful mystery right now.
    
    Richard B

    Re: .22 and .25
    
    I'm with you guys ... can't wait to see what's going to pop up next!
    A surprise around every corner, and I for one, love surprises!
    
    C-2
    

re.25
Are you the same Richard Bradley I know?

-Jerry Gortmaker

    RE: .22, .25, .26
    
    I side with you all and do like to watch a real-life mystery unravel
    before our eyes.  But, it's also fascinating to hear the hypotheses
    of the scientific-minded folks.  That is what i like about this
    conference -- it stimulates both halves of my brain and all chambers
    of my heart.
    
    (Aside, It could be caused by toroidial whirpool� scrubbing bubbles
    who have lost their way down the kitchen drain.)
    
    Tone

RE: .22 (Frederick)

    Do you want to know why real magic doesn't exist in the realities of so
    many people?

    ...  Because they are so afraid of *real* magic that they will not look
    too closely at how it actually operates all around them every minute
    (second, microsecond, picosecond ...) of every day.

    Frederick -- some people look for magic only in stories that they tell
    themselves, while others look for it in the world.  We will, I suppose,
    continue to look at this differently.  We each see the other as
    pursuing only delusion/maya.  Suffice it to say that the scientists, on
    the average, with their attempts to understand the universe as it is,
    live as rich a life as, on the average, do "your crowd" (for lack of a
    better identifying label), with their attempts to make their own
    universes.

					    Topher

RE: .24 (-j)

    Hailstorms and toroidal vortexes are not even faintly comparable, its
    not just the force but how the force is applied.

>The majority of the US's wheat fields are also in tornado country
>(kansas,No & So Dakota,ect) and have survived quite well so far without
>any crop circles being formed. A tornado is a wind vortex of huge
>dimension not a scrawny little dust devil like these scientists are suggesting.

    They are not suggesting a dust-devil, "scrawny little" or otherwise. 
    What they are talking about starts out "looking" something like a
    dust-devil, but is actually quite different in important details of air
    flow, in cause, in conditions under which it will form, and most
    importantly in how it breaks down.  The patterns are formed, according
    to the theory, when they break down (specifically, when their energy
    is redirected into one or more powerful, toroidal vortexes which shoot
    down towards the ground; when they hit they spit into multiple
    counter-rotating semi-toroids which spread outward and finally
    recombine (resulting in a sharp edge) -- this behavior has been
    observed in the laboratory).  Tornados and dust-devils cannot break
    down in this way because of the way they are maintained.

    A tornado uses most of its power to maintain itself.  As strong and as
    devestating as it can be, only a small fraction of its internal kinetic
    energy is being applied to its surroundings at any given moment.  Since
    the crop circle toroids are produced, according to the theory, by the
    breakdown of the whirlwind in question, virtually all of its energy
    could be brought to bear on forming the patterns.  I don't know enough
    of the turbulent flow theory to be sure, but I would not be surprised
    to discover that the energy applied during the formation of a crop
    circle is not a meaningful fraction of that put out by a tornado in
    a similar period of time.

    And the *amount* of energy is not as important as how it is applied. I
    have seen a lightning bolt virtually explode a tree, but have never
    seen one tune in a rock band.  Since the power in my Walk-Man is so
    much less than that in the lightning bolt, should I conclude that it
    couldn't possibly work?  Your comparison to tornados (and even more to
    hail) does not deal with the direction of force, the twisting and the
    static charge involved in the theory (yet this is what note .20 which
    you were responding to spoke of rather than the amount of force).

    
    Lets see if we can't add a new level of fun to this mystery. :-)
    
    A little something new for the scientists among us to analyse and the 
    rest of us to admire and appreciate the wonders of reality.
    
    Baghdad is an ancient and magical place.  Lets tap into that magick and
    let it flow into existence.
    
    Lets raise those circles up into the sky.  Lets spell out the word
    "PEACE" in letters of fire in the skies of Iraq and the Middle East.
    Let the letters hang there... until they drop harmlessly towards the
    ground and disintegrate.  Let the people of the Middle East know that the
    true nature of the Divine is a peaceful nature.  Such a dramatic event
    is one the people would love. :-) ... we can tap their own desire to
    project it.
    
    
    "And I'll call down thunder and speak the same
     And my words fill the sky with flame
     Might and glory gonna be my name
     They gonna light my way"
                              Estimated Prophet by the Grateful Dead
    
    

    
    
    Better yet,why dont we ask the aliens to spell "PEACE",on the surface
    of the Sun and Moon,then,we all can get the message.
    
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

    re: Topher-a-few-back
    
         The problem, Topher, as I see it, is that the "scientist"
    is almost always looking backwards...trying to fill in the blanks,
    attempting to generate plauible answers.  And you know what?
    He/she *does*  But how do they do it?  By applying their own 
    beliefs, et.al.  What generated the reality?  Was it that
    vortex of columnar energy?  Was it the meeting of hot/cold air
    masses subjected to ozone vapors?  Was it the result of the 
    square of mass of centifugal parametric oscillations?  You see,
    it's all bull sh(o)t!  This just fits into whatever paradigm
    you're buying.  Do you wish to continue to apply Newtonian principles?
    Or have you now shifted to Relativistic/Quantum principles?  Is this
    where "the answer" lies?  AS I wrote in here nearly three years ago,
    I believe that effects precede causes.  The result is at hand before
    the causes are determined.  What causes are manifest, then?   Whatever
    cause you choose to tap into.  If you really want to believe in 
    aliens, then it shall be.  If you really want to believe it is the
    hand of God, then for you it shall thus be.  If you want it to be 
    some sort of vectored analysis of atmospheric disruption, then for you
    it shall be.  But the magic gets lost these ways.  The magic is in
    realizing that it was thought that generated this reality.  The magic
    is in realizing that the thought can be altered, transformed, changed
    into any of an infinite different ways, WITHOUT LIMITATIONS.  Those
    limitations rapidly fall into place once a certain belief system is
    implemented.  
         As you say, Topher, it's a choice.  If you choose a lifetime
    of examining and analyzing your beliefs, terrific.  I'll continue
    to work towards eliminating my beliefs, towards replacing beliefs
    with magic...towards generating a reality that is not limited and
    bound by someone else's constipated expectations (I have enough
    of my own...;-) )
    
    Frederick
    

    re.32
    
    We don't all own telescopes Michael. :-)  Besides... some of us need
    this message more than others right now.  
    
    Mary
    

    wow, several neat discussions, here.
    
    re: .31, Mary,
    	Rings of fire, nice incantation !  Very biblical in flavor.
    	Let's try it. :-)
    
    re: .33, Frederick,
    
>to work towards eliminating my beliefs, towards replacing beliefs
>    with magic...towards generating a reality that is not limited and
    
    	To me, explaining the mechanisms of an occurance is logic of a different
    	level, and for a different purpose, than understanding its
    	*meaning*.  Why can't they both exist within the same sphere of
    	perception ?
    
    	Your points are very worthy and very pertinent to the spirit in
    	which science has often been applied.   I might suggest further that
    	even magic has its own definite belief structures.   If it didn't,
    	then how could we create something unexpected and delightful ?
    	Everything would be expected and very, very, dull.  I wouldn't
    	want to give up ALL my expectations :-) ...  
    
    		Todd

    This subject came up at the 48th World Science Fiction Convention,
    held in The Hague, Netherlands in August.  The explanation given
    there was:
    
    	The British Army has been testing its new Stealth Tractor.
    
    This explanation may even have been given with a straight face, but
    I wouldn't count on it.
    
    							Ann B.

    Magick does have it's own belief structure.

    Stealth tractors, eh? .... tsk, tsk, tsk ...   Spoken by a species 
    desperately in need of miracles ..... once again. :-)
    
    Mary

>    Stealth tractors, eh? .... tsk, tsk, tsk ...   Spoken by a species 
>    desperately in need of miracles ..... once again. :-)
    
    No, I have definite evidence of their existence ...
    
    
    	No one has ever seen one.

    Great discussion!  Here's another couple cents worth.
    
    Re:  Topher and the wind vortex.
    
    Very interesting theory, never heard of this before.  But I do have a
    couple problems with this.  1)  With any great wind/wind tunnel/vortex
    the ground around and in these fields would show signs of being blown
    -- displaced dirt, some uprooted stalks, broken stems; but the field
    plant life showed all appearances of being pressed down.  The areas
    around the circles showed no disturbances.
    
    2)  If the wind/vortex is capable of this presed down look, is it also
    capable of the (relatively) perfect circles.  Even that
    not-with-standing, no weather phenomenon I know of can calculate
    distances based on a past hit (in regards to the center circles with 3
    or 4 other surrounding circles at equidistant intervals)
     
    
    There are certain times, namely questions about UFOs (Unidentified Flying
    Objects) or in this case UOTL (Unidentified Objects That Landed), that
    I marvel at humanity's ego.  Who else but man could be so egotistical
    to believe that he is the only intelligent being in the universe.  Why
    not leave all possibilities open?
    
    --  Tracy

    re.30
    You obviously haven't seen many tornados first hand I have seen
    hundreds. There was a recent National geographic on TBS showing
    the vortex forces in tornados.
    I have also seen fields where tornados have crossed leaving a 30' wide
    path with the grain flattened and untouched inches away the remaining
    stalks are upright within days damage is still obvious weeks later.
    
    -j

    (generally read-only here but this topic is fun)
    
    Topher has offered an exceedingly plausible explanation.  Note
    that he does not claim to have plumbed the entire mystery.
    He has offered an explanation that could reasonably explain
    the phenomena.  My hat is off to Mr. Cooper.
    
    As for the notion that the scientific view of such matters
    is somehow limiting, well, I beg to disagree.  The scientific
    method seeks to understand why things like flattened grain
    happen.  And in the real world, the grain is flattened because
    some force flattened it.  Wishful thinking cannot replace 
    the value added by scientists who strive to understand how
    things actually work.  And this is why we have things like
    penicillin and why we have traveled to the moon.
    
    And why, if these rings are every fully understood, it will
    be the scientific method which will likely provide the answer.
    At the very least, the scientific method will point out the
    relative probabilities of sentient beings traversing inter-stellar
    distances to tromp on grain fields versus a combination of
    fraud and tornado-like vortices.
    
    Joel
                                              

    re: .41, Joel,
    
>    (generally read-only here but this topic is fun)
    
    	Wow, is it ever. :-)
    
    	Please don't be a stranger, you have a good sense of perspective
    and that is crucial in a speculative type of notesfile.  I know *I'd*
    like to hear further from more read-only people like yourself.
    
    I feel some natural tendency pulling people toward polarizing into camps,
    and IMO, there is limited value in that in discussing a yet-unsolved 
    mystery.   Categorizing and judging the alternatives is a useful process
    to do individually, but when done as a group, it puts limits on
    our thinking (and much more importantly, our fun :-)).
    
>    Wishful thinking cannot replace 
    
    It is my impression that most people describing the shared images of 
    peace operate through the same means as those who are analyzing and 
    explaining the phenomenon, rational thought based on experience.  IMO, 
    they are simply expressing a different level of it, its meaning and 
    application, rather than its expression in physical laws.  
    
    For example, Oppenheimer et. al had more than just the image of atoms
    splitting when they conjured the Manhattan Project.  They also pictured
    its value to the U.S. and humanity, and what they saw as the
    understanding of the mysteries of nature, and maybe our perceived power 
    in some forms.  Everyone uses images for motivation, they are an essential 
    part of all life processes.  
    
    If the thought of 'images' and 'magic(k)' are
    bothersome, it might help to know that 'magi' often operate through
    real world phenomena that bear analysis.  They may, however, provide
    for another level of *causation*, metaphorically allowing for larger
    patterns in nature, or synchronicity.   I think we are talking about the
    relationship between the conception of an idea and its expression,
    not hocus pocus.   It *is* an internally consistent, thoroughly
    consistent with most of the criteria of good science (though not all),
    and in fact complementary with it in a larger scheme of perception.
    
    	look to the skies, :-)
    
    	Todd

    
    
    Mary,
    
      If they made it large enough you wouldnt need a telescope,of course,
    it would have to be a full moon :^).
    
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

    
    
    I think we need to remember that there are people living near the
    areas where these circles and symbols have appeared.  If they were
    made by something such as a tornado, the people would know this.
    The same with any strong wind.
    
    On the show 20/20 when they reported on these circles, they showed
    a group of people who stationed themselves near a field to wait
    and see if anything showed up.  During the night, some symbols
    did appear....in a field behind where these people were.  They never
    heard anything or saw anything because a) they were observing in
    the opposite direction, and b) there was no sound to attract them.
    If wind storms or tornadoes are causing these circles, there is
    no way these people would not have known they were there.
    
    Carole

    
    I'd very much like to see the word "PEACE" incorporated into the
    crop symbols and written all over the world.  
    
    Maybe it would make people stop and think.
    
    Mary

    
    
    Make people stop and think? All the wars and destructions of the past
    hasnt gotten enough people to THINK,do you really THINK crop symbols
    will? IMO,nope. Lets face it,those who realize the mess we are in,and,
    are willing to do something about it,are a small minority,whom I salute
    and pray for,but,we have a long ways to go. 
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

    I remember watching something like 20/20. A couple of months back there was
    a debate on Central weekend(U.k regional TV show), I seem to recall that
    some cameraman picked up a strange buzzing noise at the centre of one
    of these circles... 
    
    There was also a eyewitness...a bird watcher was totally awe-struck when a
    circle appeared before his very eyes...this was in the very early hours
    of the morning. Was the bird watcher lieing/imagining things we may
    ask...    
    
    Personally I believe he was telling the truth since there was
    no financial gain involved and the show was one of the late night ones
    which nobody tends to watch anyway.
    
    Having looked at pictures off some the very complex shapes involved, I
    "feel" that there must be some form of intelligence involved. I don't
    deny that nature can produce miraclously symmetrical and complex shapes
    but the variety involved and the seemingly progressive complexity seems
    to suggest an organism of some sort that evolves like a virus(mutations).
    
    I agree with the idea, that we believe what we choose to believe,
    and that causes are found for effects(that's science for you!). It can
    also be argued that effect does not necesarily follow a cause buts
    that's another topic!!
    
    PEACE...  Aliens exist, but being alien wouldn't the human concept of
    Peace be "alien" to them(Pardon the pun!). Assuming that Peace is a
    "Universal" term how can we be sure that they desire peace...
    
    The important question here is...do we ourselves, desire PEACE... I watch
    with interest the Gulf crisis and the involvement of the various
    nations - this not only shows the eagerness of some people to go to War
    but also the hypocrital bigoted nature of Politicians - what happened
    when Afganistan was invaded, what happened when the students in
    Tianamen square were crushed(literally!!)
    
    The last throught should be with our galactic neighbours out there...
    If only they could read this conference, What would they think???
    Would they spell the words Peace and more importantly what would we do
    about it??
    
    :^) smile in the face of pain
    Dave. 

Note 1392.46
DNEAST::PUSHARD_MIKE
    

    Well if we can't get them to think Michael, then maybe we can at least
    get them to recognize that there are forces here beyond their
    understanding... and if we can't get recognition from them, maybe we
    can get awe,... and if we can't get awe, then maybe we can get a little
    fear.  Actually, I don't care ... I just want them to stop fighting
    all the time.  
    
    
Note 1392.47
CURRNT::LI 
    
    If aliens are writing the word PEACE across the FOOD crops of the Earth
    than it's a fairly good bet that they know what they are doing and
    WANT PEACE.... 
    
    Its also a fairly good bet that if they can write the word PEACE on our 
    food crops then they should also be capable of DESTROYING those same food 
    crops if that was what they wanted to do.  That they write symbols
    instead of destroying them should say a lot about their intentions and
    attitude.
    
    I don't know if the rest of humanity wants peace Dave.  But I do know
    that *I* want peace.  And I want it badly and I want it now.  I want 
    this whole planet to be free and prosperous and at peace and I want it
    to last for a long, long time.
    
    Mary

    re: .41 (Joel)
    
        "What is actually taking place"...?
    
        This reality, which is a hologram, is also a total illusion.
    IT is an illusion of thought, frozen thoughts stacked one on top
    the other, in a sequence which gives it an expression of time.
    So, to the extent that thought, my (your) own individual thought
    is manifesting this reality, all of it, then tell me what is
    "actually taking place."  Again, all any observer will do is to
    explore the physical energies WHICH HAVE BEEN SHAPED BY THOUGHT.
    Again, since many, many different thoughts can criss-cross into
    forming the same results (a point can be the vector for an infinite
    number of lines) there is no ONE reason for the manifestation.  It
    (the manifestation) becomes a total creation of the thinker (i.e.,
    any consciousness.)  So, to categorically say that something is
    the result of any one other thing is short-sighted, uninformed,
    and naive.  But worse than that, by setting up the limitations
    (the negative boundaries) there leaves little if any room for 
    the unexplored, the unimagined, the impossible, the unlikely, the
    improbable, the miraculous, the stretch beyond the presently
    conceivable.   Virtually any great person in our history came
    to make their contribution not as a result of great study or
    analysis, but rather as an openness to seeing that which lay beyond
    the "normal" vision of a limited reality, i.e., they allowed a
    dream, did not put something into a category of "impossible" and
    leave it there.
    
    Frederick
    

    
    Mary,
    
      There are a lot of people who want the same
    thing,Peace,unity,harmony. Here lies the problem: The people who want
    these things,are usually the ones that dont have the power to make it
    happen,and,if they were to try to make it happen,they would have to use
    methods that would go against what they believe in,a real catch 22
    here. But,if the meek shall inherit the Earth,then,that means,that
    those who fight shall loose in the end. We can only do what we can,in a
    peacefull way,live our lives in a way that promotes the idea we believe
    in,find inner Peace first,hope,pray,and,seek out those who believe
    also. It may seem too slow,too little,but,think of a river,the way in
    which it is formed,little by little,adding to the whole. IT CAN BE
    DONE.
    
    
    PEACE
    MICHAEL
    

    When I was in England in 1987, I bought a little booklet about
    the use of aerial infrared photographic in British archaeological
    work.  There were a lot of pictures of course.  Most of them showed
    the general landscape as dark, with the underground traces of
    various ancient constructions showing as lighter areas.  I remember
    that there was at least one picture (and I think more) that showed
    ROUND and RING-SHAPED traces which were identified as Roman storage
    buildings.
    
    More recently, I read an article one an attempt to determine the
    original shapes of the giant hill figures, especially those that
    have (unlike the Uffington Horse) changed or disappeared over the
    centuries.  The technique they used was to drive a special pole
    into the ground which monitored and recorded the electrical traits
    of the soil.  The soil that that been part of the figures still
    showed a marked difference from that soil which wasn't.  (They
    started with known figures which were believed to be still intact,
    then went on to others which were known to have changed and lost
    details, and then to measuring fields which were said to have once
    had figures across them.)
    
    My suggestion is that these circles and disks form directly over
    ancient Roman granaries and cisterns in those years when the conditions
    are just right; only those plants which encounter the special soil
    contents (The Romans used quicklime cement, for example.) or soil
    compaction are suseptible to a certain virus which weakens their
    stems.
    
    						Ann B.

>Note 1392.49  
>MISERY::WARD_FR


>    re: .41 (Joel)
    
>        "What is actually taking place"...?
    
>   This reality, which is a hologram, is also a total illusion.
   
	You got me here because I have no idea what this means.

>    IT is an illusion of thought, frozen thoughts stacked one on top
>    the other, in a sequence which gives it an expression of time.
 
	Ditto.

>     So, to the extent that thought, my (your) own individual thought
>    is manifesting this reality, all of it, then tell me what is
>   "actually taking place."

	Well, as I've said, I think Topher's explanation is
	plausible.  "Actually taking place" means just that.
	Sorry, but I can be no clearer than that except to
	give an example: if you are reading these words,
	the act of reading is something that is actually
	taking place.
  
 
>    Again, all any observer will do is to
>    explore the physical energies WHICH HAVE BEEN SHAPED BY THOUGHT.

	Er, are you talking about things like the relationship
	between measurer and measured, observed and observer?

>    Again, since many, many different thoughts can criss-cross into
>    forming the same results (a point can be the vector for an infinite
>    number of lines) there is no ONE reason for the manifestation.  It
>    (the manifestation) becomes a total creation of the thinker (i.e.,
>    any consciousness.)  So, to categorically say that something is
>    the result of any one other thing is short-sighted, uninformed,
>    and naive. 
   
   	If I understand you,  the effect:`pain' is not due to the
	cause:`heavy object dropped on toe'?  

>    But worse than that, by setting up the limitations
>    (the negative boundaries) there leaves little if any room for 
>    the unexplored, the unimagined, the impossible, the unlikely, the
>    improbable, the miraculous, the stretch beyond the presently
>    conceivable.   Virtually any great person in our history came
>    to make their contribution not as a result of great study or
>    analysis, but rather as an openness to seeing that which lay beyond
>    the "normal" vision of a limited reality, i.e., they allowed a
>    dream, did not put something into a category of "impossible" and
>    leave it there.
 
	I'd agree that the greatest historical contributors were
	able to see farther than their contemporaries.  And I
	suppose some important knowledge might have been gained
	by just sort of hanging and being open to new possibilities,
	though I confess I cannot right now think of any examples.
	And often generalists, looking at forests, can see things
	the specialists, wrapped up in the study of bark, 
	cannot see.	

	But, generally, "great study" and very hard work tend
	to accompany important advancements in knowledge.  Newton
	said that he was able to see farther because he was
	standing on the shoulders of giants.  Those who have
	seen more deeply than Newton had Newton's shoulders to
	stand on.  Which means they made intense efforts to
	understand where we are before they were able to 
	move farther along the path.
   
	Joel

    

    
    Frederick,
    
    I didn't notice anyone here saying "impossible", or did I miss
    something?
    
    I don't understand why you are protesting the scientific attempts to
    explain the "magic" circles.  I'm happy that DEJAVU is a place where
    science and mysticism can coexist in some fashion, since I'm one of
    those fence-straddlers who likes to see and hear from both 'sides'.
    
    Cindy

    re: .52, Joel,
    
>>   This reality, which is a hologram, is also a total illusion.
>	You got me here because I have no idea what this means.
    
    	I don't know if this will help things or exacerbate them,
    but I'd like to try an experiment in communication.  My impression is that 
    to understand what was expressed in .49, you would have to assume the 
    words made sense (which they do, IMO), and then work to try to understand 
    that perspective, rather than allowing their unusual surface structure to 
    deter you.   It's sort of an advanced "Valuing Differences" exercise,
    in empathetic communication principles.   I have a theory about it
    that I am trying to test.  Is it worthwhile to you to try it ? 
    
    	kind regards,
    
    	Todd

    Re. some of the previuos replies
    
    I agree with Cindy, but let me add a little more. Just like we are all 
    different people, we all need the Empiricists as well as the Mystics to
    exist in this complex world of ours. 
    Human beings are made up of body (physical) and mind/spirit/ soul
    (non-physical). None of us (I think) would deny the necessity of BOTH 
    to make up a person, thus both the scientific mind and the
    mystical/magickal have their place and can coexist in this place and
    time.
    
    Without science we might not all live long enough or be healthy enough
    to be able to get further than taking care of the physical, and without
    magick and wonder how fruitless it would all be!
    
    
    Re. Gloria,
    
    I had understood that these circles have only been noticed in the last
    10 years or so, does your theory mean that whatever conditions would
    need to present for these circles to manifest themselves, they would
    have only been possible in these last ten years?
    
    Also, they are now also to be found in other countries. I would assume
    that the same conditions would need to be present in each of those
    countries for the same type of circle to form. I, admittedly, don't
    know allthe countries in which these circles appear, although they are
    mentioned somewhere in this note, but isn't it rather farfetched that 
    they would not have appeared at any other time and the same type of
    circles appear in so dissimilar surroundings?
    
    BTW I agree with Joel and Todd(?) THIS IS FUN
    
    
    Marilyn

    re: .54
    
    I'm not sure just what sort of experiment you have in mind
    but I guess I'm game.
    
    But I hope you understand that _my_ words about not understanding
    the things I said I didn't understand were to be taken literally,
    and not as a cut.  I assume the words mean something, but I
    also assume they are a sort of argot with which I am not
    familiar.
    
    If you're not an experienced auto mechanic, for instance, 
    hanging around the edges of auto mechanic talk will be
    meaningless without a translator.  (ever tried it when
    you had to bring your car into the shop?)  And I am
    simply not familiar with the sort of specialized word-meanings
    required to understand statements such as are found in .49.
    
    If you see what I mean...
    
    Joel
    

    re: .53 (Condy-roo)
    
          I've been straddling fences for a while now, too.  I 
    was once a "science-oriented" person (for too long?) but gradually
    started looking at the mystical or metaphysical or whatever this
    stuff was (and along the way discarded what I had once considered 
    as spiritual.)  But the last couple of years have brought me not
    only into spirituality (although I will categorically reject religion
    for myself) but far, far closer to rejecting "science-oriented"
    thinking.  It is but a weak sub-set of my reality.  As is religion.
    What surrounds both of them?  Spirituality...within which lies
    metaphysics.  Within metaphysics lie both religion and science.
    Yes, you can explain things in religious terms.  Yes, you can also
    explain things in scientific terms.  But the greater truth is beyond
    in the metaphysical.  And an even greater truth reaches to the 
    spiritual.  (Religion does not equal spirituality.)  
         This is where I sit.  I am in a physical reality enjoying
    physical things.  I can look for simple explanations or I can
    make them complex.  But I am also capable of seeing myself as an
    illusionary manifestation of that which lies just beyond me, and
    this as a playground, being guided by the energies that stretch
    outside of the physical.  That everything that occurs within my
    physical constraints are there as a result.  That as long as I allow
    the in-breeding within my physicality, there can be no more of that
    which lies beyond.  I want more of that and less of this (in its
    negativity and limitation.)  Science will not provide an answer for
    me.  Neither will religion.  That is not where the answer is.  The 
    answer comes from beyond these limited, overblown sets.  Being
    time-based in our illusion as we are, we have physical energies 
    that are interplaying (gravity, weak and strong forces,
    electro-magnetic force.)  These are put together by thought.  
    The religious person says God did it.  The scientist says that
    this force couples with that force and interacts with the certain
    other force to produce x result.  They are both "sort of" right.
    But they are both missing the thought.  I am after the thought.
    
         The scientists can play...for it is a playground.  The religious
    can play.  For it is a playground of domination, etc. for them as well.
    I can play, too.  But my playground has bigger toys in it.  I like mine
    better.
    
    Frederick
     

    re: .56,
    	Thanks for your reply, and sorry for the digression.
    	There is less shared experience and definitions than I was 
    	assuming.  Your examples were very helpful for me !
    	Todd

    re: .56 and .50? (Joel)
    
          Sorry, Joel.  I know how you feel.   It's taken me years
    to catch up in understanding certain words, too.   Breaking
    down each word or phrase can take lots of other words, which
    similarly need breaking down.  A lot of these notes deal with
    those "break-downs."  Clearly we can't define each word as we
    go along.  At some point we have to assume a certain level of
    communication.  But of course continue to ask questions, if you
    choose.
         I will try to get back to some specifics later.
    
    Frederick
    

    I'd like to experiment, Todd.
    
    I'm always experimenting on the net anyway... it's fun!.
    
    What did you have in mind?
    
    Mary

    A "hologram" is a kind of photograph -- a kind of photograph with some
    interesting properties -- but it is *only* a photograph.  You can, of
    course, use "hologram" as a metaphor, but you have to explain what
    aspects of a hologram refer to what and what is irrelevant.  Do you
    mean that all information in the universe is locationless?  Do you
    mean that what we observe of the universe is the result of coherent
    vibrations (of what kind?) interacting with a conditioned substrate?
    Do you mean that if you break off a piece of the universe it looks the
    same only fuzzier?  Do you mean that it looks different from different
    perspectives?  Metaphors are useful but tricky means of communication.
    If you don't tell people what the referents are, than they attach
    their own.  They may learn something by the exercise (that's what art
    is about).  They may *think* they understand your metaphor, and
    therefore what you were trying to say.  But communication (a transfer
    of ideas) will only take place by accident.

					Topher

    re: .61
    
    Well put.  This is exactly the sort of thing I am talking about.
    
    I have seen holograms - the one in the Dali Museum just outside
    Cleveland, OH stands out - but I do not understand the use
    of the word `hologram' when coupled with the phrase "This
    reality is...".  Especially when that phrase is followed by
    a phrase suggesting that it is all an illusion anyway.
    
    Thus, the use of the word `hologram' in this context has a
    metaphorical content that I cannot parse.  That is, I 
    assume it to be a sort of shorthand, (as DECie's
    we've got lots of DEC acronyms and such, don't we?) but one 
    with which I am not familiar.                              
    
    I don't know if there is a common linguistic ground here.
    
    Be that as may be - anyone got any other interesting theories
    to account for the "magic" circles?
    
    Joel
    
    
    

    
    Re.57
    
    Freddie,
    
    >I was once a science-oriented person...
    
    Oh good gawd, a convert.  Well, that explains a lot.  (;^)
    
    As for science and religion being mere subsets of that which you
    believe currently, I suspect that you are but a mere subset of that
    which God/Goddess/All-That-Is is all about...but She tolerates you
    quietly anyway.  (;^P  
    
    So if you wouldn't mind letting those from the science-oriented
    perspective speak without giving them a hard time (and instead just
    stating that which you believe to be true from your wider perspective),
    that would be most appreciated.  Please allow me to clarify...
    
    Long ago, I mentioned this strange ability I had to not turn a page, 
    "knowing" that there was something I should be seeing on it, so I 
    chalked it up to the paranormal.  Upon entering that experience in this 
    conference, Topher (I believe) wrote back and gave a perfectly valid
    scientific reason for why I was doing that, and I no longer believe it
    is a paranormal experience when it happens.  Had you come along and
    given me a metaphysical explanation, well, that would have been fine
    too, and I would have listened with equal respect.  
    
    Cindy

    	Again, I apologize for this communication-worm in 'Magic Circles,' 
    but I can't think of a coherent way to break it out without excessive 
    duplication (plus I dread going through the 11 zillion topics in
    DEJAVU to find the most appropriate one).
    
    re: .60, Mary,
    
    	The experiment was very close to what Topher picked up on.
    The idea is to stretch your imagination to come up with some metaphor
    that would make a statement true, which previously seemed like
    gibberish.  Then, the other person can tell you where you are alike
    or differ, or can also try metaphor.  By chunking up and chunking down
    levels of abstraction, it is usually possible, I think, to come up with
    some common starting point to learn something new from the interaction via
    the other viewpoint.  The more usual alternative is the insidious
    natural tendency to polarize into "my view, which will save the world,
    vs. their view which will destroy it," or something like that.
    
    As Cindy (?) said, there a lot of us fence straddlers that benefit
    greatly from a wide variety of viewpoints and want to build some
    bridges.
    
    	ex: 
    
    A:  The universe is a kumquat, you nerd !
    
    B:  (Hmmm, if I assume that A is not totally insane, and the universe 
    		really is a kumquat from *some* perspective, how could that be 
    		true ?   Maybe I can use this as a springboard to learn
    		something new, even if he is totally insane !  What are the 
    		qualities of a kumquat ?  How do I feel when I hold a kumquat 
    		?  By George/Georgina/ATI, I feel omnipotent !)
    
    		You mean that the universe is centered around your own
    		feeling of omnipotence ?
    
    A:  No, but that's close.  I mean that certain plants reflect qualities
    	that enable the astute observer to understand the underlying
    	relationships between all living systems ...
    
    	etc. etc. 
    
    	Todd

RE .61 (Topher)

>    (....) the universe is the result of coherent
>    vibrations (......) interacting with a conditioned substrate (...)

Oh Topher! Can I borrow this one from you? I need this to explain something
to someone!

I promise I *won't* mention your name!

Arie

    This may be a short experiment, Todd.
    
    I too see reality as a hologram.  Note that I said 'reality' and not
    'the universe'.  
    
    So whats reality?  Reality is the experience of consciousness as
    interpreted by the senses.  Does reality exist as a separate entity 
    from the universe?  No... that are part of the same whole.  
    
    So tell me Todd... is reality real? :-)  Well... maybe we should decide
    what 'real' means too. :-)
    
    Mary

    <warning  --  this note is a digression from the Magic Circles topic>
    
>    This may be a short experiment, Todd.
    	On the contrary, the experiment to join in understanding will last as 
    	long as Homo Sapiens, and maybe longer.  Of course, maybe that's
    	what you meant by 'short'.  :-( ;-) <--- (bittersweet sarcasm)
    
    	Would we be best off to break it out somehow into another note if it 
    	gets long/interesting ?
    	
    >	    I too see reality as a hologram.  Note that I said 'reality' and not
    >    'the universe'.  
    
    That's a good start for me.  I'll skip the hologram part for now.
    I perceive your statement as meaning that
    the universe as a concept is either something you'd rather not
    define at this time, or that you see it as separate from your
    consciousness, which if an accurate perception is a big first step.
    
    	If to choose one point of view, I'll try to experience
    consciousness as if the universe doesn't matter.   Hmmm, feels pretty
    good initially.  I feel as if there is nothing existing but my pure
    spirit, which is bizarre dream.   I feel uncomfortable in that
    experience because I feel like I can't wake up from it.  It does
    not feel like a 'lucid' dream, but like a weird mishmosh of
    sensory experience.  Todd, you are now in front of your terminal in your 
    office.   That's better.
    
    	Do you perceive any commonality between my experience and yours,
    	Mary ?
    
    Todd
    	

Note 1392.68                      
DWOVAX::STARK 

Perhaps we should break out into another note... since the search for
understanding never ends. :-) ... and yet, it is related to this one
    so it probably doesn't matter.

    
>    That's a good start for me.  I'll skip the hologram part for now.
>    I perceive your statement as meaning that
>    the universe as a concept is either something you'd rather not
>    define at this time, or that you see it as separate from your
>    consciousness, which if an accurate perception is a big first step.
    
    My distinction was to point out the word "reality" to you.  Humans appear
    to be largely unaware of the existence of reality.
      
    There are levels, you know?  Like organs in a body.
    Not seen as "separate" from consciousness necessarily, but not perceived as
    "me" either.  Are you your brain Todd?  Are you your heart or your leg?

Are you aware of your heart, of your lungs *all* of the time?  Probably not,
but if there is a problem... if you 'feel pain', then you can direct your
"attention" to your heart and listen to it beat and sense its wellness
or fragility... and even control it's autonomic functions if you have the
training...
Do you see?  Your heart normally runs itself perfectly fine but if there
is a problem...if it runs into trouble.. and you have the correct training,
then you could actually control the rhythm of it's beating.  You can 
'interfere' in order to preserve the well-being of the whole.  So too is
    the universe to me.

The universe is a part of me ... but separate unto itself too... like
the organs in a body, you know?  As in your own body... everything
in the body of reality is alive and can feel and sense and comprehend ...
each on it's own level.
Everything is connected....  like the nervous system and the cardio-vascular 
    systems in your body..
     
Reality Itself is alive.  The universe is It's body.  We are It's
consciousness.
   
So you see the universe does matter... everything matters.

Don't feel uncomfortable in spirit, Todd.  Everything is spirit as well. :-)

The 'body' of physical reality is actually spirit.  Like the organs in your 
    body are made of matter (or so you believe ;-).  Matter is a
    manifestation of spirit on the pre-sub-atomic level. 

    "As above, so below" ... or as the Grateful Dead say, "wake now,
    discover that you are the song that the morning brings".
    
Mary
    

    So you have the Universe...and you try to define it. You define
    all the component parts, like labeling the ocean,trees,fish,TV
    Game shows,architecture,asteroids,mathematical equations...on
    and on...til you investigated every possible thing and what do
    you come up with? What's the sum total of it all? Well I add up
    the sum total to be the God/Goddess/ATI. TaDahh...which can be
    called a Hologram metaphor if you wish. But....you can't be too
    rigid in your formulations of this investigation...firstly because
    you'd have to have some infinite qualites inserted in your physical
    reality to investigate and name everything in the universe. Ok...
    Try and count all the grains of sand on Cape Cod for example...it
    would take more than your usual 2 week vacation. 
    
    But the mystery of the crop (magic) circles are still there. It's
    a really fine balance between the kind of felt thought that magic
    subscribes to, and the hard facts of science kind of thinking that
    the investigative scientist works with.  To name why the crop circles
    are here, what caused them, the whys, the hows and wheretofores...
    might satisfy a mindset that has a need to know, whether that's an
    addiction to thinking, or geniune investigative science. Or letting
    the mystery and the phenomena happen, and rev up the possibilites
    beyond the present knowledge can add enchantment and magic, or it can
    go too far and tripout...and you come off like something too farout.
    
    Hey what do i know...
    -Arthur
    
    

    Hi Mary (.69),
    
    *Grate* analogy - I really enjoyed reading that.
    
    Ro
    

Note 1392.70
EXIT26::SAARINEN

    You know quite a bit actually Arthur... at least I've always thought
    so. :-)

    Now... instead of trying to count all the grains of sand on Cape Cod
    for an example, try to count all of the pores on your body. :-)
    Get the picture?  You can still function ... even if.. no ONLY if
    you don't immerse yourself in that level of detail.  If you do, you
    have a problem.. mentally and emotionally and functionally.

    Oh yes... and as you investigate a little you will probably discover
    that you do have some infinite qualities inserted in your physical
    reality..  just as those around you have talents for math and
    music and art. ... hence the mystery of the magick circles.
    
    Do you study the musician and analyze his every physical attribute
    to see where the music comes from?  Will dissecting the musician explain
    his talent or merely plunge you deeper into the mystery?
    Do you see?  Science has it's place, but it can't explain everything.
    Somethings become more the mystery as you delve deeper into detail.
    
    Mary

    <communication experiment continues ...>
    
    re: .69, I sure hope you're still having fun, Mary,
    		'cause mine is just beginning :-)  
    
    The point of my experiment, and it is of very real and deep interest to me,
    is largely to demonstrate how expounding
    on our own views verbally does little to transfer 'meaning', 
    especially between people who have different life experience,
    and that we need to reference common experience at some point
    in some way.  
    
    I deliberately chose people to try it with whom I suspect have 
    strong life experiences that are not in common with each other.
    I intended it for Frederick and Joel, but so be it.
    
    Mainly, we have the philosophers dilemma that we have nothing
    but words with which to define words, and they have only
    a tenuous relationship with anything we experience through
    our senses  --  which is our (subjective) reality, what I think you
    have been calling 'reality'.  In NOTES, we don't even have
    the usual non-verbal cues that we have in person.
    
    Attempting to apply the principle of empathy to your words,
    	and then translate them back into my own ...
    
> Are you your brain Todd?  Are you your heart or your leg?
    
    	"Am I my brain ?  What am I ? What do I perceive myself to be ?
    	What are my boundaries ?  What are my qualities ?  Hmmm ... it
    	seems to change from moment to moment ..."
    
    	This contains an internal logical impossibility that renders
    	it meaningless ("you" is a *dynamic* label, my sense of identity) 
    	The corresponding experience of "me" changes from moment to moment 
    	as you cleverly and perceptively pointed out.  However, written down
    	it looks like a static entity that can be used to make comparisons
    	with things that actually are static in our common experience, such 
    	as our definitions of 'heart' and 'leg'.  Therefore, that is not
    	a statement of identity or even isomorphism, but a never-ending 
    	philosophical game that changes as my experience of myself changes.
    
    	The 'universe' from my subjective perspective is that which is
    	not-me, which is anything outside of my current perception of
    	what "me" is.   Since I can extend this feeling of what
    	"I" am from location to location in my body, I should be able
    	to do the same with things I previously thought were external to
    	me.   As far as 'subjective' reality is concerned, it wouldn't
    	really make any difference.  Therefore, I can extend my sense
    	of identity to include all that is conceivable, and it can all
    	be brought into consciousness, although I don;t perceive it all
    	at once.
    
    	Hmmm, that feels like it has some similarities with a hologram, also.
    
    	By the way, Mary, it is important for the experiment to participate 
    	and to try to apply empathy yourself to understand my experience
    	of this.   If you just read it and analyze it and throw words
    	back at me, the whole purpose is defeated.
    
    	Are we getting closer ?
    
    	Todd
    
    
    	I think this is working, but I'm starting to get a headache :-).
    
    	Todd

Note 1392.73                      
DWOVAX::STARK 
    
Oh... I'm sorry Todd.  Why don't I bow out and let someone else play for
awhile after this note.  Frederick and Joel ... would you like the court
next. :-)

    You know.. some of our life experiences are different but most of our
    basic life experiences are the same.  We are born and we experience life
    all in a similar fashion.  I don't think I agree with your premise.
    
>Therefore, that is not a statement of identity or even isomorphism, but a 
>never-ending philosophical game that changes as my experience of myself 
>changes.
 
Yes... I call it The Reality game.
   
>Therefore, I can extend my sense of identity to include all that is 
>conceivable, and it can all be brought into consciousness, although I 
don't perceive it all at once.
>Hmmm, that feels like it has some similarities with a hologram, also.
 
Yep

>    	By the way, Mary, it is important for the experiment to participate 
>    	and to try to apply empathy yourself to understand my experience
>    	of this.   If you just read it and analyze it and throw words
>    	back at me, the whole purpose is defeated.
    
    Lets see... empathy is identification with and understanding anothers
    situation, feelings and motives.
    
    So empathy is relating to how another feels about whats been said, and 
    you haven't told me how you feel about it yet, Todd.  
    You've translated my words into your words.
    
    How do you feel about it, Todd?  Are you happy, sad, frightened, 
    overwhelmed, disgusted, amused, indifferent, none-of-the-above, all of 
    the above, something else? :-)  
    What motivates you to play this game Todd?  What situation are you in
    that drives your intellectual curiosity?

    If you want me to empathize with you in order to understand your 
    experience of what I've said,  then you must communicate fully with me
    ..... and you are holding back. :-)
    
Mary    

       Yes, well, you know, we "left Coast" (as Terry would say) people
    have a tendency to sit in hot tubs over-looking the ocean too
    long in the morning...that's why I'm a little slow joining back 
    in here...;-)
    
       .63 (Condy)
       
        okay, but close to coming from critical parent...that's a mighty
    fine line there, Cindy!  :-) ;-)
    
       .61 (Topgunher)
    
        Okay, too!  Actually, I meant my earlier reply to be more sweeping
    and general and should have cleaned up the grammatical structure a
    bit...life is *not* a hologram, but rather can be seen as a part of
    one.  That is, as any cell in the human body is able to 
    replicate the entire body, so can our human consciousness replicate
    all of God/Goddess/All-That-Is (in potentia...!)  That is how I meant
    the term hologram to be used.  Any part of this reality *can*
    "reproduce" any other part.  All the data is stored within each part.
    
        .69 (Merry)
    
         That's good.
    
        .70 (Art-has-not-forsaken-hur)
    
         Hi!  That was fun to read.
    
         .50 (Michael)
    
         I have a hard time agreeing with too many of your premises,
    Michael.  I don't agree with the "meek" attitude, the powerlessness
    approach, the "them" versus "us" concepts at all.  You continue
    to work in a subset I cannot play in.  Sorry, because I know that
    your intentions are beautiful.
    
         .52 (Joel)
    
         Back to "actually taking place."  You missed it...(or I mis-
    communicated my meaning...again...right, Todd?)  What I attempted
    to convey was that what is actually taking place is far deeper than
    the simple surface expression of the physical reality.  That is,
    there is either a "reward" of a positive emotion or a negative
    emotion (or an experience of either one) that sets this all up in 
    the first place.  To use your example of the heavy object falling
    on foot and *causing* pain, I would say 'WRONG!'  How?  Well, from
    a strict time-based, upward causation, Newtonian point of view,
    you'd be correct...but switching to a rationale that uses downward
    causation or quanta as the working paradigm, then you are not as
    likely to be correct.  How this works, from a level "beyond normal
    physical" would be this..."I wish to experience frustration right
    now...I wish to punish myself for not having forgiven myself for
    failing to make my house payments and having my property forclosed,
    and that's what I'm going to do."  The reality, then, takes a quick
    check at all the available, strong, corresponding "vibrations" (every-
    thing has it's own resonance) and notices that the most expedient
    thing to do to comply with your desire (wish/expectation/THOUGHT)
    is "aha, there's this little lamp, waiting to fall...quick, fall on
    foot!"  and the object falls on your foot.  You feel pain and act
    surprised.  But look again.  Did you not state "I want to punish 
    myself..."?  Can that not be construed by "reality" as pain?  This 
    becomes even more pronounced over time as the sub-conscious mind
    within gets used to your interpretations/definitions.  If you say,
    "no, punish means lose money, lose girlfriend, etc." then that's
    what you'd get.  If you say "pain means broken bones, diseases" then
    *that's* what you'd get.  
         You see, it isn't that the object that falls is the reason for
    the pain.  That is the instrument of pain, or the cause, perhaps.
    The REASON(effect) was the original thought.  Instead, we pretend we
    didn't have that thought, and see the result/symptom (pain) and then look
    for the cause (the falling object.)
         Just because you don't get what you want does not mean that that
    is not what you really wanted.  That is, you always get what you want,
    not always what you say you want.  Emotions are all that is REAL in
    our reality (as Todd expressed...this physical reality is illusionary
    because it does not consist of anything of substance...it is all 
    comprised of energy...)  Since emotions and thoughts are
    interconnected, then what you will manifest is a result of
    thought/emotions.  And whatever predominant thought/emotion you have
    is what will squeeze out.  The more impeccable/focused your thoughts/
    emotions, the more likely you are to manifest it similarly.
          
           To bring that to the topic, what do you want out of these
    circles?  What emotion is it that you are attempting to reconcile?
    Can anyone say?  I can only say what is going on within me, at this
    point in time, with any certainty.  And I have been working hard
    for years to tune into my thoughts/emotions and seeing how they
    stack up to what I manifest...to eliminate unwanted results and 
    to accomplish desired ones.   
          
           Enough for one reply...
    
    Frederick
    

    re: .75
    
    Well, I'm now a "left-coaster" as well, having, in the past
    4 1/2 years moved from southern Cal to northern Cal to
    Seattle.  Up here, few hot tubs, many umbrellas!
    
    Thank you for taking the time to make such a detailed response.
    I will read with interest all that you have to say to me.
    But I hope you will forgive me if my own responses are far
    less in-depth.  It seems clear to me that our habits/patterns
    of thought, our way at looking at the world, are [when talking
    about parnormal phenomena] much too different to allow of
    really fruitful communication.
    
    I am as hard-core a skeptic as you will ever meet.  In fact,
    I am by nature so skeptical that I am even skeptical of the
    skeptics!  But that is another story, and irrelevant to this
    topic.  Suffice it to say that I am, for lack of a better
    handle, a "materialist".  And certainly, for the purposes of
    the "magic circles", I believe that some force or forces is
    causing the grain to be flattened into patterns.  When I
    look at relative probabilities it seems obvious to me that
    extra-terrestrial intervention is far less likely than some
    fairly mundane occurrence of the natural world.  Like 
    highly energetic vortices coupled with grain-flattening
    boots.
    
    But of course, what seems very obvious to me is not necessarily
    obvious to you.  And vice-versa.  Our positions are very far
    apart - on issues like this.  But I suspect we have very
    similar feelings about our friends and our family, our desire
    to love and to be loved, our love of warmth and our aversion
    to standing unprotected in a cold rain.  We might even share
    some views on politics, art, sports, television, movies, 
    whatever.  We aren't members of different species and could
    no doubt share in many very positive ways.
    
    I just don't think this is the topic.
    
    But to answer your direct question, what emotion stirs me
    to be interested in this topic the answer is simple curiosity.
    I am curious about these circles.  They are to me a mystery
    and I like mysteries.  Of course, I like mysteries to be
    solved but such satisifaction does not always come.
    
    So, if curiosity is an emotion, that is it for me.
    
    Joel
    

    re: .76 (Joel)
    
          Thanks for the reply...actually, if we here in California
    had your water, and we say we'd like to (another say one thing,
    want another...;-) ,) we'd probably just bottle it and see it to
    the East Coast people.  :-)
    
          Curiosity might well be a focus of yours in this lifetime,
    but it doesn't qualify as one of the emotions I spoke of (try
    emotions such as anger, hurt, fear, jealousy, self-pity, joy,
    love, sadness, etc.)  In time we could communicate...that still doesn't
    mean you'd agree with me, anymore than lots of others in here
    (and you have lots of company in here being a skeptic.)  We're
    not in disagreement about the potentials for the circles.  Yes, 
    it could be aliens, yes, it could be transparent giants with 
    circular hoof-feet, yes, it could be what Ann said, or someone
    else has said...but this is the physical reality...this is the 
    5 dimensional reality of it.  There is something that goes to a
    different dimension, there is a deeper reality, and that is what
    I've been trying to get to.  The reality isn't really (just) 
    *out there.*  It is actually all subjective, within YOU (me.)
    So what part of you (me) is making those circles?  Curiosity,
    desire for surprises (as Ro stated?,) desire to be frustrated,
    a desire to get a message of greater love? ... or is it an expression
    of our anger within, or fear within, etc.?   You see, looking at what
    energies made it won't provide THAT answer.  It'll only tell you how
    the "real reason" became manifested.  But, again, if you want ufo's
    and assorted phenomena to exist, you must first give them a chance to
    do so.  Constantly denying them a milieu to exist in will be a 
    sure way to avoid that kind of reality.  To close off beliefs and
    to limit the possibilities is another way, and is also the way to 
    avoid any of the potential futures I described in an earlier note.
    
    Frederick
    

    
    Frederick,
    
    About UFO's - did somebody write back a few notes ago in this topic
    that they are denying that they exist, and that they couldn't possibly
    be responsible for the circles?
    
    Also, what is a UFO anyway?  An Unidentified Flying Object.  So?  There
    are lots of USPs in my backyard (to me), however if I brought in a
    botanist, the USPs would become ISPs and everything would be accounted
    for and all would be fine.  (USP - Unidentified Strange-looking Plants)
    And if there was a plant that nobody knew existed before that, then my
    backyard would be written up in an article and published in some
    botanist magazine and hopefully I'd make lots of money off the
    royalties.
    
    I don't see anyone here trying to disprove UFO's - I just see people
    trying to exhaust the currently known and experienced things in life to
    see if they can account for the circles.  THEN if they cannot be
    identified in that way, the game gets fun and perhaps we will all learn
    something else about this wonderful universe that we previously did not
    know before this moment. 
    
    Cindy

    <last long explanatory note in communications experiment worm>
    	Thanks everyone, for your patience with me, and not flaming
    	me about notes protcol for starting this.  I'm going to
    	let my evangelism come out this once, and then leave
    	everyone alone.

    	My "Rings of Fire" say BUILD BRIDGES, NOT BOMBS !

re: .74, Mary,	
	You're right, I was holding back my real agenda, and violating my
	own stated principle, so I'll come clean now.  What I was
    	feeling was tension and stress due to rumblings about these
    	EIN's going away, and recent expense cutbacks, and world events
    	in general.

    	Those feelings led to ---> my energy toward working out some 
    	communications principles that can help hammer out effective working
    	relationships, through Notes and elsewhere.  My notes
    	here were a sincere attempt to test some of those principles,
    	and learn more about the process of communicating difficult ideas
    	between people who automatically assume that their 'positions'
    	or 'habits of thought' or whatever are too different for them
    	to fruitfully communicate.  THAT'S AN ASSUMPTION, IMO, THAT
    	LEADS TO WARS, and I also believe it is total hogwash.
    	
    	What I've found is that analysis is insufficient to communicate
    	meaningfully, and that 'meaning' itself contains a feeling/value
    	component that we often ignore, to our detriment.  This is conveyed
    	either through metaphor, assertions of feeling, or whatever, I'm
    	not sure the best way.  Maybe a re-vamp of our whole language.
    	Frederick's note (.77) conveyed that much better than I am here, he 
    	is a often a very effective representative of that idea, when he uses
    	his own words (sorry for the dig, Freddy).

	'Magic circles' is a simple intellectual exercise with no
    	known answer yet, except that people are coming from totally 
    	different worldviews, and I don't see them interacting from
    	my point of view, which triggered my idea for the experiment.
    	I'm interested in seeing not if they can 'agree', which is not only 
    	undesireable but pointless in matters of speculation, but if an 
    	effective working relationship can be established by allowing
	analysis to include an element of empathy.
    	
    	---------------------------------------
    	(specifics regarding Newton and physics)
    
	Isaac Newton was a _mystic_ (and belonged to at least one
	mystical society).  The people of his day that were in to
	scepticism and dogma were the religionists, not the flakes
	like Newton.  'Scientists' like Newton, Keppler, Galileo, and such
	were out on the edge, like the Reality-Creators and Reality-Mappers 
	(into which groups I think Frederick belongs) are today, in my
    	opinion.   

	Newton stated in his writings that he had no idea
	what a "force" was, and that he used it because it seemed to
	reflect patterns in his observations, not because he thought
	any such thing actually existed, or that he could ever know
	the nature of it.  It is the modern interpretations that assume
    	that because we call something a "force" that the word actually
    	represents something specific in nature.  The emotion of wonder
    	removed from the definition in Newton's mind led to a statement
    	of dogma, and a loss of meaning.  

    	Newton was enchanted and mystified by 'forces'
	the same was as Einstein was by the way light seemed to behave,
	Heisenberg and Shroedinger about what quantum stuff do, and so on.

	To understand the importance of that, and the importance of
	your 'curiosity' regarding these things is to empathize enough
	with Frederick's view, IMO, to realize where it is coming
	from, and that would be enough to vindicate my failing
	faith in the human capacity for mutual understanding.  He is
	coming, in my perception, from a feeling base that requires
	empathy, not analysis to appreciate.

	Building on the curiosity, not the mathematical structures,
    	we see that the very nature of force was never defined
    	and holds some curiosity.  Einstein had a similar feeling about
    	light when he read about Michaelson-Morley , and so on.  
    	There could easily be more involved in the deep structure of
    	reality than Newton's laws describe.  The extreme position of
    	the Reality-Mappers and Reality-Creators is largely subjective
    	or feeling based, using that curiosity as a creativity springboard
    	rather than self-limiting, and that's why interacting with it
    	has value to a true sceptic's sceptic.
	
	    Does any of what I am zealously trying to convey about the 
    	importance of a change in attitude about communication, especially
    	appreciation of 'magical worlds' and 'enchantment' come through
    	coherently, or am I wasting a lot of people's time here ?

    	kindly,

    	Todd

>        Note 1392.79 
>        DWOVAX::STARK


	I know!  The rings are caused by Newton's ghost!  ;^)
	
	I appreciate your thoughtful and interesting comments.


>        My notes
>    	here were a sincere attempt to test some of those principles,
>    	and learn more about the process of communicating difficult ideas
>    	between people who automatically assume that their 'positions'
>    	or 'habits of thought' or whatever are too different for them
>    	to fruitfully communicate.  THAT'S AN ASSUMPTION, IMO, THAT
>    	LEADS TO WARS, and I also believe it is total hogwash.
 
	I'm not so sure that wars result from miscommunication but
	I take your point.  The question is in how you define
	"fruitful."  Viewpoints and thought patterns as different
	as mine and Frederick's are not likely, when placed in
	opposition, to shed more light than heat, more understanding
	than misunderstanding.  

	   	
>    	What I've found is that analysis is insufficient to communicate
>    	meaningfully, and that 'meaning' itself contains a feeling/value
>    	component that we often ignore, to our detriment.  This is conveyed
>    	either through metaphor, assertions of feeling, or whatever, I'm
>    	not sure the best way.  Maybe a re-vamp of our whole language.

	Don't you feel that this all depends upon the subject
	at hand?
    
    
>	Newton stated in his writings that he had no idea
>	what a "force" was, and that he used it because it seemed to
>	reflect patterns in his observations, not because he thought
>	any such thing actually existed, or that he could ever know
>	the nature of it.  It is the modern interpretations that assume
>    	that because we call something a "force" that the word actually
>    	represents something specific in nature.  The emotion of wonder
>    	removed from the definition in Newton's mind led to a statement
>    	of dogma, and a loss of meaning.  

	Newton's instincts were quite good.  And, following his
	model, I use the word force more as a description of
	results than as a description of something you can
	taste or touch.  If I use a steamroller to trample grain
	in a grain field, I feel perfectly comfortable in suggesting
	that the force generated by the steamroller, applied
	to the grain, results in the grain being trampled.  
	I suppose we could describe that energy transfer with a
	different word, but then we'd probably be back to 
	square one, wouldn't we?

	
>	Building on the curiosity, not the mathematical structures,
>    	we see that the very nature of force was never defined
>    	and holds some curiosity.  Einstein had a similar feeling about
>    	light when he read about Michaelson-Morley , and so on.  
>    	There could easily be more involved in the deep structure of
>    	reality than Newton's laws describe.  The extreme position of
>    	the Reality-Mappers and Reality-Creators is largely subjective
>    	or feeling based, using that curiosity as a creativity springboard
>    	rather than self-limiting, and that's why interacting with it
>    	has value to a true sceptic's sceptic.

	There is definitely more involved in the deep structure of
	reality than Newton's laws describe.  But Relativity and
	QM aren't necessarily needed to describe what happens
	to grain when it is trampled or blown on with great ... I hesitate
	to say force...   ;^)
	
>	    Does any of what I am zealously trying to convey about the 
>    	importance of a change in attitude about communication, especially
>    	appreciation of 'magical worlds' and 'enchantment' come through
>    	coherently, or am I wasting a lot of people's time here ?

	Yes to your communication skills, no about wasting (my) time.

	Joel

    
    
    Fredrick,
    
       Yes,I understand,and,I too,have a difficult time relating to what
    you say,but,I find it interesting to explore. 
    
       Communication,IMO,is best,when at a base level,a feeling level. I
    believe we can understand each other,even without a common language.
    
       These circles,whatever they are,will be figured out
    eventually,because we want to know. If we were not curious about our
    World around us,it would be pretty boring,and,we would know even less
    about our selves. 
    
       If I apply the collective reality theory,then WAR is the results of
    too many people wanting to punish themself,or,are angry,ect. Well,heres
    where being "meek" comes in. If the theory is correct,then,the only way
    to stop WAR,is to become "meek'. Do very aggressive people see meekness
    as foolish,and,the meek see aggression the same? Aggression was needed
    at one time,for protection,but,for centuries we have turned it against
    ourselves.
    
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

    re: Todd, Joel, and others
    
         I'm not too crazy about solving communications models, maybe
    I should be...and I won't participate in any experiments (one of 
    my new principles has to do with trusting, not testing.)
         The problem, (Cindy,) is that as we find out the "causes"
    (in the cause-->effect scenario) we lose the magic.  What does this
    do to our reality?  It makes it REAL.  It works to make the illusion
    REAL!  AND IT ISN'T!  God/Goddess/All-That-IS, in its expression to 
    know itself, burst itself *downward* to finally reach our physical
    reality.  Humankind, in its imitation of that, has also burst 
    downward to explore the tiny parts of itself.  But that isn't the
    way home.  The way back is the other way.  To go back towards the 
    magic, not towards the illusion.  When we make the illusion real,
    we lose what is *really* REAL.  We end up with an imposter as the 
    *real* *REAL*  ;-)  (Will the REAL REAL please stand up?)  (Does 
    this have anything to do with reel to real?)  ;-)  
        Putting a limitation of reality onto ourselves imprisons us and
    keeps us away from freedom.  If we cannot access the magic then we limit
    ourselves to what we have determined is real.  And, what makes matters
    even worse, any jail also imprisons the jailor.  We end up jailing
    ourselves and imprisoning ourselves in "both directions."  (A double
    whammy, so to speak.)  
        As I have learned, we MUST be *willing* to see EVERY PART of our
    physical world as illusion--from world problems to jobs to
    relationships to money to health, etc., in order to have dominion 
    within this reality, in order to have freedom within the reality,
    to expand into the divinity.  As long as ANY ONE PART is seen as 
    real, we cannot go beyond (Lazaris has termed this level of freedom,
    which is only partial freedom, as "containment.")  Again, to bring
    out the old war-horses, religion attempts to make the illusion real,
    and science attempts to make the illusion real.  
         What's the harm, Cindy?  Take a look.
    
    
    Frederick
    

	Fantastic explanation Fred!..   I even understand more now, and
I do Lazaris!

	thank you...very much

	your friend,
	Meredith

    
    Re.82
    
    Frederick,
    
    That was a nice metaphysical sermon, but when you address me, you are
    preaching to the choir.  For as much as you have written, I concur.
    But...
    
    There is one problem I see with what you are doing - it appears that 
    you have excluded G/G/ATI from our current physical reality - that it 
    is somehow outside of and separate from it.  Is this what you are 
    trying to convey?
    
    But back to the original question - is anyone here stating that UFO's
    (representing something outside of our current known physical reality)
    are an impossibility and do not exist?
    
    Cindy

    re: .84
    
    I do not regard the UFO hypothesis as a physical impossibility.
    I do regard it as unlikely in the extreme.
                
    Joel

re: .85 (Joel)


    > I do regard it as unlikely in the extreme.
                
    Hummm.  Assuming the universe is as vast as science tells us, then
    we are one teensie planet out of how many?  To say, I would think, 
    that it is unlikely in the extreme that intelligent life exists 
    elsewhere would be betting against poor odds - don't you think?.

    Terry

    re: .86
    
    I'm not betting against the existence of intelligent life
    somewhere else in the universe.  I'm betting against them
    visiting here, repeatedly, to flatten fields of grain.
    
    Joel
    

    Re .84 (Cindy):

    >But back to the original question - is anyone here stating that UFO's
    >(representing something outside of our current known physical reality)
    >are an impossibility and do not exist?
    
    Well, let's go back to basics: UFO="Unidentified Flying Objects."
    "Unidentified" means "we don't know what it is.  "Flying" means
    "Traveling through the air."  Wearing my pilot's hat for a second,
    "Flying" should mean "Passing through the air, sustained above the ground 
    by aerostatic or aerodynamic influences, or a combination of the two."
    However, since debris hurled by an explosion into ballistic
    trajectories is said to be "flying," I'll let the looser definition
    stand.  "Object" means something material, like metal, plastic, wood,
    baked clay, or ice.  Thus, a champagne cork expelled from its bottle
    of bubbly that nobody's gotten a good look at could qualify,
    technically, as a UFO.

    "UFO" is generally a code word for "an advanced extraterrestrial
    device, usually a vehicle crewed by one or more extraterrestrial
    entities, but possibly a robot probe."

    re .86 (Terry):

    >> I do regard it as unlikely in the extreme.
    >            
    >Hummm.  Assuming the universe is as vast as science tells us, then
    >we are one teensie planet out of how many?  To say, I would think, 
    >that it is unlikely in the extreme that intelligent life exists 
    >elsewhere would be betting against poor odds - don't you think?.
    
    A problem with the UFO hypothesis isn't that believing that
    extraterrestrial vehicles might be making circles in grain fields
    is unlikely.  Life might be rife throughout the Cosmos (the odds are in
    its favor, biochemically), and a significant percentage of it may be
    intelligent.  Linking it to "magic" circles is something else again.

    Probability of life elsewhere, IMHO, is near unity.
    Assuming life, the probability of intelligent life is fairly high.
    Assuming intelligence, the probability of space travel is so-so
    (the idea might not interest them; they may have perfected other
    ways -- ranging from hypertelecommunications through apportation --
    to gather the data they desire).  The probability of their visiting
    the Earth, IMHO, is slight (we're only a speck in the galaxy; others
    may have far more of what they want).  The probability of their making
    marks in grain (which are transient) rather than something more
    permanent, are very slight.  

    Things identified as UFOs needn't even be solid.  They could be
    plasmas, like ball lightning.

    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re: .88
    
        Steve, yes, that was a nice "logical" and "sensible" approach.
    Another possibility, however, maybe less logical, is that humanity
    *really is* a beacon for the rest of creation, that at this point
    in time it is something other intelligences admire for our capacity
    to love, that they watch and observe respectfully hoping to
    advance themselves in these "emotional arenas."
        Another idea that I like is akin to the "force" in Altair 4
    (or "Forbidden Planet" as it came to be known.)  The images are
    thought generated patterns of the unconscious mind (not brain.)
    Whose unconscious?  The collective unconscious, firstly, and
    our own, ultimately.
    
    Frederick
    

    re: Steve
    
    I agree, well said!
    
    re: .90
    
    Frederick,
    
    Not to put too fine a point on it, but by what mechanism
    are they aware of us?  It was only since the invention of
    radio that we have been sending out signals that could
    conceivably be picked up by sentient beings.  
    
    Which means that the entire search pattern must be within
    a light-year diameter equal to (at the very most!) half
    the number of years since the first radio signal was 
    created.  This is assuming that they heard and immediately
    headed out for planet earth.
    
    In universal terms, this area is staggeringly small.  And
    I wonder what it was that attracted them?  And did they
    decide to stay away when they heard "Green Acres"?  ;^)
    
    Joel
    

    Analysis isn't always the most appropriate tool, and odds are
    a last-ditch analysis refuge of scoundrels in problem-solving
    as objective criteria, IMHO ... :-)   It tends to stifle creativity,
    I believe, at a point where there is no real reason to begin weighing
    alternatives.
    
    Consider the legalistic problem of how to tell whether 
    the circles are specifically caused by a given object, whatever its
    planet of origin, or level of intelligence, even if you catch one hovering 
    over a circle and saying "I DID IT, I DID IT, AND I'M PROUD OF IT"
    With a good lawyer, it could easily get off with a slap on the
    wrist.  Try to prove it was or wasn't a middle-earth gnome, channeling 
    through the ghost of Newton, and then creating the hologram of a UFO to 
    throw us off !  ;-)  Sorry about that, no insult intended, just trying
    to make the same point yet again in a different way.
    
    Another interesting thing, the odds in this case depend upon how you 
    calculate them, as with all statistics.  Based on proportional area, 
    the chances of ETI are nearly unity.  
    
    Randomly determined, biochemically, the odds are fairly good, IMO,
    but I disagree with Steve just a bit as to how good.   The difference is 
    probably meaningless anyway, since the odds come down even more, IMO, 
    when you consider that the conditions for life to evolve as we currently
    think of it on earth in the main consensus paradigms for life and
    reality to include much more than the proper biochemical components.
    Since the exact initial conditions and mechanism are not really completely 
    understood (unless I'm wrong) the odds cannot be accurately calculated 
    yet, and so judging hypotheses based on them is, IMHO, inappropriate even 
    if there was some reason to judge the hypotheses.   Awards for the
    best theory given in DEJAVU, for example.  I vote for the stealth
    tractor, since I have to disqualify myself from the Newton's Ghost
    theories.
    
    Odds ?  A clever statistician can prove ANYTHING.  Talk
    about a "Create Your Own Reality" kind of person.  :-) :-)
    
    	kind regards,
    
    	Todd
    
    
>(the odds are in
>    its favor, biochemically), and a significant percentage of it may be
    

    RE: .93 (CINDY!)
    
         Okay, I did it...now if only all of you would quit running 
    around in them!
    
    
    ;-)
    Frederick
    

    Freddie is a middle-earth gnome ?

    No... a California gnome... they prefer hot tubs to gold mines. :-)
    
    mary

    I'm convinced that the Magic Circles are really a rip off of the
    little Icons used on HBO Home Box Office, and its a subliminal 
    technique to get you watch more Cable TV by alien beings who
    want to incorporate more mindful bubblegum into our
    pysches for their own evil purposes.
    
    It looks like the end to me...
    
    ;-)
    -A

    But from ends, beginning are born, Arthur.
    
    It could mean a whole new season of situation comedy. :-)

         To be serious for a moment, on one of the many tangents
    to this topic...
         I find it interesting that whenever anyone speaks of UFOs,
    et.al. that they speak of them as though they will come to offer
    us a way out [of our miserable human condition, I suppose.]
    The problem is a continual problem and is indicative of why
    it persists.  The problem is that we [humanity] are still looking
    for saviours, whether it be a Jesus-type or a "brethren"-ufo-type.
    The solutions to our problems, the saving of the human race, etc.
    are NOT going to come from "OUT THERE."  The answers, the solutions,
    the final determination, etc. can only come from inside.  Inside of
    each of us, individually.  This is why I reject Michael's approach,
    for example.  For it, like all the other star-struck individuals 
    in here, continues to refer to a salvation coming at the hands of
    some outside force.  What it, and most humans, continues to do is 
    to very adroitly avoid tackling the REAL problem, which, again, is
    handling the emotions (and therefore thoughts, etc.) which reside
    inside each of us.
    
         What does this have to do with spirituality or God/Goddess/All-
    That-Is, Cindy (a few notes back)?   Again, though we are not "God"
    all of God can be holographically found in each of us.  We do not
    do "God's work" by doing anything special.  All work is "God's work."
    We don't get door prizes from God, either, better prizes for better
    work...maybe "God" is a cosmic Santa Claus, but God/Goddess/All-That-Is
    is nothing like that.  But to get closer to the larger piece of 
    GGA (and we are microscopically small next to it & we must see that 
    taking this illusion real is not the way to get closer) we need to
    know who we are...to know what our thoughts and what are feelings
    are and what those thoughts and feelings result in.  That is, we
    are constantly manifesting a reality that stems from our thoughts
    and feelings.  To the extent that the reality isn't pleasant or fun
    is the extent that our feelings/thoughts are "scrambled."  Replace
    those thoughts/feelings with ones that produce positive results and
    we will have come closer to having dominion within this reality.
    Having dominion in physicality enables us to touch that larger piece
    of GGA.  In the history of humankind, from the perpective of those
    of us within this reality, this has never been done.  The time has
    come to dump history, replace the paradigm (sorry, Terry) and get 
    on with it...doing what is *really* important.
    
    Frederick
    

  
>>  Replace those thoughts/feelings with ones that produce positive 
>>  results and we will have come closer to having dominion within 
>>  this reality.
    

	Perfectly said!....thank you, Mr Ward.....


>>                          -< Can I go home now? >-

	YES.....8^)

    Frederick (.99),
    
    I agree whole*heart*edly that the answer comes from within and there
    are a large number of folks in this notefile in particular who are
    doing just that.  Please don't generalize and lump us all together,
    thank you.
    
    << The problem is that we [humanity] are still looking
    for saviours, whether it be a Jesus-type or a "brethren"-ufo-type.
    The solutions to our problems, the saving of the human race, etc.
    are NOT going to come from "OUT THERE."  The answers, the solutions,
    the final determination, etc. can only come from inside.  Inside of
    each of us, individually.  >>
    
    Or Laz-type either for that matter.
    
    Ro
    

.101 Ro

Thanks!  ;')

.99

>   ............  For it, like all the other star-struck individuals 
>   in here,

I'm sure you all know who you are too   ;')

Jay

    re: 1392.99, Frederick,
    	Beautiful, Freddy.  Please replace all of my silly flapping
    here with the combined spirit of your note, and the one that
    said 'speak your heart'.   For not only the experience of the
    individual, but that union of experience of all of us determines
    the meaning of 'magic circles' and other enigmas.  This is a great 
    topic, I'm very excited about the unconventional way it has developed !
    
    	Toddy

    
    
    Fredrick,
    
      I am not sure how you got the idea that I think the answers are
    outside us,but,somehow you did. I believe there is a spirit and a
    GOD,but,I dont believe he or some alien race,is going to rescue us. I
    believe we are the ones who will either destroy ourselves or come to a
    higher understanding,and,start working together. Just wanted to clear
    that up.
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

    
    Frederick,
    
    >I find it interesting tht whenever anyone speaks of UFOs, et.al.
    >that they speak of them as though they will come to offer us a
    >way out...
    
    WHAT?!?!?  Ok, I give.  WHO wrote THAT in this topic?  Or even IMPLIED
    that, for that matter.  I certainly didn't.
    
    Are you sure you're READing and REPLYing in the same conference all the
    time?
    
    Cindy (who knows all the answers must ultimately come from within)

    re: Ro (and Jay and Cindy and unspeaking others...)
    
         Okay, I'll take that blast...as I re-read my entry I could see
    room for reading the "wrong tone."  But, Ro, I would tend to draw
    a distinction by those who say "follow me" with those who provide
    guidance to show us how to look within...
    
    re: Michael
    
         Okay, Michael, I hear that...but before we can pull together,
    we've got to "pull individually."  Too many people keep on looking
    for others to do the pulling.  It will not work unless the individual
    clears stuff out inside.  I keep on reading your messages to say that
    "we need to work together" and that working within is secondary.  I
    say working within is paramount and primary and that if we do this,
    in fact, working with others just sort of falls into place "naturally"
    and doesn't need to be promoted.
    
    Frederick
     

    re: .106, Frederick,
>         ...but before we can pull together,
    >    we've got to "pull individually."  Too many people keep on looking
    >    for others to do the pulling.  It will not work unless the individual
    >    clears stuff out inside.  I keep on reading your messages to say that
    >    "we need to work together" and that working within is secondary.  I
    >    say working within is paramount and primary and that if we do this,
    >    in fact, working with others just sort of falls into place "naturally"
    >    and doesn't need to be promoted.
    
    	Are you saying something akin to "Lead by example, and by examining 
    	yourself ?"   That was the feeling I got.
    
    I'm *very* much in agreement with the spirit of that.  Sometimes
    our views seem to be so similar at some level beyond words ...
    
    	kindly,
    
    	Todd	

    re: .107 (Hot-Toddy!)
    
         Yes, Todd, that's what I'm saying.  That may not be *all* that's
    necessary or relevant, but that is the starting off place...
    
    Frederick
    

    
    Fredrick,
    
       I believe we can also learn to work within,by working without,by,the
    guidance and support,of others. So,we can be doing both at the same
    time.
    
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

    
    The opening quote of Shirley MacLaine's book entitled "Going Within"
    goes something like this (paraphrased):
    
    		"One must begin with oneself.
                 But never end with oneself."
    Cindy

    Re 1392.22 - I couldn't agree more!  Let it BE, and while you're
    at it "Blessed Be" - 
    
    Is life today (as we "know" it) so wonderful and fulfilling that
    any tiny bit of magic can't be appreciated?  Are we loosing our
    ability to be awed - who are we that we can't share the same planet
    with other entities, unexplained phenomena and magic fairies?
    Heaven knows we share the planet with the Uncle Saddam's and the
    Uncle Mumars - what's wrong with something that ISN'T threatening
    the living daylights out of us?
    
    I for one hope it's ET and The Gang - looking to have some inter-
    galactic fun!
    
    Keep shining!
    S
    

    Let's try to put some positive energy back into this conference. It
    looks like nobody has written anything the last 7 months. Are we all
    'kidnapped' or strangely disappeared by the phenomena producing these 
    circles ?
    
    Reading through the last 112 replies, I find it interesting to see that
    we either deviate from the subject or try to understand what and how the
    circles were made. I hardly find any attempt to make some sense out of
    these circles. 
    They look quite familiar and could to my belief come straight from an 
    IQ-test. Let's try to use all of our combined IQ to come up with some 
    translations of the circles, because as I believe someone or something is 
    trying to communicate with us...
    
    As stated before there seems to be an order in the making of the
    circles; first they were "simple", now they are more complex. Does
    'it' want to teach or tell us something ? Can we understand what 'it' 
    is trying to build up ? Maybe we can see some logic in the symbols, some
    similarities that keep coming back. 
    
    Is there someone out there that has a book or an article that describes
    the order of the circles when they appeared in time ? Has anybody for
    instance read the books of a Mr. John Michell from London ? Any
    subscribers to his magazine called "The Cereologist" ?
    
    Some of the circles seem to have a pattern of small 'balls' growing to
    bigger balls, getting a shell around them and then getting very big
    without a shell. It looks like a growth-process of some kind. Is 'it'
    trying to describe some understanding he has of our growing of seeds ?
    (Maybe this idea is a little biased by the fact that I recently got to be
    a father, but still...) Use our combined imagination and let's try to
    come up with some new ideas.
    
    Go for it...
    
    
    Regards,
    
    Victor
    
                           

As I was travelling in to work today, gazing 
dreamily out of the window of the train, I
suddenly realised it's the start of harvest
time. Are there any crop circles this year?

They have never appeared in this part of Europe
(as far as I know) and the fields are just at
the moment, very battered by the recent storms.
But is anything happening in crop-circle land?

John D.

	.114 John
	
>But is anything happening in crop-circle land?

	I believe so. See Note 84 (specifically 84.455) in WIDGET::UFOS.
	
	Jay

    Here's some info off the net on the latest crop circles.
    
    Carole
    
    
    
    
Article: 1051
Path: engage!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!deccrl!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!mcsun!ukc!icdoc!ibmassc!rob
From: [email protected] (Robert Trevelyan)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Crop Circles in the UK
Keywords: Latest from the UK Vigils
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 5 Jul 91 14:33:57 GMT
Sender: [email protected] (Robert Trevelyan)
Followup-To: Robert Trevelyan ( CCCS member )
Organization: IBM AIX Systems Support Centre, UK.
Lines: 57
 
Using banks of expensive camera and infra-red equipment to keep a 24-hr
watch on a field below Morgan's Hill where a magnificent quadruple-ringed 
Circle and a Celtic Cross appeared respectively on June 1 and July 5 1990, 
a Team of crop watchers have witnessed something strange .
 
    In addition to the video equipment they have a powerful directional 
microphone which digitally records all sound in the range 2 to 20000 Hz, i.e. 
infra-sound, audible sound and some ultra-sound. The night of June 26/27 was 
cloudy and rainy and looked most unpromising. At about 3 a.m. some mist was 
in evidence and this appeared to be thickest right over the field being 
observed. It was decided to keep the cameras and infra-red gear running 
just in case it lifted and the directional microphone continued to record. 
 
    At 5.45 a.m., an hour after dawn, the mist began to slowly clear. The 
pall of mist over the field under observation was the last to dissipate and, 
when it did, the cameramen could just see markings in the crop. They rushed 
down the hill to seal off entry to the field in which they could now see 
with binoculars a large dumb-bell pictogram. Close inspection showed no signs 
of human entry or footsteps in the wet soil at entry points to the field. 
A playback of the tapes from the directional microphone was found to be 
completely blank at all recorded frequencies. 
 
    One of the cameramen who was first into the dumb-bell walked a long way
along a tractor line to get to the the formation without damaging the 
standing crop. His trousers were soaked by the wet crop and his boots covered 
in mud. The circles were perfectly swirled with the plants bent but unbroken. 
There was no sign of foot-steps or muddy trampling in the circles. 
 
    At 6 p.m the previous evening a military helicopter had flown across and 
hovered for a few minutes over the spot where the pictogram subsequently 
formed. Whether or not this was coincidental we have no way of telling. There 
are certainly rumours that the military have ways of detecting where and when 
Circles will form. 
 
    Dr Meaden and his 19 Japanese scientists also encamped on Morgan's Hill 
were thought to have had that field under observation as well. But they are 
not saying what they made of this cosmic conjuring trick. Dr M only ever says 
"This entirely confirms my plasma vortex theory" whenever a new pictogram 
appears. He has on the hill some radar device, and we hear a rumour that 
this picked up some object the other night (not necessarliy the night of 
the 26/27th) which was definitely not an aircraft. The cry went up "It's a 
plasma vortex" and they all rushed to look for it. But nothing visible was 
seen. 
 
    What Dr M calls a plasma vortex is what most other people call a UFO. 
This does not mean for a moment that it is necessarily a metallic spacecraft 
flown by aliens as the tabloid newspapers and Hollywood would have us believe. 
Nor for that that matter does calling it a plasma vortex mean that scientists 
have the slightest idea what it is or where it comes from. Meaden has never 
offered any equations, rotational velocities, or any credible explanation 
for how the mythical plasma vortex is formed. He might just as well call it 
a UFO like everyone else. 
 
   No exact details of sizes of dimensions yet but I will be in-touch.	 
Otherwise the latest crop circles seem to be dumbbells ,as a weight training	dumbbell , with rings ,paths and circles attached .They look remarkably like	
insects as they have a paths leading from one of the circles at about 
45 degrees with small circles at the end (antannae) . 

Article: 1064
Path: engage!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!decuk.uvo.dec.com!hollie.rdg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!mcsun!ukc!icdoc!ibmassc!rob
From: [email protected] (Robert Trevelyan)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Crop Circles in the UK
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 8 Jul 91 09:19:37 GMT
Sender: @aixssc.ibm.co.uk
Organization: AIX Systems Support Centre, UK.
Lines: 83
Originator: [email protected]
 
Dick,	 
 
	I have been interested/involved in crop circles for about
	two years and was very fortunate last year to find the first
	pictogram in a field in Chilcomb , Winchester . This was the
	first crop circle not be of the normal circle/ring form as it 	
	had boxes and paths . Through this and my interest in the 
	phenomenon I have made aquaintances with the leading circle
	investigators and even got a mention in a few books on the subject.
	I am also a member of CPR ( Circles Phenomnon Research - Pat Delgado
	and Colin Andrews ) and CCCS ( Centre for Crop Circle Studies ) .
	I live in an area that is about 15 minutes from Winchester and
	about 45 minutes from Silbury Hill in Wiltshire , these are the
	most popular areas for crop circles and I have been in about
	50 or so or them over the last year or two . 
 
	The team that witnessed the crop circle I previously mentioned
	on Morgans Hill , Wiltshire was run by ex BBC Producer and now
	Director of Circle Vision , circles PR company ? ,and a team
	of cameramen . They are the same team that assisted Delgado and
	Andrews on Operation Blackbird in 1990 , remmember the hoax.
	Anyway currently in that area at the moment are three independant
	watches arranged by Dr. Meaden ( The vortex man ) called Operation
	Blue Hill , CCCS called Operation Sirius and a CPR watch called
	Operation Nightingale . 
 
	I found out about this as I have a friend that is the Director of
	field research for CCCS and he also works for the same company as I do.
	As he lives in a different part of the UK than I do it allows us
	to keep in touch of all areas of southern England . I also receive
	information from visiting sites that are known circle areas and		
	in addition to that receive details via a circle network via the 
	mail . If you are interested in joining this let me know and I will
	send you the address to write to .
 
	This years formations seem to be based on a new formation which has
	been termed "insectograms" as they have paths and circles that look
	like antennae . I believe there has been about 100+ circles this
	year to date but there has also been a great many hoaxes . A hoax
	can be perpetrated as it is not dousable and is very often rough 
	at its edges . This is very much dependant on the crop it is 
	created in as barly created a rougher looking formation but if it
	douses as well it point toward non-hoax. Hoaxed circles look and 
	feel like hoaxes as they are very rough , the crop is always broken
	not layed down and happens when there are tramlines to the field,
	the lines the tractors wheels create . 
	
	I visited the lecture given by Terence Meaden on Plasma Vortex
	last year and totally agree with you that the guy is slightly
	off the track where it comes to most crop circles. I do believe
	that simple circles can be created by his plasma vortex theory
	if there is a hill nearby and if the weather is correct for this but
	as for this being the answer I think he is crazy . How can a
	spiraling vortex of charged air/dust particles create boxes ,	
	paths or even rings , let alone triangles that were seen last year.
 
	Anyway I have just received a note about a new crop circle
	in the field where last years eighth of a mile pictogram appeared  
	at Alton Barnes, Wiltshire . I will post details of this to the
	news as soon as I have read it .
	
	Be in touch , Robert 
 
>
>Thanks for the great info.  Can you say who the team is and how you
>know about this?  How many crop circles have there been previously
>this season?  Any new shapes?  
>
>Plasma vortex, my arse.  This looks like something much more interesting.
>Please post any and all new info you can.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Dick Shoup
>[email protected]
>
>
 
 
-- 
Robert Trevelyan			UKnet: [email protected]
AIX Communications 			VNET: TREVELR at BASVM2
					Voice: +44-(0)256-56144

Article: 1066
Path: engage!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!decuk.uvo.dec.com!hollie.rdg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!mcsun!ukc!icdoc!ibmassc!rob
From: [email protected] (Robert Trevelyan)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Crop Circles ( screwed the last one up )
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 8 Jul 91 10:15:56 GMT
Sender: @aixssc.ibm.co.uk
Organization: AIX Systems Support Centre, UK.
Lines: 63
Originator: [email protected]
 
 
 
   On Tuesday July 2 the main attraction of the Circle season 
occurred just where it was expected at Alton Barnes, Wiltshire. 
Within 200 yards of the position of last year's giant double
dumb-bell pictogram . This is of similar size to the huge pictogram 
of 1990 .
 
    This new formation lies in a great expanse of green wheat . 
The formation is about 120 yards long and consists of a large ringed 
circle with long narrow passages running to a plain circle at one end 
and a smaller ring, with a spur beyond, at the other. Two 15 ft circles, 
like eyes, lie to one side of the central avenue level with the 
midpoints of the connecting passages and equi- distant from them. 
Already dozens of visitors were converging on the site to marvel at the 
new wonder where so many people had caught circles fever in 1990. 
Farmer Tim Carson is charging $1 entry and will probably exceed his 
last year's take of an estimated $8000 (pounds sterling). 
 
     Farmhand Malcolm Enery described how he had been woken by a loud 
roaring noise at 1.30 a.m. that night. He thought at first that a 
C-130 Hercules from RAF Lyneham was flying over at rooftop level, 
but could see nothing through his window. Other residents of Alton Barnes 
were woken by a similar roar. Only when mist over East Field had cleared 
at 7 a.m. could the new pictogram be seen. It lies barely 800 yards 
from the tiny village. 
 
     Today (Friday 5-7-91 ) a further formation, a smaller dumb-bell 
accompanied by several additional circles, has appeared in the same 
field just within a few hundred yards. Again these circles were initially 
shrouded by unseasonal mist. Something quite extraordinary appears to be 
happening at Alton Barnes and this is quite possibly not unconnected with 
the worldwide interest that was shown in the magnificent circles which 
appeared there last year. 
 
     Last Sunday a large new pictogram appeared at Newton St Loe just 
two miles west of Bath. This greatly resembled the Alton Barnes 
pictogram of 1990, and once more its appearance was accompanied by 
strange lights seen in the sky and a roaring noise according to many 
people in the outskirts of the city. I hope to try to talk to some of 
these people and to piece together events surrounding this visitation.
Before this year only one small crop circle had ever been reported in 
this area between Bristol and Bath. 
 
     The Bath pictogram has a large asymmetric "key" and also the ringed 
"signature circle" in exactly the same relative position as the Wiltshire 
pictograms of last year. These distinctive features, and the fact that 
"keys" or "claws" have been seen in two other smaller formations in Avon 
and Somerset seems to show that the 1990 Wiltshire "circlemakers" have 
moved west. Equally the large symmetrical pictograms now appearing in 
Wiltshire closely resemble the style of those that appeared near 
Winchester in Hampshire last year, only they are somewhat larger, and 
only one has got "boxes". Again it looks as if the Hampshire circlemakers 
moved west. As for Hampshire, the 1991 pictograms so far are all 
"insectograms", immensely elaborate asymmetric formations with twin 
"antennae" and a peculiar ladder-like feature with a variable number of 
rungs at the opposite end. It has already been optimistically suggested 
that the "rungs" might represent the protein molecules in the double 
helix of DNA. Such is the articulateness of the new formations that 
this kind of speculation is no longer viewed with ridicule. 
 
I hope to visit this new one at Alton Barnes this week so will be in 
touch about this and any more in the area .

    It's time to incorporate a lot more triangles into the patterns... in
    order to eliminate the old weather vortex theories.  Lets try for a few
    rectangles too... geometric patterns signify intelligence at work.
    
    Mary Stanley

> geometric patterns signify intelligence at work.

  An interesting thought. The seeds in a sunflower, the "eyes" on a
  pineapple, and many other objects which are not man-made, exhibit
  highly regular geometric patterns (in the case of sunflowers and
  pineapples, the patterns are based on the Fibonacci series). If one
  believes that all geometric patterns must be due to an intelligence (I
  prefer to call it "purposeful behavior"), then this is a strong piece
  of evidence in support of a divine being, or at least some
  extra-natural agency. It appeals to ME, at least.

    Some postings from the usenet on recent circles.
    
    Mary, note at the end of the first article the mention of triangles.
    
    Carole
    ============================================================================
    
Article: 1356
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!decuk.uvo.dec.com!hollie.rdg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!mcsun!ukc!icdoc!ibmassc!rob
From: [email protected] (Robert Trevelyan)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Wiltshire Pictograms
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 23 Jul 91 10:09:42 GMT
Sender: [email protected] (Robert Trevelyan)
Organization: IBM AIX Systems Support Centre, UK.
Lines: 39
 
 
	The last few weeks have been very busy for crop circles in 
Wiltshire.I took a trip around the key sites and could see about nine 
formations varying from dumb-bells , insectograms and pictograms .
Just south of Stonehenge two insectograms and a circle lie in a field.
The insectograms are very large and are of the normal ring , circle ,
path and arc type seen at Upham near Winchester . The circle is a ringed
type with curved spurs .This is obviously near a great deal of tumuli 
and the ancient monument where there are a great deal of lay lines that 
I am sure cross the field .
	In Alton Barnes , site of last years massive pictogram , there
are three formations . Two of these show the "key" symbol as seen last
year and the third is a variation of a circle . Two of these are in one
field and the other one in a field that faces this one but all three are
within about half a mile of each other nad can be seen all at once .
Malborough Downs have about four formations , some very large pictograms
and a dumb-bell as well as a ringed circle with two circles inside touching
and looking as a figure of eight .
	The main formation is at Barbury Castle nearby and appeared at
between 9pm on 16-07-91 and 9am on 17-07-91 according to a local pilot .
At the time of its arrival dramatic sightings of pulsing coloured lights
were made in the area and two witnesses reported seeing a dark object
which flew rapidly overhead blotting out the starlight . Everyone who has
seen this are sure it is genuine apart from Terence Meaden , possibly as
it is a combination of rings, triangles and circles  , not explainable by
an atmospheric vortex  .
I have not seen this yet but will hopefully have some more details on this 
later .
 
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                          DISCLAIMER:                               |
| The views expressed in this document are not a corporate view      |
| nor reflect the views of my employer by any means but are my       |
| own personal views on this subject .                               |
|                                                                    |
| Robert Trevelyan			UKnet: [email protected]  |
| AIX Communications 			VNET: TREVELR at BASVM2      |
| 					Voice: +44-(0)256-56144      |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

    =========================================================================
    
Article: 1390
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!deccrl!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!mcsun!unido!opal!gmdtub!bigfoot!drk
From: drk@sol (Dirk Lutzebaeck)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: crop circle in Berlin/Germany
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 25 Jul 91 08:26:43 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
Distribution: alt
Organization: GMD-FOKUS, Open Communications Research Institute, Berlin,
	Germany
Lines: 18
 
 
Hi there,
 
this morning (Thu, 25.07.91) a crop circle with a diameter of approx.
15 meters appeared in Berlin/Blankenfelde. The circle seems to be not faked
because the straw is not broken but bended. Some people said they
heard a strange noise in the night and saw red and white flashing
lights.
 
Has anybody more on this?
 
 
--
--
Dirk Lutzebaeck   | Voice: +49 30 25499-282    Room: ZAZ923
GMD-FOKUS         | Email: [email protected] || [email protected]
Hardenbergplatz 2 | Bang:  ...!pyramid!tub!dirk        (from the US)
D-1000 Berlin 12  |  or    ...!mcvax!unido!tub!dirk    (from Europe)

    re:  <<< Note 1392.119 by ENABLE::GLANTZ "Mike 227-4299 DECtp TAY Littleton MA" >>>
    
�  believes that all geometric patterns must be due to an intelligence (I
�  prefer to call it "purposeful behavior"), then this is a strong piece
�  of evidence in support of a divine being, or at least some
�  extra-natural agency. It appeals to ME, at least.

    what is the dividing line between "natural"
    and "non-natural," "extra-natural," supernatural??"
    
    /bruce
    

    I think the crop markings are just the postings of the
    ball scores between Metenarc and Beldar...
    
    /bruce

Note 1392.119                     
ENABLE::GLANTZ 
    
    I agree.  I've always seen it the same way as you do.
    
Note 1392.122                     
ZENDIA::LARU 
    
>    what is the dividing line between "natural"
>    and "non-natural," "extra-natural," supernatural??"
    
    What does "natural" mean anyway? :-)
    
    Carole::
    
    Thank you, I didn't notice that at first, but I've thought for awhile that
    triangles and rectangles would help eliminate the weather vortex noise... 
    don't you think?
    
    Mary

    
    Yes, Mary....it probably will.  Though all along I have thought that
    the circles were 'too' perfect, and the lines were 'too' even, among
    other things, for this to be caused by weather vortexes and the like.
    
    Carole

    Yes, ... but they have to be perfect or people will say they are hoaxes.

	.123  /bruce
	
	:-)   :-)    :-)  Kind of a cosmic Vogon, huh??

I still think that they're interplanetary signs that say, "Hostile inhabitants,
don't stop here." :-)

		Dave

    Carole,  ... check out the circle note in UFOS :-) ... 
    
    Looks like we've got a game going :-) ... this should be fun... 

    re .128
    
    or "eat at Joe's" :-)

    Re .117
    
    `"Otherwise," he said, "they would have become part of people's
    folklore."'
    
    Ever hear of fairy rings?  These are circular dead patches in the grass
    of a meadow, ascribed in earlier times to the dancing feet of elves,
    but more lately ascribed to the mycelia of soil fungi.  A funny patch
    of meadow isn't that different from a funny patch of cropland.
    
    Perhaps the elves are back.  Perhaps we are being signaled by (or are
    overhearing) geometrically-inclined fungi.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    re: .130 (Mary)
    
         Or maybe just plain "Eat Joes" (maybe that guy in Milwaukee
    is an alien and he just didn't see the signs...  ;-}  )
    
    Frederick
    

    re: .131 (Earl)
    
         Maybe the elves are practicing some sort of Martian Arts
    (or is that Martial Arts?  Or Marsh Art?)  Anyway, it could
    be some sort of modern day Kung Fungus.
    
    ;-)
    Frederick
    

    Or 'eat Joe', Frederick :-) ... or maybe eat mushrooms :-)

RE: folklore

    Actually, Meaden cites some local folklore which may refer to the crop
    circles.  Something about a farmer who somehow challenged the Devil
    thresh his crop, and awoke to find a great circle of grain knocked
    over.  There is an apparent woodcut in an article by him in New
    Scientist which shows a classic "simple" crop-circle being made by the
    devil (there is no mention, however, of when and by whom the woodcut
    was made).

				    Topher

    
    
    Could someone enlighten me about fairy rings?  I was under the
    impression that they are natural rings, not necessarily indentations
    in crops.  Aren't the crop circles much more elaborate and precise?
    
    Carole

    .137
    
    Yes Carole, the fairy rings tend to be fungal rings.. they are quite
    different.

    .138
    
    That was charming, Marcos.. thanks for entering that... I love those
    tales.
    
    Mary

    Chocolate would be nice. :-)

    The fungal fairy rings are caused by the spoor spreading mechanism on
    some species of fungus. The spoor pod explodes and the spoors land in a
    circle around the parent plant.

    I was surprised that you did not realise that the red and white
    flashing lights, seen in one report, signify that the rings were
    created by some inter-galactic emergency vehicle. Probably the police
    pulling some tourist over for running his spaceship with a defective
    invisibility shield or something routine like that.

    Jamie.

    
    
    	The spore spreading mechanism is triggered by fairies.
    
    
         Craig
    
    

    >The spore spreading mechanism is triggered by fairies.
        
    Are you implying that the male homosexual population has nothing
    better to do than run around in the woods triggering fungi?

    Jamie.

Jamie - 

;-)

Nanci

    Gee, I belong to the Boston Mycological Club.  Wanna go for a 
    walk in the woods????

    

re: .146 by HOO78C::ANDERSON 

>    >The spore spreading mechanism is triggered by fairies.
>        
>    Are you implying that the male homosexual population has nothing
>    better to do than run around in the woods triggering fungi?
>
>    Jamie.


	Making racial/ethnic/sexual-orientation slurs in a
	notesfile is in violation of Digital's policy of
	valuing differences.  The description of Gay men
	as "fairies" is no more accurate nor appropriate
	than any of the other group-stereotypes thrown
	around by various and sundry bigotted people.

	How many readers do you suppose you've offended 
	with this posting ?

	-Art

    Art,
    
    I gather that you've failed to note one datum about Jamie.
    
    						Ann B.

Otherwise it wouldn't have been funny.

:-)

Nanci

    99.5% male, gay and unoffended.

    Jamie.

    
    	Hee Hee, haw haw!!!  giggle giggle!!
    
    Jamie,
    
    
    That was *priceless*!!!!
    
    The time/space continuem seems to have taken a bit of a *warp* around
    you!!!
    
    Debbi

    re the last few..
    
    "Don't try this at home, kids."
    
    karl

	Regardless of the orientation of the poster, I still
	find the posting inappropriate. It's often the case 
	that when members of minorities use negative terms 
	for self-description, it's the result of internalizing
	the opression from the culture at large.  It further 
	gives the impression that members of said minority 
	don't mind being referred to that way, thus encouraging
	a continuation of the opression and the stereotypes.

	This note clearly isn't the appropriate place for
	such a discussion, so I won't belabor the point.

	-Art

    Art you appear to be over protective in the extreme. 

    I am reminded of some Politically Correct types who are always rushing
    around looking for things for people to take offense to. 

    They told me that saying that a Scot was tight with his money was being
    rude and the Scots disliked it. This is of course untrue. We like being
    so considered and if these dangerous PC types are listened to we Scots
    are in dire danger of being made to pay for our own drinks in bars.

    One last tiny point, any group may put any label on themselves, it is
    not for you to sit in judgment. 

    Strange to say the current label in vogue by a large group of American
    homosexuals is "Queer".

    Jamie.

re: .156 

>    Art you appear to be over protective in the extreme. 
>
>    I am reminded of some Politically Correct types who are always rushing
>    around looking for things for people to take offense to. 
>
.
.
.
>    One last tiny point, any group may put any label on themselves, it is
>    not for you to sit in judgment. 
>
>    Strange to say the current label in vogue by a large group of American
>    homosexuals is "Queer".

 Jamie,

	As a member of the minority in question, I am not being overly
	protective of anyone but myself, and I *do* indeed have the
	right to comment on how Gay people are perceived by straights.

	Do you really believe that, if you'd been raised in a culture
	that vauled the contributions of Gay men, you would spontaneously
	think of yourself as a "fairy", or as "queer" ?  Or for that
	matter, if Gay people hadn't been getting torched for several
	centuries, do you think you'd find it natural to think of
	yourself as a "faggot" ?  I rather doubt it.

	By using these labels on ourselves in a heterosexual space,
	we encourage the continuation of the stereotypes, the alienation,
	and the violence.

	-Art

    
>    	By using these labels on ourselves in a heterosexual space,
>	we encourage the continuation of the stereotypes, the alienation,
>	and the violence.

    Well, I for one am not encouraged to do any of the above, but that's
    probably due to my perception.
    
    Pete (in my own minority, labelled: Individual)
    :-)

    In the U.S. tonight the TV show 20/20 is going to have a segment on the
    crop circles if anyone is interested.  I can't see it but would like to
    hear how it is.
    
    Cheers,
    
    Karin

    
    
    Thanks for the pointer.  Do you know if this is a new segment or a
    repeat of the one they ran about a year ago?
    
    Carole

    A Current Affair(NBC) showed some footage on today during lunch. They
    interviewed a guy who heard a strange sound which he was able to
    record. It sounded to me like a variation  on the twilight zone theme! :^)
    
    JOHN

    :-)  thats great :-)

    The complexity is increasing....here is the latest off the net.  
    
    Mary, there is another triangle in this one!
    
    
Article: 1480
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!e2big.mko.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!mcsun!ukc!qmw-dcs!icdoc!ibmassc!rob
From: [email protected] (Robert Trevelyan)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Crop Circles in Wiltshire
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 2 Aug 91 16:07:51 GMT
Sender: [email protected] (Robert Trevelyan)
Organization: IBM AIX Systems Support Centre, UK.
Lines: 62
 
 
    On July 17 the largest and most extraordinary of all pictograms 
appeared in a wheatfield below Barbury Castle, an Iron age hill-fort 
near Swindon. Nothing had been in the field at Barbury Castle at 9 p.m 
the previous evening when local pilot had flown over it .The formation
consists of an enormous equilateral triangle (with side of about 180 ft)
which encloses a doubly-ringed circle. Rings are widely separated
and each about 7 ft wide. Each angle of the triangle is bisected by 
pathways leading from the centre of the formation to circular designs, 
each different, beyond each apex. One design is a plain ring (38 ft diam). 
The second is a ring of similar size like a flower with six petals. 
The third is a spiral which opens out in six steps, like a ratchet, 
each time it turns through 90 degrees; this is of similar size to the 
other designs.
 
    Obviously Meaden's theory that the circles are caused by a naturally 
occurring atmospheric vortex could not possibly survive acceptance of 
this great geometric design as the genuine phenomenon, and the next 
day he made a statement to the media to the effect that he believed it 
a hoax. This was inevitable. However all the other researchers are in 
complete agreement that the pictogram is genuine and represents yet 
another stage in the evolution of this bizarre phenomenon. Apart from 
physical characteristics being the same, the dowsing reactions in the 
pictogram are very strong and definite. The whole formation seems to 
be charged with an almost tangible energy. 
 
A keen circles watcher had been cropwatching with two friends at 
Beckhampton at about midnight when they had seen a pulsing light 
moving silently across the sky. During the course of the next hour 
they saw five more such objects, some white and some pulsing green, 
red and white. All were silent though at times they seemed 
comparatively close to where they stood. At one time a dark object 
flew swiftly and silently overhead, blotting out the stars. 
The three were quite frightened by this strange display, and 
likened what they'd seen to a sequence from "Close Encounters of 
the Third Kind".  Some of their sightings were in the direction 
of Barbury Castle which is just five miles away, but at the time 
of telling this story were quite unaware of what had been found 
in the fields. 
 
    Other reports are still being received of anomalous lights in the 
sky in that area on that night. In the morning two other pictograms 
were also found within about three miles of the magnificent one at 
Barbury Castle. On the following night it is reported that Wroughton, 
a town about two miles away, was shaken by a loud aerial explosion 
which caused all the lights to go out, and cars failed to start. 
The area rapidly filled with army vehicles which appeared to be looking 
for something, but the power soon came back on again and normality was 
restored. 
 
    What is going on in this part of Wiltshire ??? 
 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                          DISCLAIMER:                              |
| The views expressed in this document are not a corporate view     |
| nor reflect the views of my employer by any means but are my      |
| own personal views on this subject .                              |
|                                                                   |
| Robert Trevelyan			UKnet: [email protected] |
| AIX Communications 			VNET: TREVELR at BASVM2     |
| 					Voice: +44-(0)256-56144     |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

    
    Interestingly enough (at least to me ;^)), I had a dream yesterday
    morning that came back to me when I read the previous net posting
    last evening.  There was a lot going on in the dream, and then this
    very quick sequence occurred that didn't really fit in.  I am with
    a few people and someone is telling me that I will be part of the Bright
    Circle and we will work with the Pyramid.  Not only did the triangle
    within a circle in the pictogram remind me of the dream, but then I
    also thought of 11:11 and how we are being asked to form star mandalas
    and connect in with the mandala that will be formed at the Pyramid.
    
    Carole

    
    Good stuff, Carole.
    
    *All* of the pictograms will have triangles incorporated in them from 
    now on... just watch and see. ;-)  That should eliminate the weather
    vortex nonsense quick enough .... and once and for all.  
    
    It should be amusing to see what 'logical explanation' they come up
    with now. :-)  Geometric tornados, perhaps? :-)  This should be good...
    
    I'm delighted to read about the increased UFO activity associated with
    them too.  I read it with a heavy sigh of relief for some reason.
    
    Mary

  Last Friday evening (I think it was), the slightly sensationalist news
  analysis show 20-20 had a segment on the crop circles in Wiltshire,
  with lots of footage of some of the intricate ones. I was wicked
  impressed, and am totally unable to find even the hint of any
  conventional explanation which might apply. This is the most
  fascinating phenomenon I've heard of.

Re 20/20:

I caught the show, and I was struck how much the circles shown looked like
early paleolithic patterns I have seen on hills elsewhere.

Maybe there's a connection to some of the "underground pattern" approach used
in archeology (from airborne cameras).

Steve Kallis, Jr.

Note 1392.167                     
ENABLE::GLANTZ 
    
    I'm so mad at myself for missing that show.  I hope it comes on again.
    
>  This is the most fascinating phenomenon I've heard of.
    
    :-) ... it is interesting, isn't it?
    
    Mary

>    I'm so mad at myself for missing that show.  I hope it comes on again.

  Relax, you didn't miss much. It's just that I had never seen any
  pictures before. That was what was interesting for me.

    Yeah Mike,
    
    When I first read these circle notes I wondered what all the fuss was
    about. Then I saw them, in full colour plates in the bookstore.....
    Man! was I impressed! Wonder and awe probably describes it most, even
    artistic. I find it hard not to attribute the creation to some kind of
    conscious intelligence (as opposed to random intelligence.)
    
    Is there significance in them being done mainly on almost ripe fields of
    corn, wheat etc. ie "The harvest of the earth well nigh ripe ?"
    
    -Brian

    Re.: .168
    
    "Underground pattern" that's new to me. Could you explain what you mean
    by that and the relevance of it to the crop-circles ? Do you find the
    same kind of patterns coming back now in the crops ? 
    
    Please 'educate' us a little, Steve.
    
    Victor
    

Re .172 (Victor):

In the 1950s, archeologists discovered that in some cases, buried ruins could
be discerned in aerial photographs that were invisible from the ground.  This
was because small subtle differences in ground characteristics were visible at
a distance.

There is some talk that the "magic circle" phenomenon is a kind of outgrowth of
that phenomenon.

For instance, I've noted that the latest "circle" photo I've seen has 
characteristics in the circle that are not unlike the prehistoric hill-paintings 
I've seen when I visited the U.K.  Such "paintings" covered a fairly large area, 
employed material (crushed rock?  I didn't get close enough to see) that lasted 
for literally thousands of years [and I don't believe for a moment that the 
areas  were treated with an extraterrestrial version of Agent Orange], and were 
line drawings/patterns.  

Charles Darwin performed an experiment where he put some bricks in a field and 
didn't move them.  Over time -- much of his life -- the bricks sunk slowly into 
the soil; the result was determined to have been due to the action of worms, who
when bruuowing underground left tiny tunnels that over many years collapsed so
that the bricks slowly sank.

Suppose we hypothecate a series of patterns where the materials were bricklike,
and the height was not so great to put so much pressure mon the soil that worms
couldn't burrow under it (as, say, would be the case with a house foundation).
Over the centuries, the patterns might sink underground, particularly if they
represented symbols of a religiomagical movement whose time has passed.  To
someone tilling the soil, particularly before the invention of the gang plow,
such material would be unnnotived; however, to plants growing above the pattern
elements, there might be fewer bnutrients, less water retention, etc.  This
would make them weaker than the surrounding plants, and thus easier to fall
victim to ewnvironmental influences (whilrwinds, ball lightning, etc.).

That's one example of how such a mechanism might work.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    That should be fairly easy to prove or disprove, Steve.
    
    Has the British science team investigating this phenominon looked into
    that theory?  Frankly, I'd be surprised if they hadn't.
    
    Mary 

Note 1392.171                     
UTRTSC::MACKRILL                                     
    
>    Is there significance in them being done mainly on almost ripe fields of
>    corn, wheat etc. ie "The harvest of the earth well nigh ripe ?"
    
     I think so.  For one thing, it bespeaks intelligence once again... a 
    carefully chosen spot.. one which is sure to gain notice at harvest
    time... one which is terribly important to the continued survival of
    mankind as regards sustainance.
    
    Everything about this speaks of intelligence at work... sentient and
    aware.
    
    Mary

Re .174,.175 (Mary):

    >Has the British science team investigating this phenominon looked into
    >that theory?  Frankly, I'd be surprised if they hadn't.

Frankly, I don't know.  However, it's not apparent that it's been thought of.

Analogous situation:

Ever since the great statues on Rapa Nui (aka Easter Island) were discovered,
there's been a lot of speculation on how the statues were carved, transported,
and erected.  Guesses ranged from the supernatural to the exctraterrestrial.
Points made were that the natuves, given the tools and materials they had at
hand couldn't have done the job.  Then came the amateur archeologist, Thor
Heyerdahl.  he investigated the doings, then hired some natives who showed
him a sophisticated stone-carving technique and a simple but effective way of
erecting the statues, all done with materials that were available for centuries.
Heyerdahl photographed the whole process, asnd both the photos and details og
how it was done appear in his book, _Aku-Aku_ (which is a good read anyway).

When Heyerdahl ashed the head of the native team that did the work why they
hadn't revealed these techniques before, the man shrugged, and responded, 
"Nobody ever asked us."

Perhaps nobody ever thought of checking with a local anthropologist, either.

I do agree that this could be checked on fairly easily; however, most of the
"research" I've seened chronicled to date consist of things like people trying
to make equivalent circles by diverse means like helicopter downwash or 
physically trampling down the plants.

Now _if_ it transpires that what we're seeing is the "fossil" impression of
paleolithic artwork, as it were, that doesn't mean that the "message" left
there wasn't put there by "an intelligence"; it would just mean that it was
a human intelligence, not an extraterrestrial one.

Wouldn't rule out any magic, either.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

Have none of you thought of the fact that all you need to make all the circles
found so far is 1 person (sometimes 2) a length of rope and 2 pegs ?

    I'm under the impression that different patterns have appeared in the
    same fields in successive years.
    
    Back in the early sixties I remember seeing primitive circles tht were
    assumed to be landing sites for UFO's. They showed the characteristic
    Whorl and grass flattened without being broken. It almost makes you
    wonder if the idea evolved over time as a way to leave evidence without
    revealing to much. Its almost as if somebody(somedisembody) said since
    they like crop circles lets really amuse them!
    
    john

>    I'm under the impression that different patterns have appeared in the
>    same fields in successive years.
    
Yes they do, and they are getting more and more elaborate as the years go by.

I used to live 2 miles from the field, and ride past (250 feet above the field)
it, where the first "crop-circles" appeared, back in the mid-1970's.

It was 2 circles, one about half the size of the other.  

The "phenomenon" caught on, because of the publicity those first circles gained.

    re: .177
    
    You can make imitations of the circles with one or two people, some
    ropes and pegs, but my understanding is that the true crop circles are
    somewhat different from one's created by trampling down a field:
    
    .  in a true crop circle, the wheat (or whatever) is undamaged -- it is
    bent down, but stalks are not broken and there is no sign of trampling
    
    .  in a true crop circle, all the wheat continues to grow, just
    sidways.
    
    By the way, 20/20 ran a repeat this weekend of a show they'd made some
    time ago.  As an update, they said the there had been fewer circles
    this summer, but that some people think that's because summer weather
    started later than usual.  I think they said the patterns were more
    intricate this year, but am not sure.
    
    Mary 

>>    Is there significance in them being done mainly on almost ripe fields of
>>    corn, wheat etc. ie "The harvest of the earth well nigh ripe ?"
    
>     I think so.  For one thing, it bespeaks intelligence once again... a 
>    carefully chosen spot.. one which is sure to gain notice at harvest
>    time... one which is terribly important to the continued survival of
>    mankind as regards sustainance.

  Apparently, they're not done only on almost ripe grain fields. One of
  the things which was mentioned on the 20-20 show, and more recently on
  a National Public Radio broadcast heard in Boston, is that similar
  circles have been seen in other parts of the world, some in areas
  where the vegetation isn't quite as lush, so the features weren't as
  clear. It's possible that these things are being done in many
  different kinds of terrain, but that they're only clearly visible in
  areas where the vegetation is just right for them to be so easily
  noticed, such as in the Wiltshire grain fields.

  As to whether intelligence is involved, it certainly looks like it
  from the shapes of the things, whether it be human (hoax or otherwise)
  or non-human. It's hard to imagine how any non-purposeful agent could
  have created such intricate designs. The most recent designs are so
  intricate that the weather hypotheses are looking extremely weak. As
  Topher pointed out, the intricate ones could be done by a different
  agent than the circles, but the lack of damage to the plants and the
  regularity of the pattern in which the plants are pushed over is
  apparently identical to the simple figures.

  By the way, one hypothesis which hasn't been discussed much is that
  these phenomena are caused by humans with a purpose other than a hoax.
  The hoax hypothesis is weak, in that there's not much to be gained
  from such a prank, considering all the effort that must be involved.
  However, someone or some group of people could be doing this for some
  other purpose, using some tools and techniques which are exceedingly
  clever. A strong motivation improves the believability of any
  hypothesis. And it wouldn't be the first time that observers couldn't
  figure out how the trick was done until shown the secret (consider
  magic tricks, sophisticated cooking, construction of the pyramids,
  etc). If it is being done by humans, using some extremely clever
  technique, then that, to me, is just as fascinating as the ET
  hypotheses. Why are they doing it? How did they figure out how to do
  it?

  Re .177

>Have none of you thought of the fact that all you need to make all the circles
>found so far is 1 person (sometimes 2) a length of rope and 2 pegs ?

  Apparently, it's easy to prove that they weren't made that way.
  Researchers have tried to duplicate the circles in a number of ways in
  an effort to find a human explanation, and all attempts have produced
  results which were easily distinguishable from the real circles. The
  main difference is that in the real circles, there's no damage to the
  plants, as if nothing but air touched them, whereas in all other
  attempts, there's easily-detected bruising.

  Recent mention of the old Twilight Zone episode called "To Serve Man"
  (which I believe was based on a science fiction story of the same
  name), the ET hypotheses in this note, and the 11:11 note prompted me
  to concoct the following very short science fiction story:

  The circles are, indeed, the product of ETs. On 11 Jan 1992, they will
  make contact with us. Thanks to several years of preparation, we will
  welcome them, rather than panic. They will be here to help us in our
  transition to a new order, a new place in the universe (anyone ever
  read a science fiction book called "Childhood's End"?). Hundreds of
  millions of us will gratefully board their craft, bound for other
  places, great adventure, perfect health (remember "Coccoon"?),
  enlightenment, and truth. Some will choose to remain behind, passing
  up these wonderful opportunities, to live out their lives on our poor,
  sick old world. 

  This story concerns one family, some of whose members choose to go,
  and some who remain. Lots of heart-wrenching, tear-jerking dialog and
  action. Finally the great day arrives. One who has decided to stay
  hands a sealed package to a beloved sibling who will be leaving, with
  instructions not to open it under any circumstances until the time is
  right. "When will the time be right?" "Don't worry, you'll know."

  The sibling boards the amazing vessel, and departs, along with
  countless thousands of others. The voyage is spectacular, far
  exceeding all of the special effects seen on Star Trek, Star Wars,
  etc. They arrive at their destination, are given comfortable quarters,
  and find, to their horror, that they are to be eaten as food -- a
  gourmet delicacy from a distant, exotic place. The sibling is quaking
  with terror as the aliens approach his quarters to bring him to the
  kitchen to be prepared (I guess these folks eat their delicacies
  sushi-style -- raw and live). He remembers the package and realizes
  that it's time to open it. He opens it and finds ...


  Salt
  Pepper
  A1 sauce
  Ketchup
  ...
  and a little card on which is written:

  	To our honorable hosts: bon appetit

Note 1392.176                     
5848::KALLIS 
    
>there wasn't put there by "an intelligence"; it would just mean that it was
>a human intelligence, not an extraterrestrial one.

    A possibility ... 
    
>Wouldn't rule out any magic, either.

    I like to think of magick as science we haven't discovered yet.
    
Note 1392.177                     
SBPEXE::ALFORD 
    
    It also doesn't explain the altered structure of the plant DNA to a 
    crystaline structure... the energy coming from the pictograms, the
    triangles and much, much more.
    
    .182
    
    You and Steve certainly agree on some things, Mike... 
    
    Mary

    
    RE: 1392.182
    
    Mike, that was GREAT!!!... I'm impressed by your creativity, sense of
    humour, wit, and realism ! Ever try your hand at other vocations ??

  Thanks for the kind words, but I can't take credit. The main idea
  (that all of this is to feed some ETs) was the plot of "To Serve Man".
  The title of the show was the name of a book the ETs carried
  everywhere with them. At the end of the story, when everyone who's
  going has been loaded aboard and the doors are closing, a guy who
  never trusted the aliens and who's been working trying to translate
  the rest of the book, comes running up screaming "Stop! Don't go!
  You're making a big mistake. It's a COOKBOOK!" A very memorable story.

    I guess I'm a little slow.  I liked the idea, but it wasn't until you
    pointed out the name of the book the ETs carry, _To_Serve_Man_, that I
    started catching the subtleties.
    
    Good one!
    Mary

    >It also doesn't explain the altered structure of the plant DNA to a 
    >crystaline structure... the energy coming from the pictograms, the
    >triangles and much, much more.
    
    Hi Mary, that's interesting...what's the source of this info? I've often
    wondered if a good analysis has been done on the bent stalks to see if
    mechanism performing the bending left any clues.  
    
    -Brian
    

Re .173 (Steve)

> There is some talk that the "magic circle" phenomenon is a kind of outgrowth
> of [ the buried earthworks ] phenomenon.

  I don't think that line of reasoning is particularly strong, if that was
  the case then

       i) the patterns would not "move" at all, they would be in exactly the
          same place each year ;

      ii) the patterns would have been seen long ago, not new ones reported
          each year (genuine patterns that is, ignoring hoaxes) ;

     iii) the patterns would not "grow" in complexity ;

      iv) if there was some effect due to buried material (whether chemical, 
          drainage or whatever effect) then there would be a transition
          zone between maximum effect and zero effect, a gradient not a step
          function.
  
Re .177 (Jane)
                                                                              
> Have none of you thought of the fact that all you need to make all the circles
> found so far is 1 person (sometimes 2) a length of rope and 2 pegs ?          

  No offence but that is utter garbage. Please read about their structure and
  shape. As Mary M (I think) said, there are a lot of points that rule out the
  local yokels / YF attempts to duplicate the genuine patterns ... also see
  the UFO conference (note 84 I think). [ As stated elsewhere, a distinction
  is made between the hoax circles (human & pegs & string) and the genuine
  cases (regardless of whether the cause is humans / gaia / aliens / etc. ]
  
Re .187 (Paul)
                                                                               
> Question: what is the flow/direction of the bent grain in the more
> complicated patterns (especially ones with right or actute angles)?

  The only true answer is "varied" ! 

> In a circle it's easy to see it as a continuous flow such as a vortex
> would make.

  Some circles do have a simple flow, one direction (clockwise/anti-clockwise)
  spiralling from the centre outwards, but there are *many* other combinations.

> What happens at the angles and intersections of the more complicated
> patterns?  Is the flow disrupted or chaotic? Does one "path" totally
> overlay another?

  Sometimes :-) Some of the cases have a sharp edge where one structure has
  cut across the other (eg., the circular swath is continuous but the linear
  one is 'buried'). I haven't seen anything that suggests that the flow
  becomes chaotic but maybe I've just missed out ...

Re .188 (Brian)

  [ plant structure changed ]
  
  Page 42 of the second Delgado & Andrews book ("The latest evidence")
  "... plant sample analyses were carried out at my request by laboratories
  near Stroud, Gloucester [England] ...", "As the photographs [same page]
  show, the energy pattern of the crystals produced by distillation process
  from the plants inside the circles was dramatically different to that fro
  control samples taken from plants in the same field." (Personally, I'm
  still cautious about this as there are no details as to what particular
  process was being used thus how significant the difference is.)

  Frank

    The previous note mentions a book on crop circles. Can all of you try
    to come up with names of books that you know of on the subject and if
    you read it, please advise on the 'relevance-rate' of it. The only
    thing I have read till so far, is an article in a Dutch newspaper and I
    have asked for a copy of a magazine on this subject, called :"The
    Cerealogist", published by an English editor. If you want to have
    details of this magazine, please let me know...
    
    
    --Victor--

	I thought corn-rings were crunchy puffed wheat savoury snacks,
	lightly crisp, with a delicious savoury, barbecue-flavoured coating.
	There's nothing mysterious about them... 

    re: 190 Hi Victor,
    
    The book I first saw and found to be interesting was:
    
    	THE CROP CIRCLE ENIGMA
    	Gateway books
    	The Hollies
    	Bath BA2 8QJ  in the U.K
    	Tel: 0225 - 835-127
    	Fax: 0225 - 840-012 
    	
    What they sent me: " We are offering a set of eight attractive
    postcards of the 1990 crop circle designs fo 2.50 pounds"
    
    
    -Brian
    
    BTW The bookshop under the Utrecht library near the Amro bank on the
    Oudegracht has a copy of this book. ;-)

    oh btw re -1 I forgot to say that the publisher appears to have an
    American afiliate:
    
        The Great Tradition
    	11270 Clayton Creek Road
    	Lower Lake CA 95457 (USA)
    
    from the flyer:
    
    "Members of teh Centre for Crop Circle Studies have cooperated in this
    joint report: they include a physicist, two engineers, a dowser, a
    farmer and an archeologist."
    
    -Brian
    Usual disclaimer etc....
    
     (price: �14.95) (US:$24.00) approx.

    Yesterday night I came upon a TV discussion on one of our cable TV channels 
    called RTL and heared some things that were totally new to me.
    Mr. Buttlow (sp?) a journalist was to take the pro part in this
    discussion and 6 others were on the contra side (I remember a roman
    catholic priest, another journalist, a farmer and a metheorologist).
    
    Anyway, that Mr. Buttlow stated that observations of these crop circles
    have already been made 100 years ago and occurances have increased during 
    the last 40 years or so.
    
    Main areas where these pictograms pop up are supposed to be England,
    Australia and Russia. In Russia circles have been seen not in a corn
    field but in the snow (snow melted only in the circle).
    
    A frequence of 5,2 hertz has been recorded within some circles 
    (shouldn't one feel this?).
    
    An explanation for the circles could be morphogenetic programs that
    are now activated by 'something/one'.
    
    Any comments or more detailed info on this?
    
    Love,
    Karin
    

    Tell me more about "morphogenetic programs", Karin.. please?  What does
    that mean?  I think they might be onto something there.
    
    Mary

    FYI for all you dyed-in-the-wool cereophiles in the New England area:  
    Colin Andrews, resident cereologist and co-author of "Circular Evidence" 
    is slated to be a guest speaker at the UFO Conference scheduled to be 
    held Oct. 12-13 in Cheshire, Connecticut.
    
    Marion
    

    I believe that Colin will also be attending the conference in
    Portsmouth N.H. Sept. 29.
    
    Jim C.
    

    
    
Article: 1529
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!decuk.uvo.dec.com!hollie.rdg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!mcsun!ukc!icdoc!ibmassc!rob
From: [email protected] (Robert Trevelyan)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Winchester Crop Circles
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 5 Aug 91 18:21:39 GMT
Sender: [email protected] (Robert Trevelyan)
Organization: IBM AIX Systems Support Centre, UK.
Lines: 66
 
****************************************************************** 
Subject: 	A Strange Object/New Circles at the Punchbowl 
****************************************************************** 
 
       While driving home from Twyford, Hants on Wednesday evening 
 along the M3 with my wife we noticed this strange dark object 
 "flying ?" above us . It was very much a oval/rectangle shape and 
 seemed to be flying about 45 degrees forward of vertical . This 
 object had a very bright light at the top and bottom of the view 
 we could see and these were not flashes but pulsing . This object 
 gradually gained speed and as it did so the pulsing lights got 
 faster and faster . Eventually it sped up and was a good five miles 
 in front of us but still parallel to the M3 and the pulsing light was 
 still extremely bright . The light seemed to be pulsing and the two 
 lights seemed to pulse and create a third in the middle of them. 
 
   We were also aware of another object pacing it but about half a mile 
 behind it. This could have been a helicopter as it had a flashing light 
 but it also had a bright white light coming from underneath it like a 
 spotlight . Eventually the bright pulsing red light really sped up and 
 disappeared below the horizon. It was about 9:50 and getting quite dark 
 but we could make out that the object, what ever it was, was very large. 
 
     We live within about 10 miles from RAF Odiham , a Chinook helicopter 
 base and at first thought it was a Chinook, but dismissed this as even 
 one of these that low would be heard over the road noise. It was 
 probably twice the size of a Chinook and had totally different lights 
 underneath it and these were far too bright and were pulsing. 
 All very strange .... 
 
  The weird part of the story is that after this light had disappeared 
 my wife joked that it was probably on its way home from creating a 
 crop circle in the Punch Bowl . 
 
 Well, curiosity took over and last evening we went down to Cheesefoot 
 Head to see if anything had appeared and to our amazement there is 
 a formation in the Punch Bowl. This formation a basically a 2 or 3 
 ringed circle with a tail and is near the edge on the left . We saw 
 it about 10 pm last evening and as it was nearly dark details of 
 the formation were quite sketchy . It could be a hoax as it is near 
 the edge for easy access and its tail or spur looked rough . I will 
 probably go back down there over the weekend and check this out . 
 If it is for real I wonder if it is tied up with the pulsing light ? 
********************************************************************
       I re-visited the Punch Bowl on Friday night and the formation 
 looks a genuine one. It is basically a "insectogram" head and 
 antennae . The head is two rings with very large curving paths 
 coming from it with smaller circles at the end . 
 
   Also Thursday night a new formation appeared by the very first 
 formation at Chilcomb . This is difficult to see from the road but 
 looks similar to the original one but larger . Friday night it had 
 been swamped with people and is now probably very trampled. 
 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                          DISCLAIMER:                              |
| The views expressed in this document are not a corporate view     |
| nor reflect the views of my employer by any means but are my      |
| own personal views on this subject .                              |
|                                                                   |
| Robert Trevelyan			UKnet: [email protected] |
| AIX Communications 			VNET: TREVELR at BASVM2     |
| 					Voice: +44-(0)256-56144     |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
 

re.-1

	Thank you Carole for entering these.. I love reading them and 
feel that if I ever got on/into the usernet I would never get out...;')
but I am tempted ...;')

	anyway, it is real interesting reading and you are sweet for 
doing it.

	hugs,

	Meredith
 
 

    Re: Marion and Jim...
    
    Do you guys have any details?  Who to contact or where?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Mary

    Mary, I have a brochure at home. I will bring it in tomorrow
    and post some info. A couple of other speakers who will be
    at the N.H. Conf. are Bud Hopkins and Betty Hill. I plan on
    attending. The only 'details' that I remember are that it
    costs $45.00 which includes a lunch of chicken or fish. The
    conf. is in a Quality Inn or somesuch place and begins at
    8:00 and goes until 5:00 or 6:00 p.m.
    
    Jim C.
    

    thanks Jim

    Hi Mary:
    
    Here's some info on Ct. UFO Conference:
    
    Oct. 12-13 - Holiday Inn, North Haven, Ct.
    
    To register:
    
    OMEGA COMMUNICATIONS
    P.O. Box 2051, Cheshire, CT 06410 (Sorry, no phone # listed)
    John W. White, President
    
    Cost:  $120 PP until August 31 and $150 thereafter
    
    Tentative Lineup of Speakers:
    
    - Don Berliner & Stanton Friedman - "Crashed UFOS - New Revelations"
    - Charles Hickson  - "My Abduction at Pascagoula"
    - Budd Hopkins - "Children - The Youngest Abductees"
    - Linda Moulton Howe - "An Alien Harvest:  Latest Evidence....."
    - C.B. Scott Jones - "The UFO Experience - An International Approach..."
       (Jones is President of the Human Potential Fdn.)
    - John Salter - "My ET Meetings, Social Justice and the Great UFO Class"  
    - Colin Andrews - "Circular Evidence"
    - Michael Swords, Ph.D - "Science, SETI and UFOS"
    - Philip Imbrogno - "The Belgian UFO Experience"
    - Larry Warren & Peter Robbins - "The Bentwaters Air Force Basse UFO
       Coverup"
    - John White - "UFO Abductions and Human Right"
    
    (The Center for UFO Studies Photo Exhibit will also be featured)
    
     Marion
    

    thanks Marion... nice to talk to you again too. :-)

VNAED2::KARIN 
    
    Karin,
    
    Would morphogenetic programs be something that is encoded in the DNA?
    Triggered to respond to certain conditions or stimuli?
    I'm just guessing here... is that what it is?
    
    Mary    

    Re: questioning that the circles are caused by underground patterns.
    
    If the crop falls because of lack of nutrients, the pattern wouldn't
    necessarily be the same every year - the nutrition in the soil might
    "run out" at different times in different locations.  The soil content
    differences might even explain the variations in DNA.
    
    However, you are right that they would be in the same place each year,
    rather than in slightly different locations.
    
    Beth

    Crop failures don't form triangles.

>    Crop failures don't form triangles.

  At least no currently known crop failures form triangles. These could
  be some really wierd new kind of crop failures. Have to keep an open
  mind, you know :-).

    :-)

Re 207 (Mary):

    >Crop failures don't form triangles.

That makes a great slogan, Mary.  Someone might even adopt it for a personal
name. ;-)

     Extraterrestrials don't form Co-ops. :-P

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    
    	Reality doesn't form opinions.
    
    	Craig
    
    

    re. 205 
    
    Mary,
    
    Aha, yes that's what Buttlow said. According to his explanations the
    pictograms could somehow be compared to the structures of cristals that 
    are the same all over the world. Buttlow thinks these morphogenetic
    programs might have been created by some (human?) intelligences as the
    circles tend to occur round prehistorical places and the symbols they
    form are often similar if not the same as can be found on paintings in
    ancient caves.
    
    However he doesn't have a firm opinion as to who/what is activating
    those programs. One idea he expressed was that it may very well be the
    changing attitude mankind shows towards nature.
    
    Unfortunately the discussion was rather short (30 min. only) and lots
    of people were talking at the same time. Nevertheless I somehow feel
    quite comfortable with his views.
    
    I'm sorry not being able to give more information about it and as far
    as I know Buttlow has not yet published his thoughts ...
    
    Love,
    Karin

    Here's the info I have on the N.H. UFO Conference.
    
    		The Uninvited  -  Alien Encounters
    
    Date: September 29
    
    Place: Yokens Convention Center, Route 1, Portsmouth N.H.
    
    
    Speakers: 
    
    Dr. John E. Brandenburg	   The Solarians & The Rainbow Declaration
    
    Mr. Stanton T. Friedman	   Hill Star Map/Roswell Incident Update
    
    Mr. Peter R. Geremia	   N.H. UFO Sightings Update
    
    Mrs. Betty Hill		   The Encounter
    
    Mr. Budd Hopkins		   UFO Abductions - Update - 1991
    
    Mr. Colin Andrews
    
    Phone number for more info is 603-436-9283
    
    Jim C.
    
    

    
Note 1392.210                     
5848::KALLIS 
    
>That makes a great slogan, Mary.  Someone might even adopt it for a personal
>name. ;-)

    :-)
    
>     Extraterrestrials don't form Co-ops. :-P

    Maybe it's time they did. ;-)
    
Note 1392.211                     
CSCOA1::CONNER_C                                      
    
>                       -< Opinions don't form reality. >-
    
Wrongo...  :-)
    
Note 1392.212                     
VNAED2::KARIN 
    
    Thank you, Karin... I think he just may be right.  Certain people
    may act as "triggers" perhaps... consciously or unconsciously.
    I think we're onto something here.
    
    Mary

Re: .189 by COMICS::BELL


>  No offence but that is utter garbage. Please read about their structure and
>  shape. As Mary M (I think) said, there are a lot of points that rule out the
>  local yokels / YF attempts to duplicate the genuine patterns ... also see
>  the UFO conference (note 84 I think). [ As stated elsewhere, a distinction
>  is made between the hoax circles (human & pegs & string) and the genuine
>  cases (regardless of whether the cause is humans / gaia / aliens / etc. ]


Yes I do take offence, and saying "No offence but" does not excuse your
rudeness..  Have you personally seen (first hand) one of these crop circle
patterns ?  Have you walked into one and examined the way the wheat is lying ? 
Do you *know* the people who created the first crop-circles ? 

Because my answers to all the above questions is yes.

Is it likely that an extra-terrestrial spotted the first crop-circles and 
thought to itself "WOW what a great idea - we'll copy that !!" ?  I somehow
doubt it.

or is your only source of information that of the interpretation of paper/book
-selling journalists/writers who are on to a "good-thing" ? 


Re: .183
    
>    It also doesn't explain the altered structure of the plant DNA to a 
>    crystaline structure... the energy coming from the pictograms, the
>    triangles and much, much more.
    
Do you know this personally, are you a biochemist and done the tests yourself ?
or (I repeat) is your only source of information that of the interpretation of
paper/book -selling journalists/writers who are on to a "good-thing" ? 

With the amount of chemicals and hormones that our crops are subjected to, I am
not at all suprised about altered DNA etc.

...and energy being emitted can be attributed to more things than 
extra-terrestrial reasons.

    Re: last
    
    Are you saying you actually _know_ the people who made the first crop
    circles?  Can you tell us who they are, and when and where they made
    them?  Also, why?  Or did I misread your note?
    
    While I view with skepticism general publications on the circles
    (unless they provide specifics about who did the testing, what kinds of
    tests and in what labs...stuff that can easily be verified), my
    general experience has been that PBS is a pretty reliable source.
    
    Please don't let other people's rudeness stop you from sharing any 
    information you may have.
    
    BTW, I haven't seen any crop circles in person, but the 20/20 show had
    close ups that were clear enough to see the pattern of the wheat. 
    To the previous noter (I forget who) who asked what happens to the
    patterns at intersections, they didn't look chaotic and although I
    didn't look at them long enough to be able to interpret the patterns in
    detail, I do remember that they looked kind of layered.  I can't
    describe them any other way.
    
    Mary

Re: Note 1392.215
    SBPEXE::ALFORD "An elephant is a mouse with an oper" 


>Have you personally seen (first hand) one of these crop circle
>patterns ?  Have you walked into one and examined the way the wheat is lying ? 
>Do you *know* the people who created the first crop-circles ? 
>
>Because my answers to all the above questions is yes.

Well all that I personally am able to do is listen to what journalists,
scientists or generally others tell about it and see whether I feel this could 
be an explanation as to my personal understandings.

So, as you say you've actually been to one of these circles and personally
know the people who created the first ones would you mind telling us
about it? I'd be very much interested in what those people's purpose
was. Do you really think they created the *first* circles?
How does this relate to the statements that circles haven been observed
100 years ago?

Open to hear other opinions,

Karin

    
Article: 1552
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!e2big.mko.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!mcsun!ukc!icdoc!ibmassc!rob
From: [email protected] (Robert Trevelyan)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Lastest on the UK Crop Circles
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 7 Aug 91 15:38:37 GMT
Sender: [email protected] (Robert Trevelyan)
Organization: IBM AIX Systems Support Centre, UK.
Lines: 17
 
 
   Excitement today because there is a formation very near Chequers, 
the Prime Ministerial residence in Bucks. This quincunx has a triangle 
in place of one satellite, and it is rumoured that this points towards 
Chequers. I have only just received this news so as yet have not visited
the site . I will update as soon as possible .
 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                          DISCLAIMER:                              |
| The views expressed in this document are not a corporate view     |
| nor reflect the views of my employer by any means but are my      |
| own personal views on this subject .                              |
|                                                                   |
| Robert Trevelyan			UKnet: [email protected] |
| AIX Communications 			VNET: TREVELR at BASVM2     |
| 					Voice: +44-(0)256-56144     |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

Re: .216,.217

Yes I do know the people who made the first crop circles.  No I will not say 
who.  It was originally a practical joke after a party, the mysticism came 
later.  

The first few were very crude, very simple and fairly obvious.  The wheat 
(coincidence it just happened to be growing in that field) was flattened in
a clockwise direction, all the wheat lying in the same way. The smaller one 
was the first attempt, the larger the second and better attempt.  The field 
was selected because it was the only very large field in the area where the
"alien footprints" could be seen from several hundred feet above, the top of
a very steep (almost vertical) hill, that rose from the edge of the field.

They only appeared (each year) in one field in the country for about 3 years,
then they started appearing all over the country.

The first "reporting" of the circles was in a very small local paper. The next
year, the "scoop" went national, the story didn't go international for a few
years. 

If you consider that they have been "appearing" for 20 years then you 
shouldn't be too suprised if the sophistication has improved over the years.

The "100" years thing is just more journalistic license, I am certainly not
over 100 years old :-)  but then again, it is more likely to be "local-yokels"
taking the gullible "magic-hungry" journalists for a ride...

In answer to another reply some where back a few...

It is fairly easy to bend the strains of wheat that are found in this country,
if you apply steady pressure about 8 inches above the ground, it just good
naturedly tilts over and lies fairly flat, and stays there.  I expect that this
is a survival trait of the plant, to allow it to be battered by storms and
still be in a condition to ripen it's seeds, which it wouldn't be if the stem
was broken or cracked. 

These circles are also never found in corn fields, but then I suspect that 
your use of corn is in the generic american sense. Over here, "corn" is sweet
corn, I suppose a close equivalent would be maize.  They are only found formed
in the single stalk, multi-grain head types of crop i.e. barley, wheat, oats
etc. as these are the types that "tilt" over...

I'm sure "aliens" would not be so picky... :-)



...the practical joke has got a lot of mileage - the practical jokers dream :-)

Yay!  The crop circle mystery has been solved!  Now what are we going to talk
about?  ;-)

		Dave

...But then again, I might be willing to admit that the beings that fly
those space ships that regularly appear over Warminster, could have spotted
the early ones, and thought "What a GREAT idea, and we can do them better",
and have been creating all the ones since !

After all, Warminster is only 7 miles from where the first circles were 
created...nothing at all to a space ship...

:-)

    You lucked out with that last one, Alford. :-)

...and for those who'll believe it if they read it in a book...

look it up in a UFOs and other unexplained phenomena type book under

Warminster, Wiltshire, England.

it's in there :-)

Re .220 (Dave):

>Yay!  The crop circle mystery has been solved!  Now what are we going to talk
>about?  ;-)


Magis squares. :-D


Steve Kallis, Jr.

Magic Squares, as any mathematician can explain, are square grids containing 
numbers  that add to the same result in rows or columns.  (A few will also work 
on the diagonals.)

One such square is:

                          4  9  2
                         
                          3  5  7

                          8  1  6


Each row or column adds up to 15.

sk

    
    re:1392.223
    
    The Magic Circles are still a mystery because you don't know WHO'S
    doing them now... right?
    
    Michelle

    
    RE: .219 SBPEXE::ALFORD
    
    Somehow I just don't believe your story.  Why wouldn't these people
    have come out into the open about all this?  Also, it may be easy
    to bend these stalks one at a time, but how can you explain so many
    of them bent in such large circles and none of them harmed?  The
    people would have had to walk on much of it, so you would no longer
    just be gently bending them.
    
    Who's pulling who's leg here?!?!
    
    Carole

    
    And.....what about the investigators that have stayed next to a field
    all night only to find the symbols in the field the next morning and
    they never heard anyone.
    
    Carole

><<< Note 1392.219 by SBPEXE::ALFORD "An elephant is a mouse with an operating system" >>>

>Yes I do know the people who made the first crop circles.  No I will not say 
>who.  It was originally a practical joke after a party, the mysticism came 
>later. [...]

  Well I guess that about wraps it up. I've got Time magazine on the
  phone right now. When can you be available for an interview?

    Now we have a dilemma...do we believe the media, the scientists that
    have been studying them, or the meteorologists, or the UFOlogistics,
    or the channelers, or the other psychics, etc.?
    
    Or do we believe you?
    
    Hmmm.  Just like the UFOlogists and others, you can't or won't produce 
    (at least the names of) the crop circlers.
    
    I would consider it as only part of a practical jokers dream.  Now
    they've got the world's attention.  But why don't they come forward for
    the credit?  I'll believe its a practical joke when they come forward,
    if only by replacing the usual pictogram with, say, a 38' GOTCHA! that
    can't be reproduced by a peg, a rope and one or two people trampling 
    down the wheat!
    
    By the way, first you said crop circles could be reproduced by a peg, a
    rope and one or two people.  Now you say they have, over the years,
    come up with with a less crude means that doesn't break the stalks.  
    Would you care to share that with us?  
    
    Bending stalks of wheat may get them to lay down without breaking, but 
    where do they stand -- without breaking any stalks -- while they're 
    bending them?  Also, didn't you say bending them at a height of about 8 
    inches?  The crop circles they showed on 20/20 didn't appear to be 8 
    inches tall/deep -- closer to 1 or 2.
    
    And how do you pull off a practical joke of this magnitude, for this
    long a time, without once having been caught at it.  If nothing else,
    as soon as you've told a couple people about it and asked them to keep
    it secret...someone is bound to spill the beans, if only for the
    publicity that would come with it.
    
    I'd say that a giant practical joke is no more credible than a lot of
    the other theories that have been proposed.
    
    Mary            

      RE: Note 1392.225 by VIRGO::TENNEY 
      -< There are too many now... >-
    
>    The Magic Circles are still a mystery because you don't know WHO'S
>    doing them now... right?             
    
     I think we're certain now that it is the handiwork of alien practical
    jokers, but the question is WHY??
    
    It is my feeling that they are going to play an even bigger prank by
    landing all their vehicles at the marked sites.. (some of them ships
    have circular shapes, and some triangular).. these must be trial runs
    for the 11jan92 show... but this time they're going to surprise
    humanity by STRAIGHTENING out all the stuff that they bent during the
    last 100 years... in a split second at 11:11 am GMT. We in the US must
    be prepared for it at 6:11 am (or whatever the time difference)
    
    Governmental agencies like the INS are trying to find out when exactly
    the landing is scheduled, from psi's and others, so that they can book
    the culprits, and confiscate the spaceships, which technology can then
    be used to create better aircraft to bomb any foolish country that
    tries to control the oil supplies of the word...

    Well, ... lets try an experiment of our own.
    
    Since ALFORD like practical jokes so much... I'm sure he'll appreciate
    this one.
    
    Lets see if we can get the tires on his car to stay flat all week. :-)
    
    Let us know how you make out, Alford. 

    
    They're probably just intricate advertisements put together by the
    local pubs. 
    
    Cindy

    Somebody ought to get a really good Indian or Aborigine tracker out
    there. They could tell you in about 5 minutes whether it was aliens or
    pub jockeys.
    
    When it comes to observations scientists are often the worst. They can
    be fooled as easily as anybody.
    
    If someone uses a board I suspect they could lay down a very neat crop
    what ever. 
    
    Maybe I'll try making some myself!  :^)
    
    Actually, instead of arguing about whether its possible to lay the
    grain down without breaking it, experiments are in order.
    
    john

    Well,... do you have some suggestions for experiments?
    
    What would YOU like to see written in the crops?
    
    What would convince YOU?
    
    Mary

Re: .233, John

>    Somebody ought to get a really good Indian or Aborigine tracker out
>    there. They could tell you in about 5 minutes whether it was aliens or
>    pub jockeys.

Good idea. Or even a good dog, perhaps.
    
>    Actually, instead of arguing about whether its possible to lay the
>    grain down without breaking it, experiments are in order.
    
I think experiments have been done. (Anyone confirm?).
That's what makes it interesting to anyone in fact, even
with a minimalist (hoax) explanation it's interesting
because nobody can explain how some of the effects are
created.

But I've never actually seen one.

John D.

    
    RE:Note 1392.232
    
>    They're probably just intricate advertisements put together by the
>    local pubs. 
    I'm convinced they're ads for Central Galaxy pubs, put by Light hearted
    spirits preparing for a thirsting humanity's impending visit to those
    regions. Wonder what a Light beer tastes/costs in those parts.
    Curiously enough, they spell Lite as Light and vice versa, for example,
    'Book of Lite' and 'Miller Light' etc,.

    
Article: 1618
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!e2big.mko.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!mcsun!ukc!qmw-dcs!icdoc!ibmassc!rob
From: [email protected] (Robert Trevelyan)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Crop Circles in the UK
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 8 Aug 91 18:33:52 GMT
Sender: [email protected] (Robert Trevelyan)
Organization: IBM AIX Systems Support Centre, UK.
Lines: 79
 
 
    On Tuesday of last week an entirely new crop formation appeared 
for the first time near West Woods, Lockeridge. From the air this 
looks like an enormous fish, whale or dolphin 200 ft long. At each 
end straight pathways of flattened crop lead out into the centre of 
large rings 60 ft in diameter. The two paths are co-linear and form 
the central axis of the formation about which it is symmetrical. 
On either side of this great fish-shape are other pathways each slanted 
backwards at 45 deg. These have the appearance of flippers, or perhaps 
the dorsal and ventral fins of this marine animal. 
 
    Whether this represents a whale, a dolphin or other fish, hooked 
between two great rings is not clear. Certainly the elongated tapering 
body which which has filled out from a swirled circle at its centre is 
something never previously seen. Last Thursday a further identical 
formation appeared near Beckhampton, three miles away. One interesting 
facet is that the plain ring with a straight path to its centre is one 
element of the "unbelievable" pictogram at Barbury Castle, which 
Dr Meaden has had to say is a hoax. 
 
    On Thursday a friend of mine was being interviewed for a Channel 4 
documentary in the first "whale" at Lockeridge. This proved almost 
impossible due to the noise of helicopters and microlights above. 
He met Robert Watts who was trying to film the formation for his new 
movie at the same time. He is a film-maker who helped George Lucas 
produce 'Star Wars' and who made movies like 'Indiana Jones and the 
Temple of Doom', etc. His colossal helicopter which roared overhead, 
and to which he gave instructions through a walkie- talkie, made the 
Robinson my friend was in look like a toy. 
 
    Footage of the Circles will be used in his latest movie, 
'Once upon a time in the Universe', which will be released in late 1992. 
Above in the helicopter they were using a fabulously expensive VistaVision 
movie camera, one of only three in the world. Talking to him later they 
discovered that he was extremely knowledgable about the circles and had 
a very good insight into the circles nature .
My friend was flattered to hear that he attributed this to some extent 
to what he had written in 'The Crop Circle Enigma'. (Published by CCCS)
 
    In the last few days two more similar formations have appeared in the 
Silbury Hill area. The latest ones are smaller and have the end rings over- 
lapping the tapering ends of the "fish-body". The two flippers are missing. 
One of these formations is near the end of Stone Avenue, an avenue of 
menhirs running S. from the great Stone Circle at Avebury. The connection 
between the dowsable energy lines which run through this Stone Circle 
and along Stone Avenue and the new formations seems undoubted. 
This is immediately next to the energy line whose remarkable variations 
had been dowsed during the earlier months of this year. And beside this 
new formation is a precise semicircle which is also something not 
previously seen. 
 
Reports are coming in of circles and larger formations in Cambridgeshire, 
Nottinghamshire, Cornwall, Kent, Essex, Buckinghamshire and Hampshire 
all of which have been found in the last few days.  There are many 
different shapes, some completely new like the strange curly designs 
being found near Cheesefoot Head. A quincunx formation in which one 
of the four satellites is replaced by a triangle has appeared near 
Chequers, a Prime Ministerial residence near High Wycombe. I am told 
that the arrow-like triangle points straight at Chequers. 
 
There is a few formations in Cambridgeshire last weekend. Just a simple 
pictogram or two at Sutton near Ely where circles have never previously 
appeared and a magnificent 200ft diameter ring (10 ft wide) where the 
standing wheat in the middle is quite undisturbed. The latter, at Elton, 
was found one year to the day after a similar formation in the same 
place in 1990. The field where this ring and a smaller ring and circle 
are situated is right over the site of ancient Durobrivae, the second 
largest settlement in Roman Britain.
 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                          DISCLAIMER:                              |
| The views expressed in this document are not a corporate view     |
| nor reflect the views of my employer by any means but are my      |
| own personal views on this subject .                              |
|                                                                   |
| Robert Trevelyan			UKnet: [email protected] |
| AIX Communications 			VNET: TREVELR at BASVM2     |
| 					Voice: +44-(0)256-56144     |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ok .... Carole,... 
    
     "think this through with me... let me know your mind"
                                                  Grateful Dead
    
    
    Listen... there's a coming together in this... do you feel it?
    A coming together.... unified force...
    
    Now we've always said that we weren't doing it alone... that what we
    were... what we *are* ... is made up of everything... all life together
    ... the plants, the animals... the dolphins... the planet
    
    Some species are caught up in the current and are gaining faster than
    others.....  Your eye is more sensitive to what is around it than your
    toenail is...  Some parts of the body of God are more aware than others
    of whats happening...
    
    Are we hearing from the dolphins and whales now, Carole?  Are they
    joining us in the game... in the dance?
    
    		"now leave it all for awhile
    		 leave the world and your worries behind
    		 we'll build on that which is real
    		 and wake up each day, to a new waking dream"
    						Van Morrisson (Wavelength)
    						Take it where you find it
    Mary
    

    It is possible that some of these are the results of hoaxers, but
    either there is a large secret society out their tromping almost ever
    night or.... ..
    
    Anytime more than three people get together to keep a secret three or
    more begin to leak the secret.
    
    john

  
  Re .215  (SBPEXE::ALFORD)

> Yes I do take offence, and saying "No offence but" does not excuse your
> rudeness..  Have you personally seen (first hand) one of these crop circle
> patterns ?  Have you walked into one and examined the way the wheat is lying? 
> Do you *know* the people who created the first crop-circles ?
>
> Because my answers to all the above questions is yes.
                                                                               
  Jane (or whoever's using your account),

    If you are so sensitive as to take offence to that then you should think
  a bit further before issueing trite comments as in .177 ... I [mistakenly]
  assumed that you would be able to take as well as give ... my original
  comment *would* have been considered rude so I toned it down, as with this
  reply.

    The answer to the first two questions is yes for me as well. If my answer
  to the third ["do you know who"] had been yes then I wouldn't bother with
  the phenomenon as it would be neither mysterious nor interesting. The comment 
  about the local-yokels/YF was a result of incidents (witnessed first hand)
  including :

     o a chap who claimed to have being making crop circles for years but
       who was incapable of walking up the tramlines when sober, never mind
       after an evening in the pub (he was another "I was there from the
       start" talker).

     o a hoax circle that was created to show "just how easy it is to fool
       everyone" - it was so crude, the edges were ragged, the wheat was
       crushed and broken, the tramlines showed that a number of people had
       walked down them as far as the circle and there were even footprints
       visible in places ! 

     o a gathering of YF in a pub that we dropped into by chance : one minute
       mouthing off about how walkers on public footpaths should be treated
       as trespassers, the next about setting up "another circle" ready for
       the weekend.

    That's why I'm very scathing of the "I did it first" brigade, that's why
  I consider simplistic comments about pegs and string as garbage, that's
  why I don't care much for the hoaxers who not only commit large-scale acts
  of wanton vandalism against the farmer but also waste time, effort and
  goodwill which damages the credibility & scope of the genuine investigators
  into a puzzling phenomenon. No, I don't swallow everything that I read in
  books ; yes, I do realise that many of the patterns could be caused by
  hoaxers ; yes, I do believe that the simple cases could be the result of
  'natural causes' but above all, I have yet to find reason(s) that would
  explain them to *my* satisfaction. I have heard / seen / thought of many
  possibilities that can apply to different facets of the phenomenon. I have
  also heard/seen/thought of many ridiculous ideas that simply don't cut it.
  I'm waiting ... and listening ... and reading ... with an open mind ...

  Yours politely,
  Frank

	Harvest time in northern climes is fast approaching.

	Will the pictograms move south, or will they wait till next year's
	"silly season"?

        Have there ever been any south of the equator?  There must be wheat
        and barley in Oz...

	Delia

    How about forgetting for a moment whatever force is causing the
    phenomenon of the circles and look at the symbolism in the pictograms?
    
    Here is one person's interpretation, which I found intriguing, of the 
    triangulated Barbury circle, which I am entering here in hopes of 
    fostering some discussion:
    
    "Thanks for the crop circle info. Most interesting.  I wish I had a 
    photograph of it.  There's a lot of data missing, like which way the
    crops were bent, but I can give my interpretation from what I know of
    the symbolism at this time:
    
    As I see it, the three symbols beyond the apex of the triangle are a 
    variation of ancient alchemical symbols representing the three
    unrealized principles (or potentials) of the Great Work:  Salt (plain
    circle), sulphur (rose-pedal circle), and mercury (spiral).  These
    three "elements" form the materia prima, or universal chaos, of which
    all is made.  The paths leading inward show how these three elements
    come together to form man (the intersection at the center of the 
    triangle).  The small circle within the triangle represents the
    microcosm, with the 3-way split made by the incoming paths representing
    body (path to salt), spirit (path to sulphur), and soul (path to
    mercury).  The second larger circle represents the macrocosm, with the
    tri-phase aspect of the collective (or the Trinity) - Son (path to
    salt), Father (path to sulphur), and Holy Ghose (path to mercury).  The
    large triangle represents the spiritual aspect of God.  The paths also
    proceed outwards from the center as well, and indicate the path that
    man is supposed to take (or have taken).
    
    What I believe it is saying is that from out of the primal chaos of the
    universe, the 3 principles come together to form mankind.  Mankind
    exists at the center of his microcosm (psyche).  The work of mankind is
    then to follow the paths outwards toward the chaos again, first within
    the microcosm as body, soul and spirit, then progressing into the 
    macrocosm as the deity concept of Father, Son and Holy Ghost.  The
    unique thing here is that the macrocosm circle is WITHIN the deity
    triangle, which indicates that when man reaches the apexes of the
    triangle, man himself contains the macrocosm (universe) within him, and
    becomes God; not the same God from which he was manifested, but another
    infinity itself.  This then can continue onwards to the original chaos
    state, and manifest a physical universe within the main whom walked the
    path.
    
    That's my interpretation, for what it's worth.  What does it say to
    you?"
    
    Marion
          
    
     

    It says a lot actually, Marion.  It certainly feels like whats
    happening.
    
    I've always been of the opinion that the medium was the message
    basically... but that doesn't discount the possibility of another message
    either.
    
    To me... the synchronicity is striking...
    	humans come up with "natural" explanation (Meadens theory), only
        to have crop symbols *adapt* in order to *discount* it.  That
        screams of an *aware* intelligence at work to me... a *watching*
        intelligence monitoring the situation.
    
    So, what do we want to happen in the winter?  
    
    The symbols could move to the snows of the Soviet Union and the rice 
    paddies of Japan and China and the crop field of the sothern climes.. 
    
    Mary

    re: .243(Marion)
    
    An observation...
    
    	After reading recent entries of DEJAVU and putting the symbolism 
    that you interpreted from the crop designs an observation struck me. 
    I think the messages entered into this NotesFile have been put forth 
    for us to realize something and I THINK once you realize these things
    your on the RIGHT path towards AWAKENING!
    
    	What those things, that I perceive to be, are:
    
    	Each of US **CREATES** our OWN **REALITY** (what you believe will
    become what you believe... whether it be about yourself/friends/job
    /spouse/children/LIFE ect. it will BE what you BELIEVE.) then because 
    of some event (11:11?) YOU will BECOME that reality that YOU created.
    ---With the crop symbolism I think it means we become Gods of our own
       created realities.---
    
    (I also like the idea that the crop symbols are marking the area for
     outer galaxy visitors too!) ;-)
    
    	THAT is what *I* read into your reply. And THAT is the message in
    general I've been receiving through this form of communication here in
    DEJAVU.
    
    An excercise:
    	Set yourself a goal and everyday say something encouraging and 
    positive to yourself about completing that goal. You must make yourself
    actually believe you can obtain that certain goal THEN you will accomplish
    it.
    
    Michelle :-)
    
    P.S.- Why is it, that the people that are most AWAKE are seen by
    society as a sleep? ("out-of-it","head-in-the-clouds","dreamy"?)
    When in reality, it is them playing HEAD GAMES getting NO WHERE in LIFE?
    (Not that I'm an AWAKENED self made MILLIONAIRE!)  (;^) 

re:                     <<< Note 1392.245 by VIRGO::TENNEY >>>
                     -< Just call me CURIOUS! Am I close? >-

Personally I think you are right on.

		Dave

    Yea.. me too.

    
Article: 1715
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!e2big.mko.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!cluster!swift!peg!mcollinson
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: 2/3 Crop Circles or Hieroglyphics!
Message-ID: <422800004@peg>
Date: 13 Aug 91 12:52:00 GMT
Lines: 93
Nf-ID: #N:peg:422800004:000:5077
Nf-From: peg.UUCP!mcollinson    Aug 13 08:52:00 1991
 
 
/* Written 11:06 pm  May 18, 1991 by nexus in peg:nexus.newtimes */
/* ---------- "2/3 Crop Circles or Hieroglyphics!" ---------- */
One of the most intriguing mysteries of the decade has to be the
phenomena known as "crop circles".  They are known as "crop
circles" because the first reported cases, starting in 1976 in the
UK, were literally that - circles of flattened corn, or other
crops.  Since 1976, both the number and complexity of these
'circles', has increased dramatically.  No one knows exactly when
the first 'circle' appeared, but we do know that since serious
research first began in 1980, circles have literally popped up all
over the place.  For example, in 1987, 75 formations were
discovered; 110 in 1988; 305 in 1989; and over 600 last year
(1990).  Not only that, but what were originally circles 'evolved'
into complicated 'pictograms' as illustrated below.  Listed below
are some notes I made after sifting through masses of information
now becoming available on the subject.  I think the pictures of
the "crop circles' however, speak for themselves.
* The 'circles' range in size from 1 or 2m up to 70m in diameter.
* they 'appear' most often during mid-summer and are most commonly
found in southern England.  Other circles have been found in the
USSR, Italy, USA, Australia, Canada and Japan.  Most however, are
not as complex as those found in the UK last summer.
* It has been discovered that the heaviest concentration of these
'circles' falls within the famous "Wessex Triangle",  a well known
area rich in mystical associations, containing ancient stone
circles such as Avebury, Silbury Hill and Stonehenge.  This  area
also has a history of abnormally high UFO sightings.
* Several circles have been reported under high-voltage
electricity wires, leading to much discussion of electromagnetic
fields being the cause of the phenomena
* Several "circles" have been found to be in a straight "line",
observable only from the air.  Many have speculated on the
involvement of 'ley-lines' and changes in the Earth's magnetic
fields.
* Many people have seen "strange glowing lights" often orange in
colour, and other UFO phenomena  over fields prior to appearances
of circles.  Sometimes these sightings were days or weeks prior to
an appearance of a 'circle'.
 
INSIDE THE CIRCLES . . .
 
There is a large amount of information emerging that deals with
the "circles" themselves.  I have listed below some of the effects
of circles, as discussed by researchers.
a) strange high frequency "twittering" sounds.  These have been
recorded and analysed but are unexplainable
b) "jelly-like" substances have been recovered from several
circles
c) many researchers report feeling ill effects, such as headaches,
nausea upon entering some circles.  Dogs also are noticeably
affected by the circles, with several illnesses reported.
d) some dowsing society people report the 'dematerialising' and
'rematerialising' of certain objects, such as dowsing rods, wooden
pegs etc.
e) some researchers report "missing time" lapses during solo
investigations
f) there are many reports of blinding white "flashes" and what
appear to be electro-static 'crackling noises".  Many of these
occurred on cloudless days with multiple witnesses present.
g) analysis of plant samples taken from some circles shows
dramatic molecular change has occurred.
h) electro-magnetic effects have been experienced in many cases,
and some quite dramatically.  For example on Thursday, August 10,
1989 at 3.30pm when a BBC television crew were filming two
researchers in a 100 foot diameter circle near Avebury, Wiltshire.
The camera refused to function properly each time it entered the
circle, and several smaller circles nearby.  Even when elevated on
a crane over the edge of the circles, it would not work.  The crew
tried holding the camera outside the circle while the sound
engineer went inside.  As the camera rolled, and sound began
taping, a loud, shrill, warbling noise blasted into the sound
engineer's headset.  Upon leaving the circle the noise stopped
etc.  The noise was recorded and sent to the BBC sound experts for
analysis.  All the BBC experts were baffled by the strange sounds.
The camera was found to be completely defunct and had to be
rebuilt.  The event was shown on the BBC's "Daytime Live" program.
As the transmission went to air, the electric supply into the
whole studio complex was momentarily lost, and all telephones
ceased functioning.  Despite many varied and determined efforts to
solve this baffling puzzle, the mystery remains.  No doubt time
will tell!
 Written by  Duncan Roads
 
 REFERENCES:
"Crop Circles - The Latest Evidence" by Pat Delgado & Colin
Andrews. (Publ Bloomsbury UK) "Crop Circles 1990" by Michael
Chorost & Colin Andrews, Mufon UFO Journal #272, Dec 1990 "A Crop
of Circles" by Derek Elsom, New Scientist. 29 July 1989 "More
Circular Evidence" by Richard Beaumont. Kindred Spirit.
Vol.1.,No.8 pp25-28.  "Around and Around in Circles" from Time,
Sept 18,1989.  "Corn Circles" by John Haddington. Fountain
International News, #27.1990.

    
    The other night I had a talk with a friend who 'channels' a group
    of spiritual beings.  (If you are not open to that concept, you
    can either NEXT/UNSEEN now or try to not let that color the information
    that was passed along).  I asked about the crop circles - 'what do they
    mean and who's doing them'.  This is a summary of what I received.
    
    They are being done by entities that they would not call aliens,
    because on the level of our essence we know them.  They are not
    from here, though.  We had an agreement with them that at a certain
    time, they would come here.  The symbols are not to be taken singularly
    but as a series.  It would be useful to have pictures of them all and
    lay them out in sequence.  At our essence (or spirit) level, we will
    recognize them.  They are encoded, encrypted.  They are our wake up
    call.
    
    
    Carole

I found this on the Usenet today.  Thought you might find it interesting
reading.

/Mike

================================================================================

Article 14574 of sci.skeptic:
Path: shodha.enet.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!mcsun!ukc!dcl-cs!gdt!aber!aro
From: [email protected] (Andrew Ormsby)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Crop circles are a hoax.
Summary: Bower and Chorley did it.
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 9 Sep 91 13:34:07 GMT
Sender: [email protected] (Andrew Ormsby)
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: CS Dept, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth
Lines: 94
Xref: shodha.enet.dec.com sci.skeptic:14574 alt.paranormal:2875 alt.alien.visitors:1921

Today's "Today" newspaper (a UK national tabloid) exposes corn circles
as a hoax. The story is the lead on page 1, and there is accompanying
information explaining how the hoax is carried out inside.

The perpetrators are Doug Bower and Dave Chorley, both in their
sixties. They've been creating circles for 13 years.

Some quotes from the newspaper articles:

"Corn circle expert Patrick Delgado [author of 'Circular Evidence' and
'The Latest Evidence'] admitted last night 'We have all been conned.
Thousands of lives are going to be wrecked over this'."

"The mystery of the corn circles -- which has baffled experts for more
than a decade -- is today exposed as nothing more than a hoax by two
artists.

"After a week-long investigation, we can reveal that Douglas Bower and
David Chorley, two men in their 60s, have been successfully fooling
the experts for years.

"And last night, they destroyed the myths that have built up around
the strange circles, which have been appearing in corn fields since
the late Seventies.

"Under cross-examination, the two men have told a completely
consistent story of how they made the circles in fields across the
south of England.

"Every part of their evidence has stood up to scrutiny.

"Then TODAY secretly arrangesd for them to create the ultiate corn
circle design in a field in Kent.

"But the most damning evidence of all came when self-professed expert,
Pat Delgado examined the circle and said: 'In no way could this be a
hoax. This is without doubt the most wonderful moment of my research'.

"However, just hours before Mr Delgado's visit to the field, we had
watched as the two men had step-by-step demonstrated their method of
making the corn circles."

The rest of the article spends some time poking fun at Mr Delgado and
also explains how the two men constructed the circles. Each circle
pattern was meticulously planned in advance. They used two
planks of wood attached to some reins. They used the planks to lay the
corn down delicately in a circular process (starting from the centre
of the circle). They entered fields by following the tyre tracks of
tractors used for crop spraying. They used a wire sight on a baseball
cap to help them produce straight lines by sighting on objects on the
edge of the fields such as trees.

The article goes on to say:

"Amazingly, the entire scam was dreamed up by two men in a pub.

"Doug said: 'I lived in Australia from 1958 to 1966 and during that
time there were a few circles farmers put in crops in Queensland as a
joke."

After meeting in a pub, they decided on making some circles as "a bit
of a laugh". They started off with simple circles and built up from
there once there started to be some publicity.

	"Then all of a sudden, we saw an article in the local paper
and then articles in the national papeers and we knew we had done it.

	"We heard this bloke Delgado had reported them -- this was the
first time we had heard of him.

	"When we heard he had worked at NASA in Australia we were even
more pleased. He started saying they had been done by a "superior
intelligence" -- we liked the sound of that. We laughed so much that
we had to stop the car and pull into a lay-by...".

"The circles at Cheesefoot Head were described as "sensational" in
Delgado and Andrew's book, Circular Evidence. It was important, they
said, theat there were no well-defined tramlines nearby. But Doug and
Dave had simply used their high-stepped loping walk to get through the
corn. Later they became less careful. 'Even if we were clumsy and
caused a mess, they were so keen on dismissing that humans had done it
that they explained it away by saying "Oh the first onlooker must have
done that"' Doug said."

The article ends by saying that the newspaper paid no money for the
story.

-----

Further comment seems unecessary.


Andy Ormsby
[email protected]

    
    Well if they are a hoax, these guys have been very busy!! How do they
    explain several circles appearing on the same night up to a hundred
    miles apart?  Can these guys "fly" - what about the reports of circles
    appearing in other parts of Europe and Canada? 
    
    The paper that published the story is not a "quality" newspaper. I
    would not even believe the weather reports in the "Today" paper :-)
    
    I have visited several of the sites, including the famous Alton Barnes
    set of circles. There is something very odd about these places. Don't
    forget that local folks say that the circles have been appearing for
    years. It's only in recent years that anyone has shown any interest in
    them. 
    
    If there is nothing to these circles and they have been created by
    these guys, why are the MOD taking such an interest in them? Military
    helicopters fly over the circle areas day and night. According to
    an article in one circle mag I read recently, the MOD are funding
    research into the circles. 
    
                         seals
    
    
     

  
  > The article ends by saying that the newspaper paid no money for the story.
  
  > Further comment seems unecessary.                                  
  
  I'd agree with the second statement because the first one is so unbelievable.
  
  [ For our colonial readers :-) "Today" is the sort of content-free, shock-
  horror "news"paper that sticks to words of one syllable and makes up for a
  lack of facts by lots of pictures of unfortunate young ladies who can't
  afford many clothes. Imagine the same article was printed in the National
  Enquirer or similar supermarket shelf-filler and treat it accordingly. ]
  
  Frank

    What one person can do can be repeated by others. Their efforts fooled
    the "Expert" who had examined hundreds of theses circles.. Their
    solution seems far more sensible than any other. However those who will
    always believe in the most unlikely causes will never be convinced.

    Jamie.

    re: .255 (Jamie)
    
         Those who never believe in unlikely causes will never find
    magic in their lives.  Those who believe in perfection are doomed
    to a life of finite creativity and frustration.  People can be
    fooled by others who wish to manipulate them, but the first and
    last step is being that fool.  Not allowing one's ego to succumb
    to victimhood or martyrhood is the most sensible path to becoming
    the only expert that matters...that of understanding oneself
    and others.
    
    Frederick
    

    In other words you must first be come gullible before you completely
    flip out and really believe any line people feed you?

    As they say, "There is one born every minute."

    Sorry Frederick I shall stay in the real world questioning everything.
    You are free to take your flights of fancy and build your dream castles
    in the air, where everything works the way you want it to work.

    Dull and plodding as my existence may seem to you some of us have to do
    it.

    Jamie.
                                                                  

    None of us *has* to do it, Jamie.  But some of us *choose* to.  That's
    ok.  In fact, it's *perfect*!
    
    Mary

    >None of us *has* to do it, Jamie.  But some of us *choose* to.  That's
    >ok.  In fact, it's *perfect*!

    You mean steadily lose all contact with reality and gently move into a
    world that you control because you are the sole inhabitant?

    Jamie.

    re: .256  (Frederick)
    
    Actually, this note sounds very familiar.  Where have I read
    these words before?
    
    >Those who never believe in unlikely causes will never find
    >magic in their lives.
    
    Now this is a tough one.  I don't know of anyone, including
    Jamie, who "never believe in unlikely causes."  Unlikely causes,
    if I understand your use of the term, are as common as apple
    pie in Iowa.  The question with the crop patterns is whether or
    not the fact of hoaxing (the hoaxers in fact were able to fool
    self-professed experts) is a more likely explanation than the
    always quite chancy possibility of ET origins.
    
    As for finding magic in one's life, well, I will stipulate that
    we see more of what we know.  Like when you learn a new word
    you seem to see it popping up everywhere.  But if magic has some
    level of reality external to ourselves that could be made manifest
    to our awareness, believing or not believing is not relevant.
    Sort of like whether or not you believe in rain, you still 
    need an umbrella.
    
    >Those who believe in perfection are doomed to a life of finite
    >creativity and frustration.
    
    Would you elaborate on this?  I'm not sure I get your drift.
    
    >People can be fooled by others who wish to manipulate them
    >but the first and last step is being that fool.
    
    I tend to agree, though I would rather think in terms, not of
    being a fool, but of acting foolishly.  
    
    >Not allowing one's ego to succumb to victimhood or martyrhood
    >is the most sensible path to becoming the only expert 
    >that matters... that of understanding oneself and others.
    
    Would that it were so easy to do?  Do you believe that 
    "understanding" of oneself and others is really achievable?
    
    Joel
    

    I'm with Jamie on this one. Some of the stuff I read in this
    conference has my jaw on the desk. Reality and some contributors seem
    to have long since parted company.
    
    Laurie.

    re: .261 (Laurie)
    
         ...that one oar *can* work just fine...if it's placed at the rear
    of the boat... 
         Your statement is lacking in validity...for you have no
    exclusive knowledge of what "reality" is.  *YOUR* reality and some
    contributors have perhaps not long enough ago parted company.
    
         For "the record," I have no idea at this time about whatever
    the crop circles are.  I have not shut myself down, however, to 
    accepting *only* scientific or "logical" explanations, as those
    in that dearly glorified consensus reality are so apt to do.  
    Jamie's boat has lots of people in it already, Laurie...perhaps
    98% of his reality is in his boat...to bad, for there aren't many
    ports in which to dock it.
    
    re: Joel
    
        "Perfection is about doing something old, already done, in the
    *best* way.  Creativity means doing something new or in a new way.
    Perfection is the antithesis of creativity.  Perfection is static,
    not dynamic, applied in retrospect.  Perfection is the ultimate
    form of outside validation (if everyone approves of it, it is 
    mediocre.)  "If I am perfect, I will be a statue."  Perfection
    seduces the ego (with arrogance.)  Perfection suppresses action
    (for there can never be a perfect action.)  Perfection suppresses
    choice (for no choice can ever be perfect.)  Perfection systematically
    pollutes and destroys our entire reality.  For as you realize that
    you aren't perfect, what *will* you think and feel about yourself?
    What kind of expectations will you have after so many failures at
    perfection?  What kind of trust will you have on a world that should
    be perfect?  What kind of gratitude will you have towards this
    world?  Perfection separates us from our reality.  Perfection 
    separates us from our metaphysics.  Perfection separates us from
    our spirituality."
    
            --notes from a Lazaris workshop entitled "Escaping the 
    Entrapment of Perfection."
    
    re: Jamie
    
         ...and speaking of Looney Tunes, there is a song entitled
    "Do you believe in Magic?" (by the Loving Spoonful.)  I'm sure
    you've heard of it, but I know what your answer to that question
    would be.  Which brings me to mention that I don't like responding
    to you, for though you are in my opinion both intelligent and
    humorous, you aren't "supportive" of my reality.  You are a 
    personification of the reality I wish to separate from.  You seem
    to be here only to do what?  To drum up interest in "rationale" or
    "logic?"  Are you here in DEJAVU to show us "the way?"  Are you 
    here to "save us?"  Are you here because your world is lonely and
    this one has a promise of light that you somehow cannot accept?
    I don't know what your reasons are...I'm sure I could come up with
    other possibilities, however, since I'm not limited to "the" truth.
    Be that as it may, you have a "right" to be here offering your
    wisdom and the humor by jabbing at those whose beliefs are different
    from yours.  You can determine me to be "out of touch" with reality
    if you choose, of course, but from *my* point of view, people like
    you are so enmeshed in *that* reality that the trappings and 
    short-comings of it will eventually determine not only their
    mental despair but their more rapid physical deterioration.  No one
    says that ones reality has to consist of only one person...no one
    (in here lately, anyway) has laid claim to one truth-->if anything,
    the philosophy *you* spout (sputter) is closer to playing ostrich
    than anything else.  "*I* will show you the TRUE way...for all of
    you claim nothing but fantasies and hogwash...unlike me, natural-born
    keeper of the truth," is easily something I could visualize you saying.
    You can continue to entertain yourself by poking fun at others and
    their beliefs, you can continue to do whatever you "bloody" please,
    but somehow I can't see making it worth my while to play patty-cake
    with your manipulations.  Anyway, this is my opinion.  Others, as
    you've already noted, probably have other views.  
    
    Frederick
    

 It was in yesterday's Boston Herald that this is a "hoax of a hoax".
 Apparently the hoaxers demonstrated how they did the crop circle, and
 the group of scientists who witnessed said it does not match how the
 "genuine" circles are (i.e. broken stalks, etc.).

 Linda

    re: .259 No, Jamie, that is not what I meant.  It is not even close. 
    
    You know, Jamie, as a warrior I know that I should be ruthless and not
    feel pity, but the more I read of your notes, the more pity I feel
    for you.   I read the contempt and condescension that you project in 
    replies such as .259 and know that you have suffered some very deep
    wounds.  Or rather, that you have refused to suffer the wounds, but
    direct your anger at others by writing notes such as your last.  It's
    really a shame because you are missing so much of life.
    
    As to my being the "sole inhabitant" of a world in which I have lost
    "all contact with reality," if that's how you wish to view me, that is
    your choice.  I think its pretty obvious even from this string of notes
    that I am not the only person interested in exploring pyschic phenomena
    and other mysteries.
     
    As it happens, from my perspective I have changed my world drastically 
    from one that was a lonely, serious struggle to one that is populated by 
    a quite a few dear friends whom I love and with whom I laugh, dance and 
    sing.  I have changed my reality from one of poverty to one of plenty.
    And I have changed my health from chronic depression and exhaustion to
    nearly blooming.  And nobody did it for me Jamie, nobody. 
    
    I am curious about something, Jamie.  You clearly don't accept the
    possibility of anything existing outside the realm of western science
    -- which apparently to you represents the limits of reality.  So why do
    you note in a conference dedicated to discussing psychic phenomena?
    
    Mary 

    Re Frederick

    There is alas but one reality and many fantasies. I and most people
    live in the single reality that exists, you and others attempt to live
    in your various fantasy worlds. In reality there is no magic, just
    rational explanations. Gradually we are exploring our universe and
    finding out how it works. We always find that it works to the rules of
    logic and never magic.

    Re Mary. 
    
    Oh dear I see that you have changed from being ultra superior and
    condescending towards me to being "sorry" for me. Well Mary don't be. I
    have not, as you so wrongly diagnose, "been hurt in the past". Tell me
    do you make these diagnosis up as you go along, or do you naturally
    just "know" that this is the reason?

    I notice when you, the other Mary and Frederick seem likely to be asked
    to produce some facts to back up your rather unusual claims, you
    immediately throw up a wall of rather pretentious, and essentially
    meaningless jargon. I suppose that this is meant to impress us. Alas it
    does the opposite, it tells us that once more you are floundering,
    flapping around and generally trying to hide from the truth, That being
    you are not, and never have been, what you claim to be.

    Jamie.
                                     

    RE: -1
    
    Absolutely. Nicely put.
    
    Laurie.

  Re .266 (Jamie)

> In reality there is no magic, just rational explanations. Gradually we are
> exploring our universe and finding out how it works. We always find that it
> works to the rules of logic and never magic.

  Depends on your definition of "magic" doesn't it ? "Magic" can be correctly
  defined as "That which cannot be explained by known science", ie., can't be
  explained *YET*.  When an acceptable explanation arrives due to scientific
  research and understanding then the effect moves from undefined knowledge
  [magic] to defined knowledge [science]. As you say, we are gradually finding
  out how the universe works, how things that could only be termed "magic"
  years ago are understandable and accepted rational mechanisms now.  You can
  describe an event as magic or if you know enough about it you can describe
  it in terms of contemporary science but if you don't know enough about it
  (or if there are still question marks) you can research it further to stretch
  the boundaries of contemporary science until there *is* an acceptable
  explanation.  The only thing you can't do is pretend it doesn't exist simply
  because you, personally, have no comfortable explanation for it - that is
  neither rational nor scientific but merely a symptom of a bigoted mind.

  Re .261 (Laurie)

> Some of the stuff I read in this conference has my jaw on the desk. Reality
> and some contributors seem to have long since parted company.

  That is precisely the attitude that the more vocal contributors to EF treat
  each others political comments with [ yourself, Jamie, Rod and old Winton ].
  There is no tolerance for the opposing view or acceptance that maybe there
  *is* something to learn from other people. I've read the snide comments in
  EF about "if you think this is weird, try going over to DEJAVU for a laugh
  at the nutters there". Fine, come here and laugh. There are as many different
  views in this conference as there are contributors. Some replies are 100%
  "traditional rational" science, some are 100% "New Age" free thinking, most
  are in between. The point is that in this conference we CAN talk about off-
  beat ideas without getting shouted down by know-alls who use mockery and
  bile to show how stupid it is to disagree with them. I'm not suggesting that
  you are doing this but the flavour of some recent notes [from both 'sides']
  would be more suited to a bitching/mocking/sneering session in EF or Soapbox
  than the normal run of [moderately] polite interchange here. If you don't
  like an idea, feel free to argue against it but please use a more tolerant
  voice than in other notesfiles. [ Please note that I speak for myself, not
  for any other noter in this conference, and also that I'm not meaning to
  say anything like "Be nice or go away", just asking for a little more tact ]

  Frank

    Re .268

    > Depends on your definition of "magic" doesn't it ? "Magic" can be
    >correctly defined as "That which cannot be explained by known science",
    >ie., can't be explained *YET*. 

    Actually I prefer to go by the dictionary definitions of words, as I
    find that if we are both using the same definition of the word it makes
    communication much easier. Alas your definition, above, is not a valid
    one, it may be your own one, but it is not generally accepted.

    The generally accepted definition of magic is:- the art of invoking
    supernatural powers to control natural forces. And alas that cannot
    happen.

    BTW laughter is not the emotion that some of the more extreme
    contributors to this file produces in me. I should also point out that
    it is some time since I even read a note in EF91 let alone write one.

    I should also point out that up until now I have been, for me, 
    extremely tactful. The urge to state my opinion has been quite great.

    Jamie.

    re: .266 (Jam-ie)
    
         As I have learned from the HOLISTIC notesfile, and have already
    seen demonstrated here, in my opinion you are more interested in 
    attracting flies than in learning anything.  I cannot overcome a
    mind such as yours.  I will not attempt to overcome a mind such as
    yours.  Perhaps in some other lifetime, you'll "get it."  Clearly
    that isn't happening in this one, no matter what happens to you
    (how much more dramatic can it get than getting a heart transplant?
    Are you really that willing to play roulette?) you continue to be
    monolithically oriented towards the illusion of what you think is
    solid.  You seem to be either unwilling or unable to understand a 
    very basic premise...that being that even *IF* there were only one
    reality, that it wouldn't really matter to anyone since the only
    reality anyone is capable of comprehending...the only reality that
    matters...is that reality which each individual determines for 
    him/herself.  You are further unwilling or unable to comprehend that
    reality as I sit in it is comprised of thoughts and feelings...that
    that which we call physical and visually see as solid is nothing but
    a trick of light...total illusion (name a true solid...never mind,
    you can't...anything we see as solid is in "fact" nothing but energy
    in motion, with lots of "space" in between.)
         I knew four years ago when I started entering my beliefs in here
    that I would be stepping forth and standing out...not because I am 
    in here dabbling or experimenting as so many others in here like to
    admit, but because I am serious about my life, my reality, and in 
    my desire for spiritual wholeness or ease within myself.  I have
    "stepped out of the closet" so-to-speak.  You know about stepping
    out of closets, don't you, Jamie?  You know how it is to face those
    who criticize others for their beliefs, don't you?  Well, the shoe
    is sort of on the other foot.  *YOU* aren't one of the good guys,
    in my play.  You are one of the irritants.  Of course, in my play
    wherein I take total responsibility for my creations, I must look at
    why you exist in my reality and what I can do to make the necessary
    changes.  But never mind about that.  The point is that I am willing
    to look like a fool to you and to others who wish to embark on your
    boat...whoops!  looks like it isn't a boat after all...more like that
    barge that floated around for a while a year or so ago which no one
    wanted to let ashore because it contained nothing but refuse...but
    I won't waste more of my energy on you or others like you.  My life 
    is too important...there are those who seek understanding or compassion
    or friendship, those who have more in common, those who would rather
    spend time with others who have similar interests and these are the
    people I would prefer to spend my limited time with.  So, if I don't
    respond to you, hopefully you and others will get the message as to
    why...not because I *can't*, but rather because I *won't.*
    
    Frederick
    

  
  Re .269 (Jamie)
  
  > Actually I prefer to go by the dictionary definitions of words
  
  Sorry, I paraphrased ...
  
  Magic n.      any influence which produces results which cannot be
                explained or which are remarkable.
  Magical adj.  of, produced by magic ; very mysterious and beautiful, very
                wonderful or mysterious.
  
  [ Chambers Mini Dictionary (1981) ]
  
  I would not agree with your "generally accepted definition" of magic as
  "the art of invoking supernatural powers ..." as this would certainly not
  cover the stage-conjuror aspect that many people associate with the word.
  [ Now if you'd said "Black magic" then the votes would probably split
  between "invoking supernatural powers" and "chocolate" ... ]
  
  > I should also point out that up until now I have been, for me,  
  > extremely tactful. The urge to state my opinion has been quite great.
  
  Thank you, I had noticed but please continue to be tactful ... the
  comment about EF91 wasn't actually aimed at you but to the EF'ers who
  made the remarks concerned.
  
  Frank

    Frederick, I repeat there is but one and only one reality. However I
    will grant the fact that for you, your fantasy does seem real. However
    no mater how real it appears to you for the rest of humanity it is only
    your fantasy.

    You cannot overcome my mind, it is as you so correctly point out,
    firmly rooted in the real world, and the only way that you could affect
    it would be if it moved into your fantasy, which it cannot.

    I also doubt that I will "get it" in another lifetime, as from the brief
    glimpse that I have had of what is next, excludes your fantasy too.

    Am I willing to play roulette? No one of my few virtues in this life is
    that I never gamble for pleasure or profit. However sometimes one must
    take risks. In the case of the transplant the risks were 80% survive
    the first year, while 20% do not. On the other hand without the
    transplant 100% of the people with my problem died. So it was not
    really much of a gamble.

    When I and the rest of humanity seem to find something to be solid it
    usually is. When one person finds something solid and the rest of us
    don't, then it is an illusion. The reality that I inhabit is inhabited
    by others who seem to see the same things I do. The fantasy that you
    live in permits only you to see things.

    I do know that all solids are mostly empty space, I could even give you
    the standard definitions of the three states of matter, but I'm sure
    you already know them. However I will give you one little rule of
    physics that lets you test for solids. "No two objects can occupy
    exactly the same space at exactly the same time". Do try it and tell us
    if any solid fails this test.

    I never had a closet to come out of, we were a poor family and could
    not afford one. Whether you consider me one of the good guys or not is
    hardly the sort of thing that is going to keep me awake at nights, is
    it?

    Jamie.

    Re .271

    Sorry I should have mentioned my definition was the first one listed in
    the New Penguin English Dictionary, and was not a personal one. 

    Jamie.

    RE: a few previous.
    
    In common with most people, I have an open and inquiring mind. That
    mind has a limit beyond which I simply cannot accept data as an act of
    blind faith. In my continuing experience, this limit is fairly standard
    across mankind. Those who are grossly under the norm are considered
    narrow-minded, and unreceptive, those grossly over that limit are
    considered insane. Each end of the spectrum is equally out of touch
    with reality.
    
    Now, I am not casting any looks in any particular directions, but my
    comments regarding the fact that the views, opinions, statements and
    assertations of some people in this conference sometimes stagger me is
    merely a demonstration that said views etc., are well past the limit of
    my mind's ability to accept on blind faith. There are those amongst you
    who will doubtless argue that the limit within my mind is low; I don't
    believe it is, and everyday life reinforces that opinion. There, I feel,
    is the crux of the problem, and frankly, making personal attacks on
    someone because they cannot believe some of the more extreme stuff in
    this conference, demonstrates a little chink of self-doubt in those
    more "enlightened".
    
    As for comments regarding the general merriment at some of said views; 
    well, what do you really expect? Throughout history, those amongst us
    with views and beliefs that are far removed from those of the
    mainstream have always been regarded with a range of emotions from mild
    amusement to downright suspicion. That will never change, and I believe
    that there are some notes in this conference that are *very* far
    removed from the mainstream. To give you a perspective of my feelings,
    I regard a belief in Tarot cards and suchlike with mild amusement, and
    if people want to believe it then fine, I have no problem with that; I
    simply don't believe myself. However, if someone were to tell me they
    were an alien sent to guide the planet's future I would regard them
    with very deep suspicion indeed. I would treat someone who told me he
    was Napoleon in much the same matter, except there aren't many of those
    out on the streets.
    
    I trust this clears up any misconceptions regarding my motives and aims
    in here.
    
    Laurie.

RE: .272 (Jamie)

    Not sure that whether or not there is actually any confusion here, but
    "closet" generally means something else over here than it does there.

				    Topher

So what's the latest? Are Doug and Dave the real creators of the
circles, or are they hoaxing us? Any recent info?

    re: .274  (Laurie)
    
    Actually, I believe that we of a skeptical turn of mind with
    respect to paranormal phenomena are a rather small minority.
    Poll after poll reveals a very high level of belief in God,
    psi phenomena, occult, etc., etc., etc., in various mixes.
    Depending on the belief you get positive response in between
    75% and 95% of the respondents.
    
    The real key, IMO, for both sides is to be evidence-driven.
    I know of no other way to be "open minded."  (a much
    overrated quality anyway - ask me to open my mind to the
    possibility that my family are not worthy of love or that
    the Chicago Bears are the enemy)  Where "believers" and
    "skeptics" tend to come into conflict is in the nature of
    what we regard as evidence.  A personal experience may not
    be convincing to us, but it is very convincing to the person
    with the experience.
    
    Which person should be listened to and valued.
    
    Joel
    

    	Please don't let misconceptions and definitions break down
    	our trust in each other's value or sanity.   Sometimes
    	the greatest treasures are the hardest to dig out, eh ?
    	
    re: magic and duelling dictionaries
    
    	Every field has its own jargon.  The trick is to all be
    	using the same terms in similar enough ways to understand
    	each other.  Clearly, this note contains some very different
    	real things represented by the same term, magic.  
    
    	Just to confuse things, I'll add another conception of magic.
    
    	From my understanding, in the terminology adapted to study the 
    	traditional practices collectively called magic by students of 
    	Ancient, Medieval and Renaissance  history, *magic* aligns most
    	closely with what now call Theology.  It deals largely with the 
    	issue of man's relationship to God (or Gods, in some traditions), and 
    	the way in which we conduct our lives.   Similarly, Alchemy
    	had a requirement, if not a primary mandate, for a certain kind of 
    	spiritual purity, in order to do its Work.
    
    	In the study of magic, there >is< commonly a model of the mechanics 
    	that underlie physcial laws.  It can be very primitive in some
    	traditions, or it can be extremely sophisticated, and seemingly
    	parallel science in some ways.  It should not be confused with
    	science, however, which involves a set of conventions and processes
    	that are more oriented toward finding out how things work, and less 
    	toward how we can live our lives most fully.   
    
    	In general, the real function of magic is in my opinion to empower 
    	the individual in their life, i.e., to fulfill a spiritual and 
    	psychological function, and only secondarily an explanatory one.  
    	Fascination with 'the magical' in life can and has often lead to 
    	great scientific discovery.  I'll leave it as an exercise to 
    	to investigate the spiritual background of Newton, Tesla,
    	and others. 
    
    	There is a very crucial balance, I think, between our ongoing
    	investigations into how things work and those into how to
    	fulfill our lives.  And inevitable overlap especially when we start to
    	talk about 'how things work,' when human minds and spirits
    	are among those things.
    
    	Just as with religion, magic (in this sense) can be complementary to 
    	the work of science, philosophy, and rational daily living.  Or
    	it can cloud your mind, and take you way off the edge.
    
    	Or, of course, a Magus can get a 900 number and tell fortunes for
    	$3.75 a minute.   B^)
    
    								todd

Re .278 (Todd):

    
    	>From my understanding, in the terminology adapted to study the 
    	>traditional practices collectively called magic by students of 
    	>Ancient, Medieval and Renaissance  history, *magic* aligns most
    	>closely with what now call Theology.  It deals largely with the 
    	>issue of man's relationship to God (or Gods, in some traditions), and 
    	>the way in which we conduct our lives.   Similarly, Alchemy
    	>had a requirement, if not a primary mandate, for a certain kind of 
    	>spiritual purity, in order to do its Work.
 
Well, it's hard to disagree with an "understanding," [:-)] however, there are
whole areas of magic, particularly of the "sympathetic" variety, that no more
need a theological base than a radio wave needs an odor.  For example, the
Law of Similarity is as free of theological implication as is the Law of
Gravity.  One can overlay (or underpin) any scientific discipline with a 
theological flavor; doing so neither proves nor disproves the validity of the
theology involved.

Alchemy, for its part takes religiomythic symbols to establish a coherent
philosophy; one of the distinctions that have been made to differentiate the
"true" alchemist from the false.  [But in word-association, the word "Alchemy"
will almost invariably get as a response the phrase "lead-to-gold"; or for
those who limit it to a single word, "transmutation."  At least to the average
person who's ever heard the phrase.]

    	>In the study of magic, there >is< commonly a model of the mechanics 
    	>that underlie physcial laws.  It can be very primitive in some
    	>traditions, or it can be extremely sophisticated, and seemingly
    	>parallel science in some ways.  It should not be confused with
    	>science, however, which involves a set of conventions and processes
    	>that are more oriented toward finding out how things work, and less 
    	>toward how we can live our lives most fully.   
 
I suspect that you'll find that a consequence of studying/studying_about
magic may help one learn how to "live our lives more fully"; however, that
is a byproduct.  "Science" is less trying to find out "how things work" than
it (assuming "it" as a class) is trying to determine behavior and 
interrelationships of various phenomena.  The same can be said of areas of 
magic.

However philosophically interesting, though, this is a rathole.

The subject here is the so-called "Magic Circles," which, whatever else, don't
seem to be involved in "magic" in the ordinarily understood senses of the
term.

Getting back to the subject ...

"Magic Circles" seem to be thought of as things produced by extraterrestrial
technology, natural phenomena, or hoaxers.  I'd love to see some verified
macrophotographs of the bent-but-not-broken wheat stalks,  That might tell
us more about what is and isn't going on than reams of speculation.

Stereomacrophotographs would be especially nice....

Steve Kasllis, Jr.

    Re .275

    >Not sure that whether or not there is actually any confusion here, but
    >"closet" generally means something else over here than it does there.
    
    Yes there is confusion Tropher. You are the one who is confused. The
    expression has the same meaning here as there. I was being sarcastic.

    Jamie.

Re .280 (Jamie):

    >Yes there is confusion Tropher. You are the one who is confused. The
    >expression has the same meaning here as there. I was being sarcastic.

Maybe sarcasm has a different meaning over here than over there?  :-D

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re: .266
    
    Jamie (and to Laurie Brown, since you agreed so wholeheartely with his
    note),
    
    You claim that I have "changed from being ultra superior and
    condescending" towards you to being sorry towards you.  Would you care
    to point out in which reply I have been "ultra superior and
    condescending?"
    
    You asked me if I make up diagnoses as I go along, or if I naturally
    "know" this is the reason.  Well, in the case of assessing others'
    personalities, I basically go on experience and odds.  Experience has
    demonstrated to me time and again that a person who makes unprovoked 
    attacks on others (not necessarily for their beliefs...for example your 
    sarcasm towards Topher in .280 was completely uncalled for, IMHO), and 
    hides behind a thick armor of sarcasm and cynicism is doing so in 
    self-protection and out of fear of being hurt.  I assume that someone 
    must have been terribly hurt (or be hurting terribly right now) to have
    need for such thick armor.
    
    You also claim to notice that when I'm asked to produce facts to back
    up my unusual claims, I immediately throw up a wall of pretentious and
    meaningless jargon, and go on to say something about my not being what
    I claim to be.  I'm real confused hear, Jamie:
    
    1.  I didn't make any claims in the note to which you were responding. 
    As I recall, all I said was that its ok for people to live with
    difference perceptions and world-views -- you know, like diversity is
    all right and acceptable.
    
    2.  You didn't ask me to state any facts to any of the claims that you
    claim I'm making.  Quite frankly, I'm not sure what claims you are
    referring to.
    
    3.  You say that I'm not, and never have been, what I claim to be. 
    Again, I don't recall having ever claimed to be anything.  Could you
    please refresh my memory?
    
    Jamie, I've noticed that you seem to direct responses to me that have 
    little or no bearing on what I've written.   I think in the future I
    may simply assume that you have me mixed up with someone else and
    not even attempt to reply to anything you write.   I suspect that
    having written this you may try to bait me.  If and when that happens,
    I'll decide whether or not I care to take the bait.
    
    
    re: .274 
    
    Laurie,
    
    You state that "making personal attacks on someone because they cannot
    belive some of the more extreme stuff in this conference demonstrates a
    little chink of self-doubt in those more "enlightened."
    
    I agree somewhat, but would like to expand this statement.  Making
    personal attacks *period* shows chinks of self-doubt.  I haven't
    noticed many people in here who believe some of the "more extreme
    stuff" making unprovoked attacks on anyone who doesn't agree with 
    them.  I have noticed one or two people in here whose whole method of
    communication seems centered on personal attack.  This serves only to
    stifle discussion of possibilities around "paranormal" experiences.
    
    
    Mary

    Well Mary perhaps you could enlighten us all, me included, by telling
    us what great hurt I have suffered, or are currently suffering. As I
    cannot for the life of me think of any incident that meets your claim.

    I suggest that you are way off base on this point.

    Jamie.

    imo,
    
    I don't believe people have a problem accepting someone having a
    skeptical approach to anything, I think what people object to is
    "shouting" or treating someone elses beliefs with a lack of
    respect/consideration.

    I suspect this is what stops many "read only" folks who follow this
    conference from contributing to this conference actively, which is a
    real shame imho...shouting people are heard everywhere and the noise
    they make masks the gentler voices...I prefer the gentle voices ;-)

    Some things I have learned from Dejavu:   
    
    "Speaking one's  'truths' loudly is part of the learning ...
     reacting strongly in a negative manner to one who speaks their 'truths'
     loudly is also part of the learning." 
    
    May we all come here to learn and value the differences ;-)
    
    -Brian
    

    .283
    
    Jamie,  I already explained to you the basis of my belief.  And I see
    that, once again, you have failed to even acknowledge the questions I
    have asked you or attempted to support your claims about me.
    
    Mary

    Re .282 

    >You claim that I have "changed from being ultra superior and
    >condescending" towards you to being sorry towards you.  Would you care
    >to point out in which reply I have been "ultra superior and
    >condescending?"
    
    I would point to Holistic topic 641 in which you were very "superior"
    to me. On the other hand .264 of this topic is very condescending
    towards me.


    >You asked me if I make up diagnoses as I go along, or if I naturally
    >"know" this is the reason.  Well, in the case of assessing others'
    >personalities, I basically go on experience and odds.  Experience has
    >demonstrated to me time and again that a person who makes unprovoked 
    >attacks on others (not necessarily for their beliefs...for example your 
    >sarcasm towards Topher in .280 was completely uncalled for, IMHO), and 
    >hides behind a thick armor of sarcasm and cynicism is doing so in 
    >self-protection and out of fear of being hurt.  I assume that someone 
    >must have been terribly hurt (or be hurting terribly right now) to have
    >need for such thick armor.

    Well had you actually been paying attention while you made this
    diagnosis you would have noticed some small details. For example I was
    not sarcastic to Topher in .280, however I did point out to him that I
    had caused him to be confused by earlier sarcasm.

    As far as I know you are wide of the mark. At present I am not hurting
    and there is no monumental hurt in my past. As to your suggestion that
    I use sarcasm and cynicism as armour it is also wrong. If you were
    observant you would notice that I tend to do the opposite and use them
    as weapons.

    >You also claim to notice that when I'm asked to produce facts to back
    >up my unusual claims, I immediately throw up a wall of pretentious and
    >meaningless jargon, and go on to say something about my not being what
    >I claim to be.  I'm real confused hear, Jamie:
    
    If your confused to "hear" it then I suggest that you go to Holistic
    641.47 and look at the paragraph beginning "b)". This is a perfect
    example of what I mean.


    >1.  I didn't make any claims in the note to which you were responding. 
    >As I recall, all I said was that its ok for people to live with
    >difference perceptions and world-views -- you know, like diversity is
    >all right and acceptable.
    
    As long as the boundary between fantasy and reality can still be
    distinguished. Several of the contributors to this conference seem to
    have a problem with this point.

    I trust that this clears up your confusion.

    Jamie.

    Warning: The following note will self-destruct within 24 hours...
    
    To decipher the code, use a graphics terminal (vt240, vt340 or Windows
    vt340 session) and at the Notes prompt: EXTRACT TT:
    
    	Have fun,
    	-Brian
    
    
\>SIXEL<\
P9;0;3q
!1693?-!1693?-!1693?-!1693?-!1693?-!1693?-!1693?-!1693?-!1693?-!1693?-!1693?-!1693?-!366?oo{{!12?oo!4K!15?oo!6?oo!6Koo!6?oo!6Koo!23?
KK{{!10?oo!6Koo!7?oo{{!26?oo!6Koo!6?o!6Koo!8?!4o!14?oo{{!8?oo!5Koo!206?oo!12{oo!19?!6K{{KK!8?oo{{!25?!6K{{KK!6?oo!6Koo!22?o!6Koo!6?oo!6Koo!6?oo!6Koo!6?!5K{{KK!6?oo!6Koo!8?oo{{!119?{{!4Koo!10?KK{{KK!8?oo!6Koo!7?KK{{KK!8?!4K{{!4K!6?oo!6Koo!5?{{!30?oo!6Koo!5?{{!6Koo!6?oo!6Koo!225?oo!6Koo!8?oo{{!147?-!368?~~!10?~~!6Koo!7?ooKKBB!8?~~ooKKBB~~!6?BB!6K~~!23?BB!12?BB!6K~~!9?~~!26?
~~ooKKBB~~!6?B!6K~~!8?!4r!10?{{rroo~~oo!6?rr!5Krr!206?!4Boo!4~oo!4B!23?BBKKoo!10?~~!29?BBKKoo!6?~~ooKKBB~~!22?r!6Krr!6?rr!6Krr!6?BB!
6K~~!9?BBKKoo!6?rr!6Krr!10?~~!119?~~!6?~~!10?~~!10?~~??!4K{{!9?~~!14?~~!10?~~!6o~~!5?~~!30?~~!13?~~KK{{KKBB!6?~~??!4K{{!225?~~ooKKBB~~!10?~~!147?-!366?KKNNKK!8?BB!6KBB!5?BB!14?BB!6KBB!8?!4KBB!41?!4KBB!9?KKNNKK!24?BB!6KBB!7?!4KBB!10?!4B!16?NN!8?BB!5KBB!206?{{!4~!4o!4~{{!19?BB!6KBB!8?KKNNKK!23?BB!6KBB!6?BB!6KBB!22?B!6KBB!6?BB!6KBB!8?!4KBB!8?BB!5KBB!6?BB!6KBB!8?KKNNKK!117?NN
!4KBB!10?KKNNKK!8?BB!6KNN!7?KKNNKK!12?NN!10?NN!6?NN!5?NN!8K!22?BB!6KBB!5?NN!4?BBKK!6?BB!6KNN!225?BB!6KBB!8?KKNNKK!145?-!1693?-!1693?
-!1693?-!1693?-!1693?-!1693?-!1693?-!1693?-!325?!88{oo{oo{{{ooo{oo!8{!5o{{{!88o!6?o!18?o!1136?-!325?~~~K!73?B??!8B??!12B?!128BNNBB!10N!5B!67N!12K{KKK!45{ooo!6{oo{!6o{{!145o???o!6?o!814?-!325?~~!417?!4B!5?B!7?B!6?!111BNBBB!82NK!15NKN!4K!5N!11K~!7KNKKNK{KK!129{!107o!7?o?!6o!9?oo?o!410?-!325?~~!838?!128BNB!74N!14K!42{!48o!220?-!325?~~!1116?!41BNN!4B!15N!15K!15{oo!5{ooo!148?-!325?
~~!1211?B~B!152?-!324?o~~!1212?~~!152?-!324?~~~!1212?~~!152?-!325?~~!1212?~~!152?-!324?~~~!1212?~~!152?-!324?~~~!1212?~~!152?-!324?~
~~!1212?~{!152?-!324?~~~!1212?~~!152?-!324?~~~!418?!15o!779?~N!152?-!324?~~~!407?oo{{{!26~!4{oo!768?~!153?-!324?~~~!402?o{{!42~{{oo!761?~!153?-!324?~~~!135?!26o!234?o??o{!52~{o!757?~~o!152?-!324?~~~!123?!4o!4{!34~!4{!4o!222?B?!58~o!755?N~!153?-!324?~~r!116?ooo{!56~{{{oo!215?!60~!755?B~!153?-!324?~~B!112?o{!17~!4N!7B!13?!6BNNN!18~{{{o!210?B!58~B!755?~~!153?-!323?o~~!110?o{{
!13~NNB!39?BBBN!16~{oo!208?BN!53~NB!756?~~!153?-!323?{~~!108?{!13~NB!51?BN!15~{!208?BBN!46~NB!316?!9o!29{!9o!397?~~!153?-!323?~~~!10
7?{!12~N!57?B!15~!212?BBNNN!31~NNNBBB!307?!4o!4{!8~!5N!26B!8N!9~!4{!4o!234?!12o!139?~~B!152?-!323?~~~!107?!12~!61?!15~!219?!9BNNN!10~BB!310?ooo{!5~!4N!4B!14?!25o!12?!5B!5N!4~{{{ooo!215?oo{{{!24~{{{oo!127?~~!153?-!323?~~~!107?!12~!61?o!14~!231?!11~{!303?oo{{{~~~NNBBB!9?ooo!5{!11~!17N!12~!5{ooo!9?BBBNNN!4~{{ooo!204?o{!38~{{o!122?~~!153?-!323?~~~!107?B!12~o!58?o!14~B!231?!12~
o!296?oo{{{~~~NBBB!16?!6N!5B!33?!4B!7N!4~{{{ooo!8?BBBNNN~~{{oo!198?!45~o!120?~~!153?-!323?~~~!109?BN!11~{oo!51?o{{!13~BB!233?!12~!29
3?{{~~~NNBB!80?BBNNN!5~{oo!9?BNN~~~{o!195?B!44~K!120?~~!153?-!323?~~~!111?BB!12~{oo!43?oo{{!13~NNB!236?B!11~{!287?o{!4~NBB!25?oo{{!4~{!58?BBN!5~{{o!9?B~~~{oo!192?BN!40~NB!121?~~!153?-!323?~~~!114?BN!14~{{ooo!28?!4o{!16~NB!243?!11~{!283?o{!4~NB!23?o{{!4~N!4B!12?!4o!16{ooo!32?N!5~{{!8?BN~~~{o!193?BBBN!30~NBBB!124?~~!153?-!323?~~~!118?BBNNN!18~!11{!25~NNBBB!247?B!11~!281?{{~~~
NB!22?o{{{~~NB!9?ooo{{{!32~{{{oo!18?o!23?N!4~{!198?B!4N!9~NNN!6B!132?~~!153?-!323?~~~!126?BBBNNN!34~!5NBBB!256?o!11~{{!8o!268?o!5~B!
22?o~~~NB!9?o{{!45~{{oo!10?N!4~{!22?BNN~~~o!202?!8~!141?~~!153?-!323?~~~!136?!8B!14~NBBB!257?oo!5{!29~{{{ooo!258?{!4~B!23?~~~B!9?oo!54~o!10?N!4~{!23?!4~o!200?o!8~!141?~~!153?-!323?~~N!144?o!13~!256?o{{{!45~{{o!252?o!5~!22?!4~N!8?{!59~{!10?B~~~{!22?N!4~!200?!8~!142?~~!153?-!323?~~!145?!14~!253?o{!54~{oo!248?!5~!22?{!4~!8?!62~!11?!4~!23?!4~N!182?!6~{{!8?{!8~!7?!8o!127?~~!153?
-!323?~~~!144?!12~NB!252?{!59~{!247?!5~!22?!5~!7?B!61~N!10?{~~~B!22?{!4~!182?K!8~!8?!8~B!7?B!7~!126?o~N!153?-!323?~~N!144?!13~!253?!
61~!247?B!4~{!22?!4~{!8?B!58~B!10?{~~~B!23?!4~B!182?{!8~!8?!9~!7?!8~!126?~~!154?-!323?~~o!136?!5o{{{!13~{!5o!247?N!59~B!248?B!4~{!23?~~~{o!8?BB!51~NBB!9?o{~~~N!23?{{~~~B!165?oo{{{!6~{{{o???!8~!9?!8~B!7?!8~!10?o!115?~~K!153?-!323?~~B!122?ooo!4{!39~!6{!4o!234?BN!53~NB!4?o!6~N!6?oo!4{oo!225?B!4~{o!22?!4B!11?BBN!40~NNBBB!10?o{{{~~NB!23?{!4~B!163?o{!8~NNN!4B!5?B!7~!4?!5o!7~o!8?
!7~NB!4?K{{!6~{{oo!108?~~!154?-!322?~~~!104?oo!7{ooo?oo{{!61~{{o!4{!5~{{{o!207?!6{o!4?BBB!44~NBBB???oo{{~~~NBB!6?{!6~NB!6?!6~K!215?B
B~~~{o!9?!7{o!25?BBB!6N!16~!4N!4B!12?oo{{~~~NBB!24?o{~~~NB!160?o{!8~NBBB!13?!39~N!9?BBN!8~{{o!104?~~!154?-!322?~~~o!101?BBNNN!25~NNN!6B!4?!11~!8BNN!25~NN!4B!196?!8{o!4?BBN!5~{{oo!4?BBBNNN!26~NNNBBB!4?oo{{!5~NBB!6?o{{!5~NB!6?o{!5~NN!218?BN!4~{{!8?BBN!4~{{o!58?!4{!4~NNBBB!26?o{~~~NB!160?o{!8~NB!12?o{{!43~{{oo!10?BB!8~{o!101?~~!154?-!322?{~~o!110?r!18~{o!9?!4o!11~{oo!9?BBr!20~
{!188?o!6{o!5?BBBN!6~{{o!5?BBNN!6~{{{!5o!6?!14B!5?!4o!4{!4~NNBBB!6?oo{{{~~~NNBB!6?o{{!5~NB!223?BNN~~~{{o!8?BNNN~~~{{{oo!54?BBB!29?oo
{!4~BB!161?oo!8~B!10?o{{!53~{{o!9?BN!8~o!99?~~!154?-!322?{~~!106?o{{{!13~!8NB??ooo!27~{oo?NN!23~{o!185?BBN!7~{oo!6?B!4N!5~{{oo!6?BBB!5N!14~{{!14~NNNBBB!7?!4o{!5~NNBB!6?oo{!5~NNB!232?BN!4~{oo!8?BBNN!6~{{{!4o!44?!6o!20?oo{{!4~NBB!165?!9~!11?{!60~o!10?N!7~{!98?~~!154?-!322?~~~!106?N!16~!7?{{!38~o!8?N!15~{!189?BBB!7~{{o!7?BBNN!7~!4{!4o!11?!12B!12?!4o!4{!6~NNNBB!7?oo{!6~NBB!240?
BNNN!4~{{oo!8?BB!5N!8~!9{!15o!7{!9~!5NB!11?ooo{{{!4~NBB!170?!9~!11?{!62~!11?!8~{!97?~~!154?-!322?~~~!107?!15~{!6?!43~o!8?!15~!194?BB
N!8~{{ooo!6?!4BNNN!13~!19{!11~!5NBB!8?ooo{{!6~NNBB!127?!5o!118?BBNN!6~{{ooo!12?!6B!25N!6B!13?!4o{{!6~NNBB!177?B!8~o!11?!62~!11?!9~!97?~~!154?-!322?~~~!107?!17~{!4?!44~!5?o{!15~N!201?BBBNN!8~{{!5o!10?!9B!12N!9B!9?!4o!4{!6~NNNBB!133?B!6N!125?BBNN!8~!6{!8o!24?!9o!4{!7~!4NBBB!186?NN!7~o!11?BN!57~N!11?{!8~!98?~~!154?-!322?~~~!107?BN!17~???!41~NN!6?!16~B!211?BBBNNN!11~!8{!22o!7{
!10~NNNBBB!283?!5B!6N!32~!8N!5B!200?N!8~{!12?BB!50~NNB!10?o{!8~B!99?~~!154?-!322?~~~!110?N!16~{ooBN!38~!7{!14~NB!226?!5B!11N!13~!10N
!5B!554?BN!8~{o!13?BNNN!36~NNBBB!11?ooo!8~NB!101?~~!154?-!322?~~~!108?!4orr!16~!4?BBB!6N!13~!5NBBB??BBNN!20~{!7o!822?BBB!8~{{oo!13?!6B!20N!4B!16?o{{!8~NBB!104?~~!154?-!322?~~~!103?{{{!24~{{{!7o!18?!7o{{{!28~NNB!825?BBNN!9~{{{!4o!42?ooo{{{!8~NBB!109?~~!154?-!322?~~~!104?BBNNN!4B!6?BBNNN!52~NNNBBB!7?!4B!838?BBNNN!11~!6{!22o!6{!12~NNBBB!114?~~!154?-!322?~~~!127?!4B!6N!28~!5N
!4B!452?!7o!406?!4B!5N!33~!4N!5B!122?~~!154?-!322?~~~!145?!10~!5B!463?!12~{!422?!11B!143?~~!154?-!322?~~~!143?KK!10~K!468?BBB!5NBBB!
576?~~~!154?-!322?~~~!1211?~~~!154?-!322?~~~!1211?~~~!154?-!322?~~~!619?oo!5{!7~!4{ooo!571?~~~!154?-!322?~~~!615?o{!24~{{o!567?~~~!154?-!322?~~~!615?!29~B!566?~~{!154?-!322?~~~!615?BN!24~NN!568?~~r!154?-!322?~~~!619?!4B!6N~~!5N!4B!571?~~K!154?-!322?~~~!1211?~~K!154?-!321?{~~r!1211?~~!155?-!321?~~~N!589?K{{~{o!234?!7o!11{!10~!13{!4o!337?~~!155?-!321?~~~!581?!4o!4~!4{!5~!222?
ooo!5{!52~{{{!4o!325?~~!155?-!321?~~~!580?NN!16~{o!21?!18o!173?oo{!75~{{o!319?~~!155?-!321?~~~!585?BBNNN!12~{{oo!4?oo!4{!28~!4{ooo!1
55?oo{{!85~{{oo!313?~~!155?-!321?~~~!593?BNN!57~{{o!146?oo{!95~{{!310?~~!155?-!321?~~~!598?BBBN!55~o!143?o!101~{o!307?~~!155?-!321?~~~!601?o!57~{!138?oo!105~{o!305?~~!155?-!321?~~~!60?oo!5{!21~!6{ooo!502?KK!59~{!136?{!110~!304?~B!155?-!321?~~{!52?o{{{!45~{{ooo!495?!59~B!136?!111~o!303?~!156?-!321?~~N!46?o{{!15~NNN~rrBrrooo!6{oorrBBBrr~~N!14~{oo!491?BN!54~N!138?!111~!304?~
!156?-!321?~~!45?{!13~NBr~{oo{!20~{!6~r??BBBN!13~{o!282?!4o!7{!21~!8{!4o!164?BNN!47~BB!140?!110~N!304?~!156?-!321?~~!42?o{{!10~NNroo
?NNN!13~r!10~!4N!4~??KK~~~NN!12~!273?o{{{!51~{{{oo!159?BBBNN!35~NNNBBB!144?B!106~N!306?~!156?-!321?~~!41?{!12~B?o!4~N!5~N!19~{{ooor!4~{{K~~NK??BB!10~!264?oo{{!67~{{oo!161?!4BNNN!12~!4N!5B!155?BN!101~NB!307?~!156?-!321?~~!40?o!13~{{{!6~{oooN!25~{!5~{{{~{{{??!11~!258?oo{!79~{o!164?!12~{o!164?BB!96~NNB!309?~!156?-!321?~~!41?!12~o?BN!9~o!22~NNB???Br~~~roo?!4o!10~N!255?o{!85~{
oo!143?!7{o!10?!13~N!8?oo!5{o!152?BBN!87~NNB!313?~!156?-!321?~~!41?B!13~{?NN~~N!8~o?!4B!5N!4Brrr{{!7~!4BN!15~B!253?o{{!90~{o!141?!7~
!11?!12~N!9?BB!6~!158?BNN!77~NBB!317?~!156?-!321?~~!43?BBN!12~{{oo?BNNNBNN~~~{~N??r!13~{!4~!6{!12~NB!253?{!95~{!140?!7~o!10?!12~!12?!5~r!163?!5BNNN!56~NNN!4B!322?{{~!156?-!321?~~!47?BB!15~{{oo???!5B??!4Boor!7B~~~{!16~NB!255?{!98~!139?!7~{!10?!12~{!11?!6~!174?!5B!6N!33~N!4B!223?KK{~!7{!13?oo!4{ooo!77?{{~!156?-!321?~~!51?BBBN!18~!11{~{!19~NN!4B!258?!99~!139?!8B!10?!13~!11?!6B
!199?rrr!28~!11{ooo!204?BN!7~{!9?{{!8~NBB!76?BB~!156?-!321?~~!58?!4BNNN!39~o!264?!99~!157?!12~N!204?ooo!4{!54~!4{ooo!195?B!8~{!4o{!9
~NB!80?~~K!156?-!321?~~!70?!15BN!19~{!264?B!95~B!154?!4o!12~ooo!193?oo{{{!38~r!8?!8B!5N!15~{{{oo!188?BB!17~NNB!83?NN{!156?-!321?~~!87?N!20~o!263?BB!90~N!147?o!4{!28~{{{oo!179?o{!19~NNBBB!5?!18~{!22?BBBNNN!13~{{oo!184?BNN!11~N!88?~~!157?-!321?~~!89?BNN!18~o!263?BBN!83~NB!145?oo!7~NNN!4B!15?!5BNN!7~{{o!168?oo{!14~!4NBBB!13?B!18~{!6?{{!12~o!8?BBN!14~{{o!183?!9~B!89?~~o!156?-!321?
~~!92?BN!19~o!265?BNN!74~NNNB!144?o{!5~NBB!11?!4o!4{!7o!9?NN!5~{o!163?{!14~NB!4?o!13{!6?!19~!5?B!14~!14?BN!14~oo!179?!9~!90?~~r!156?
-!321?~~!94?N!20~{!37?!4o!6{~~{!219?B!4N!59~NNBB!150?{!5~N!9?{{!20~{o!9?N!5~{!159?o!13~NB!8?B!14~{o???B!18~{!5?BN!13~!17?BN!12~{!155?!9o?ooo??o!4{!17~{{o!82?~~o!156?-!321?~~!96?BBNN!17~o!21?!5o!9?BB!12~{o!200?o{!6~N!4?oo{!4o!5?BB!43~!4NBB!158?!6~o!8?B!24~!10?!6~N!156?{!13~N!14?!14~{o???B!18~o!5?N!13~!18?BB!12~!153?!42~!12{o!68?~~~!156?-!321?~~!100?B!18~{!11?!14~oo!10?BN!11~
o!196?o{!6~B!4?oo!8~B???{!14~N!6B!5N!10B!173?N!5~o!9?BNN!15~NNNB!9?o{!5~!156?o!13~B!16?!16~???NN!19~!7?!12~{!18?B!12~o!153?!10BN!27~
!4N!5~!4NBB!68?~~o!156?-!321?~~!102?B!18~{o!9?BN!13~{!12?N!11~{!193?!6~NB???o{!8~N!4?o!15~???oo!6{o!186?N!6~{o!13?!5B!14?oo{!6~B!157?!13~N!19?!14~o!6?!17~{o!5?!14~!18?!13~!166?BNN!19~NB!84?~~!157?-!321?~~!104?B!19~{o!9?BN!14~{!11?!11~{o!187?o!6~NB!4?o!8~N!4?{!14~N!4?o!7~NB??o!8~K!177?N!8~!4{!7o!4?!8o{{{!8~NB!160?K!13~!19?B!14~!6?N!18~!5?r!13~{!17?!12~N!171?B!11~!91?~~!157?
-!321?~~!82?!4{!9~{{o!10?N!18~o!11?N!12~{o!10?BN!11~{o!182?o!6~NB!4?{!7~NB???o{{!13~B!4?o!6~NB!4?!7~NB!183?BB!6N!20~!5NBB!167?N!12~o
!20?!15~!4?KN!18~!6?!13~{!15?!12~N!172?!10~N!92?~~{!156?-!321?~~!61?!7o!4{o!11?N!13~{o!10?N!18~{o!9?BN!13~{!10?BN!12~{o!180?!6B!4?KK!6~NB???o{!13~NN!4?o!6~N???oo{{!5~N!199?!8B!182?BN!12~{o!17?B!14~{!5?N!18~o!5?N!12~{o!10?o{{!10~NB!172?!11~!93?~~{!156?-!321?~~!61?!13~{o!10?N!14~o!10?BN!17~{o!10?BN!13~o!9?BB!8~!5N!200?o{!13~NB???o{{!5~N???o{!7~N!247?oo!5{ooo!136?BNN!12~{o!16?
!15~o!5?!18~o!5?BN~~~!9N!7?o{{!11~NB!173?{!11~!93?~~B!156?-!321?~~!62?BBN!11~{!11?BB!13~{!12?!18~o!12?!14~{!9?BB!209?!15~N!4?BB!7N??
o!7~NB!244?oo{{{!13~{{{o!132?BBN!12~{{oo!12?!15~K!4?B!19~{!19?ooo{!11~NBB!174?BBNN!9~N!93?~~!157?-!321?~~!65?BBN!11~{!12?!13~{o!10?!19~{{!10?B!4N!8B!218?o!15~B!17?!8B!205?!11o!25?oo{{!26~{{o!130?BBNN!13~{{oo!7?!5B!14?!20~o!14?o{{!14~NB!171?oo!8{oo??!4B??!6o!88?~~N!156?-!321?~~!68?N!12~{o!10?B!14~{o!8?B!20~{o!207?!9o!16{!4o{{!13~NB!218?oo!5{!24~!5{ooo!5?o{{{!7~NN!4B!5?!4BN
!4~{{rBBBNBB!133?BBBNN!15~!4{oo!18?!20~{???ooo{{{!15~NBBB!166?o{{{!17~NN???K!12~{{{oo!79?~~K!156?-!321?~~!69?BN!13~{!10?BB!14~{o!7?B
NN!18~{o!192?oo!6{!48~{{{oo!211?{{!52~NNB!22?!4B!147?BBBNN!19~!13{!36~N!5B!159?ooo!5{!11~NNN!4B!18?BBBNNN!9~!4{oo!71?~~!157?-!321?~~!72?B!13~{o!10?BBN~~~!8NBB!9?BN!19~o!182?oo{!17~!7N!18BNN!24~{{{ooo!199?o{!54~B!185?!4B!5N!43~!6NBBB!168?NNN!13~NB??oo{{{!4~!16{!4o!4?BNNN!6~NNB!71?~~!157?-!321?~~!74?BB!13~NK!35?NN!27~!6{!4o!154?oo{{!12~!4N!4B??!6o!8{!27~NBBB!4N!12~{{oo!192?
!59~o!198?!13BNNN!21~{!10o!170?BBN!4Brrr{{{!12~!4NB!4?N!12~!4{ooo!79?~~!157?-!321?~~!77?BBN!4B!40?oo{{!16~!8N!15~{{oo!144?o{{{!10~NN
BB???ooo!4{!45~{{{ooo??BBNNN!10~{oo!186?oo!60~{!208?oo{!39~{{{!4o!158?ooo{{!10~NNN!4B!15?!4B!4N!12~{{!5o!69?~~!157?-!321?~~!121?oo!11~NNBrrrooo{{{!13?BBNNN!8~{{o!33?ooo!4{!98?{!10~NNBB??oo{!63~{{oo??BNNN!9~{o!183?NN!60~B!201?oo{{{!53~{{oo!149?K!4N!5~!5NBB!31?!4B!5N!5~!5NB!68?~~!157?-!321?~~!120?{!9~NBooo{{!8~{{!5~!9{KK??B!10~{!12?K{~~~{~{{!10?BB!6~!94?oo!9~NB!4?o{!72~{o???
BNN!9~{o!182?N!57~NB!198?o{{!65~{{o!280?~~!157?-!321?~~!119?!9~rB?KNNNBr!22~{oKKN!14~!12?B!8~!11?B!5~!92?o{!8~NB!4?o{{!77~{oo??BN!10
~o!182?BN!51~NB!197?o{!74~{o!165?!14o!97?~~~!157?-!319?oo~~!118?K!10~o!4?KKNNN!21~roo~~~{!10~N!13?!7~B!12?!5~!91?o!9~B!4?{!84~o???NN!9~{!184?BBN!42~NNNB!198?o{!79~o!158?oo{!19~{{o!91?~~~!157?-!319?rr~N!120?N!9~{oo!6?BB!15Nrroo~~~Nr{!10~N!12?o{!6~N!12?!5~N!91?!10~!4?N!86~o!4?!10~o!189?BB!6N!20~!6NBBB!204?!83~!156?!25~B!92?~~!157?-!319?~~~!124?N!11~{{{ooo!6?{K!7?rrro{{{!9~NN
B!12?o{!7~B!11?oo!5~!91?K!9~o!4?K!86~N!4?!10~{!202?B!7~B!218?K!83~{!155?BNNN!14~!4NBB!94?~~!157?-!319?~~~!111?ooo!12?BB!4N!16~!5{!14
~NNNBB!13?oo{!6~NB!11?o{!5~NB!92?!10~o!4?!85~N???oo!10~!203?o!8~!219?N!80~NB!159?ooo!8rooo!101?~~!157?-!319?~~~!107?KK!7~{{o!14?!4B!8N!10~!8NBBB!14?oo{{!6~NNB!11?o{!6~NB!94?BN!9~o!4?N!82~N!4?!10~B!204?!8~N!221?N!77~N!149?!4o{{!25~!4{ooo!89?~~!157?-!319?~~~!93?ooo{oo!11?BBNN!6~{{ooo!47?ooo{{!8~NNBB!12?oo!6~NB!99?NNN!8~{o??BNN!76~BB???o{!9~N!206?!8~{!223?BB!70~NB!146?oo{{!7~
!5N!6B!11~!4N!10~{{oo!82?~~!157?-!319?~~~!91?BBNN!5~{{oo!13?BNN!8~!4{!7o!20?!7o{{{!9~!4NBB!12?o{{!5~NNB!106?N!9~{{oo???BN!67~NNBB??o
o{!9~NB!208?{!8~!227?BBNN!59~NNBB!143?o{{{!8~NNB?o{{!5o???{!9~r!4?ooorBBNN!7~{oo!79?~~!157?-!319?~~~!96?B!4N!5~{{oo!12?!4B!6N!35~!5N!4B!14?oo{{{!5~NNB!111?BN!12~{oo??BBBNN!55~NNBB???oo{{!10~NBB!210?!8~N!233?BBB!5N!39~!5NBB!147?o{{!7~NNBB???{{!8~{?!12~{!9~{o?BN!8~{!76?o~~!157?-!319?~~~!101?BBNNN!6~{{{ooo!17?!29B!16?ooo!4{!10~NN!119?BBN!12~{{{oo??BB!6N!35~!5NBBB??ooo{{{!11~
NNB!214?!8~{!243?!7B!11N!15~r!156?!9~NB!6?o!10~oN!23~!4?BB!8~!75?r~~!157?-!319?~~~!109?BBNNN!6~!4{!7o!36?!5o!4{!6~NNN~rr!4~NNB!127?B
B!4N!13~!4{!6o??!10B!4NBN!8B?B??!6o!4{!12~!4NBB!218?!9~!262?r!14~o!154?o!9~!8?!10~NN{!10~???!10~!6?!8~!75?r~~!157?-!318?N~~o!117?BB!6N!12~!23{!7~!7NBrrro!4{~~NNNBB!139?BBB!4N!21~!16{!21~!4NBBB!226?!9~!262?B!15~{!153?N!9~o???oo{!11~??!10~??!11~!5?oo!8~!75?~~~!157?-!318?~~~B!130?!10B!8N!15~!8{~~!6NBBB!157?r!39~!8N!4B!236?!9~!263?BB!14~r!154?NNN!9~BBB!4N!6~N??!9~N?N!10~NB?oo
{!7~NB!76?~~~!157?-!318?~~~B!153?!14B!169?o{!13~N!6?!12B!254?ooo!9~ooo!262?N!15~o!155?BBNN!6~{{ooo!10?!8~B!6?!4Broo{{!8~NN!79?~~{!15
7?-!318?~~~!335?oo!13~NB!241?ooo!15?oo!4{!32~{{{!5o!246?!16~o!160?BBNN!9~!5{!9~!4o!4{!10~NNNB!83?~~~!157?-!318?~~~K!332?o!14~NB!240?!10~!7{!7~!4N!8B!15?!7B!4N!7~{{ooo!239?B!16~o!165?!4B!4N!21~!5NBBB!89?~~~!157?-!318?~~~!316?oo!6{!23~r!244?BBNN!9~NNNBB!4?!5o!5{!16~!7{!4o!5?BBNNN!5~{{oo!235?B!15~!177?!7~B!106?~~!158?-!318?~~~K!311?oo{!5~!4N!6Br!19~{{o!240?o{{!4~NBB!6?oo{!42~
{{oo!5?BBB!5~{{o!232?r!16~!6{ooo!164?oo!7~!107?~~!158?-!318?~~~!309?o{!4~NBB???o!5{!15~B??BBN!6~{o!234?o{!4~NB!6?o{{!52~{{o!6?BN!5~{
o!225?{{!31~{o!155?ooo{!9~o!106?~~!158?-!318?~~~!308?!6~B???o!24~{{!4?N!7~!231?o!5~N!5?o{!61~{{!6?BNN!4~{!220?o{{!36~{o!147?o{{!21~{{!98?o~~!158?-!318?~~~!308?!6~!4?N!26~!5?!7~!231?!5~N!6?!66~{!7?!6~!218?B!40~N!145?!29~!97?o~~!158?-!318?~~~!308?B!6~o???BBNNN!15~NNNBB???o{!6~NB!231?!5~!7?!67~!7?!6~!219?BNN!35~B!147?BBNNN!18~NNNBB!98?N~~!158?-!318?~~~!310?BNNN~~~{{ooo!5?!9B
!4?!5o{!6~NB!234?!5~o!6?!66~N!7?!6~!222?BNN!27~NNB!140?!4o!12?BB!9N!5B??o!8{oo!92?~~!158?-!318?~~~!314?BBN!27~NNNBBB!238?N!5~o!6?N!6
3~N!6?oo!5~!231?!9BN!7B!144?K!9~{{!4o!15?ooo{{!9~NNBB!92?~~!158?-!318?~~~!315?o{!12~N!10B!250?BN!4~{o!6?NN!56~NB!5?o{!6~B!388?o!7{!17~!4{!12~NNN~rr!8~{{oo!87?~~!158?-!318?~~~!314?o!13~B!263?BN!5~{oo!5?BN!48~NBB!6?o{!5~NB!391?BBBNNN!10~{{{!16r!4o{{!11~NNBBB!89?~~!158?-!318?~~~!312?{{!12~NB!268?BNN!4~{{{o!5?BBB!4N!29~NNN!4B!5?o{{{!7~r!403?!5B!4N!19~!7N!5B!97?~~!158?-!318?~~~
!309?o{!12~NN!275?BBNNN!4~{{{!4o!7?!20B!8?ooo{{{!16~{{{oo!416?BB!115?o~~!158?-!318?~~~!309?BBB!7N~~NB!284?BBNNN!9~!23{!11~!5N!20~{{o
o!527?~~~!158?-!318?~~~!616?!7B!19N!8B!13?BBBN!18~{{{oo!521?~~~!158?-!317?o~~~!669?BBNNN!19~{{{!4o!511?~~~!158?-!317?B~~N!674?r!27~{!114?!6o!5{!25~!6{!6o!346?~~~!158?-!317?K~~~!386?!4o!8{!7~!6{!4o!252?o{{{!7~!4N!21~N!105?oo!4{!53~!4{ooo!336?~~~!158?-!317?{~~!379?oo!4{!34~{{ooo!244?BBNNNBBBoo{{!6~NNN!11~NNB!100?oo{{{!70~{{{oo!329?~~N!158?-!318?~~B!374?oo!48~{oo!247?!4~NNBB
???o{{!6~NNBB!100?oo{!82~{{o!325?~~!159?-!317?N~~!372?o{!55~{o!252?{{!5~NNBB!101?o{!91~{{o!321?~~!159?-!317?~~~K!107?ooo{{!5o!34?{{~
~!4{o!210?!60~{!251?BNNBB!105?{!98~{o!318?~~!159?-!317?~~~!108?N!10~{!30?{!9~!211?!61~!359?oo!102~!317?~~!159?-!317?~~~!111?BB!7~{oo???!10o{!13o!7~NB!212?N!59~N!359?!105~o!314?B~~!159?-!317?~~~!114?BN!41~o!214?BN!54~NN!147?oo{{{KNNN!5~NNN~!4{ooo!189?!105~N!315?~~!159?-!317?~~~!113?o{!45~{{o!214?NN!45~NNBB!145?o{~NBroo{!14~{{{rBN~{{o!185?BB!103~!315?~~~!159?-!317?~~~!108?ooo
!53~{o!215?BB!4N!28~!4NBB!152?~~B?!24~K?!4~!186?N!100~NB!315?r~~!159?-!317?~~N!107?!60~{!225?!8B!12~o!159?N~~oBN!21~N?o~~N!188?N!97~
N!318?~~~!159?-!316?K~~~!107?!61~!233?N!12~!5?oo!6{o!4?K!8~o!133?BNN{{orr~!10N~~rro{~NNB!193?BN!89~NNB!320?o~~!159?-!317?~~K!107?!60~B!209?o!8{???!4{~~{{{!5?!12~o???BN!7~{!5?N!7~{!138?!6B!6N!4B!204?BNN!79~NNNB!324?~~~!159?-!316?{~~!110?BB!53~NB!211?!9~!4?N!7~{!4?B!12~o!4?B!8~o!4?BN!7~o!118?ooo!240?BBN!68~NNBB!330?~~~!159?-!316?~~~!114?BNN!44~NBB!214?B!8~o!4?!8~o!5?!12~{!6?
!7~{o!4?B!7~{o!114?!8~{{!241?!4BNNN!48~!4NBBB!337?~~~!159?-!316?B~~!120?B!4N!27~!4NBBB!220?B!8~!6?!7~!6?N!11~o!5?B!8~o!4?BB!7~{o!114
?!4B!255?!27~!5N!8B!175?BB!53?!7o!11{~~!12{ooo!84?~~B!159?-!316?o~~o!127?BBBN!17~!231?B!7~{!5?!7~{!6?NN!10~{!6?N!8~!5?B!6NBB!372?{!26~!235?ooo{{{!41~{{oo!77?~~o!159?-!316?N~~~!130?N!17~!232?!9~!5?!7~{!7?!11~{!399?!27~!229?oo{{!56~{{oo!71?~~N!159?-!316?o~~~!120?!6o!5{!17~!5{!7o!220?!9B!20?B!11~{!398?!26~!229?!24~NNB!4r!5~!4rBNNN!22~{o!68?~~!160?-!316?~~~r!111?oo!4{!48~!4{ooo
!238?B!11~{!395?o!25~N!227?{!22~NBoo{!18~{{rB!22~{o!65?~~{!159?-!316?~~~B!101?oo!4{!68~{ooo!232?N!11~o!393?o!25~N!227?K!21~N?{!26~?r
!22~{o!63?~~B!159?-!316?~~~B!96?oo{{!50~NNN!28~{{oo!227?N!11~{!349?!6o!37?!25~N!229?!22~?N!24~N?{!25~!63?~~!160?-!316?~~~!92?o{{{!23~!4NBBB!9?!15~{!8?!4B!4N!21~{o!225?!12~!347?!9~N!12?o!8{o!12?!24~N!230?!23~{~~NN!16~NBrr{{!25~N!63?~~o!159?-!316?~~~!88?o{!22~NNBB!17?BB!16~!19?BNNN!17~{o!222?!12~{!345?{!8~B!13?!8~N!12?!24~N!14?!4o!213?B!24~N?{!11~Brr!31~NB!64?~~~!159?-!316?
~~~!85?o{{!34~{{!9?oo!16~o???{{!15~ooBN!19~oo!220?!11~{{!12o!330?o!9~!13?!9~!11?{{!23~N!14?{!8~K!11?o!5{!4o!190?N!20~N{{!11~o{!30~NB
!67?~~r!159?-!316?~~~!83?o{!20~NBN!14~N!10?!19~!5?!16~NN???BN!18~{!205?ooo!4{!37~!4{!4o!316?!8~N!13?!9~B!10?o{{!22~!15?!9~N!12?!9~B!192?BN!15~N?{!11~BB!27~NNBB!70?~~~!159?-!316?~~~!82?o!20~B!5?!12~!14?!16~!6?BB!14~!9?!18~!197?oo{{{!28~!12N!18~{{{o!306?{!9~!14?!8~B!11?!24~B!14?{!7~N!13?!9~B!196?BNN!10~B?{!11~N{!23~NNB!76?~~~!159?-!316?~~~!82?!20~B!6?!12~!14?!17~!7?!14~!10?
!17~o!191?oo!14~NNN!4B??r!13~!6{!5o!7?BNNN!13~{o!302?B!8NB!12?!9~B!10?o{!23~!15?o!7~N!13?!9~!202?BBNNN!4~{!28~!4NBBB!82?~~~!159?-!31
6?~~~!81?B!20~!8?!12~!13?!17~!7?!14~!10?!18~!187?o{!12~NNB!5?o{{!34~{{oo!6?BNN!10~{o!325?BBB!12?B!4N!19~N!14?!8~N!13?!9~!211?r!11~!8N!6B!93?~~~!159?-!316?~~~!82?B!19~o!7?!12~!13?!17~B!6?!14~!9?o!18~!185?{!11~NB!4?o{!48~{oo!4?BNN!9~{o!342?!13~N!19?B!8N!13?!9~!211?o!11~!108?~~~!159?-!316?~~~!83?B!19~{!6?!12~!13?!17~o!6?!14~!7?oo!17~B!184?{{!10~!6?!57~{!4?N!11~o!338?BB!12~N!42?
!8B!210?oo!11~B!108?~~~!159?-!316?~~~!84?B!20~{o??B!12~!13?!17~!7?!14~!4?o{!19~B!184?!12~!4?o!61~{???B!11~o!336?o!14~!260?{!11~N!110
?~~~!159?-!316?~~~!88?!20~!4{!11~o!11?!18~!6?B!10NBBB?o{!19~NB!186?!11~B!4?N!62~!4?N!11~!336?!14~B!258?o!13~!111?~~~!159?-!316?~~~!90?BN!22~ror!4B!14?{!17~{!13?ooo{{!20~NB!189?!12~!5?BB!59~B???o!12~!335?!14~!259?!13~B!112?~~K!159?-!315?o~~~!93?BBBN!23~{{!6o!7?B!17~B!5?ooo{{{!23~NBB!193?NN!10~oo!4?N!57~B???o!11~N!335?{!12~N!258?o!12~NB!113?~~~!159?-!315?{~~~!98?BBBN!31~{{!47~
NNBB!200?N!12~o!4?BBN!48~NNB!4?o{!10~N!336?!14~B!258?!11~N!116?~~~!159?-!315?!4~!105?BBBNN!64~NNNBBB!208?BN!12~{{o!5?BBNN!34~NNBBB!4
?oo{{!10~NB!337?{!13~B!220?!4o!32?o!12~N!118?~~!159?-!315?N~~~!114?BBB!4N!41~!6NBBB!221?BBNN!12~{{{ooo???!6B!15N!6B???!5o{{!12~NNB!340?!14~B!217?!11~!8?ooo{{{ooo!10?o{!11~N!119?{~~!159?-!315?~~~N!129?!7BN!17~B!243?BBNN!16~!13{oo!10{!18~NNB!345?!13~N!216?{!9~NB!6?o{{!9~N!7?o{!11~N!121?N~~!159?-!315?~~~B!137?!18~!250?BBB!5N!37~!4N!4B!351?!13B!215?o!9~N!8?{!9~NB!8?o!11~B!123?
N~~!159?-!315?N~~!131?ooo{{{!20~!4{!4o!255?!14BN!11~o!591?!9~r???oo!4{!9~ooo!6?oo!11~N!8?o{{{!5~{{!106?~~!159?-!315?~~~!124?o{{{!40~
{{{!264?!12~{!350?!5o!16{ooo!214?!21~r!28~NB!8?!11~N!8?oo{{{!4o!88?B~~!159?-!315?~~~!121?o{!49~{{o!261?!12~o!342?oo{{!30~{{{oo!203?oo{!68~NNB!9?!11~!86?o~~!159?-!315?~~~!119?{{!54~{o!260?!12~o!339?{!42~{!194?ooo{!13~NNN!5B!18?r!10~!5N!20~{{ooo???oo!9~B!87?B~~!159?-!315?~~~!118?{!59~!259?B!12NB!337?!46~!189?o{!12~NNBB!12?!4o!12{!11~B!7?!6BN!14~N~~{!10~N!89?o~~!159?-!315?~~~
!118?N!58~N!610?!46~B!185?oo!9~NNBB!11?ooo{{!28~Bo{~~{{ooo!8?BBNN!4~NBB{{!10~NB!91?~~~!159?-!315?~~~!119?NN!54~NB!612?BN!41~N!184?o!
11~B!12?o{!33~NN!12~{o!9?B!13~NNB!94?~~~!159?-!315?~~~!122?!50~NB!619?BBN!30~NNBBB!184?o!11~B!11?o{!20~ro!12~NB!17~{o!7?BN!6~!5Noo!95?~~~!159?-!315?~~~!124?BB!42~NBB!628?!4B!15N!5B!192?!11~!12?{!14~r!19~No!21~o!11?~{{{!5~B!95?~~~!159?-!315?~~~!124?o!8~!4N!18~!6N!8~{{!844?!11~!12?!12~BB{!18~N~{!22~B!11?!9~B!95?~~~!159?-!315?~~~!123?{!7~NB!8?!6B!15?BN!7~o!843?B!10~o!11?!12~
{oB!14~NBBo{!24~!10?oo!8~N!96?~~~!159?-!315?~~~!121?o!8~N!33?BB!7~{o!841?BN!10~o!9?BN!13~{{{!9~!4{!24~NB!10?{!9~N!97?~~~!159?-!315?~
~~!118?{!9~B!39?!6~NN!842?B!11~{!9?BN!48~NB!10?o!11~B!98?~~~!159?-!315?~~~!118?BBB!6NB!892?BB!10~{o!8?BN!40~NNBB!11?oo{!9~NB!100?~~B!159?-!315?~~~!1022?BBN!10~o!10?BB!4N!19~!5N!4B!13?o{{{!9~NNBB!103?~~!160?-!315?~~~!1027?BNN!6~{!45?!4o{{{!13~NBB!108?~~!160?-!314?o~~~!1030?BN!6~{oo!17?!5o!7{!26~NNNB!113?~~!160?-!315?~~B!1033?BB!12~!6{!28~!6N!5B!121?~~!160?-!314?!4~!1038?BBB
!13N!15B!144?~~B!159?-!315?~~~!4o!4{!84o?!8o?ooo!16?o!1090?o~~!160?-!315?NN!80BNN!8BNBBB!7NBBB!95N!4KNKKNK{KK!114{ooo!19{oo{oo!4{!11
o{{!76o!4?oo!762?~~~!160?-!691?BBB!7?!83B!97N~{{!4K!6{KK!4{K!100{!10o{{!116o!4?o!396?~~~!160?-!1034?BBB??!113BNB!8NB!62N!9KNNN!9KN!19K!4{!5K!108{!4o!8{!134o?r~~!160?-!1403?B???!128B!158?-
\
\><\

    
    
    	I'm mostly read only here but was astonished that someone said
    there was only one reality.  Then I thought about that and realized
    it's true.  There is only one reality but it is SO BIG it includes a
    great deal more than is dreamt of in our philosphy.  
    
    	Craig
    
    

    re: .288 (Craig)
    
         Exactly!  There is *always* only one reality that matters to
    us...but that reality may include a set of other realities.  From
    our perspective, there is only this one, subjective reality.  We
    can speculate other, objective realities, but the only verifiable
    reality (to ourself) is the one which we see.
    
    Frederick
    

    
    
    	Frederick,
    
    	I get the sense that you are taking an emotional hit on this
    reality stuff.  You're being drawn into "bullyness", a little, and
    that's a shame because you are a beautiful person with caring,
    sensitive thoughts, many of which you've taken the time to share with
    us.
    
    	The way to turn a child into a bully is to bully him.  Usually it's
    parents or older siblings followed by peers when they sense a weakness. 
    Recipe for a bully.  It's easy to follow the status quo.  It's a little
    harder to be an individual.
    
    	As far as I know, the only good use for ignorance is to ignore what
    is false.  We give validity and strength to what we oppose by opposing
    it.  
    
    	Since I sense a vulnerability with you now, I want you to know that
    your growth and knowledge is a joy. Your perception is keen.  Your
    expression is fun. 
    
    	As a very wise man once said, "Do not do what you hate."
    
    	Is the chair you're sitting on mostly solid matter, mostly space or
    mostly thought?   How many realities does your chair have?
    
    	It's all fantasy.  It's all real.  
    
    	How do we know?  What we attach to emotionally becomes our reality.  
    Where your heart is, there will your treasure be also.  What ideas do
    you treasure with your heart?
    
    	Thank you for your many notes. And for who you are.
    
    
    	Craig
    
    
    

    There is only one reality for the lot of us. Each of us perceives that
    reality, and slightly distorts it. Each of us also has his or her own
    fantasy world. The trick is to realise what is part of the reality, that
    we all share, and what is part of our personal fantasy. 

    If the border line between your fantasy and the common reality becomes
    so indistinct that you can no longer distinguish what you imagine in
    your fantasy world, and what can happen in the common reality, you are
    heading for problems.

    Eventually your fantasy becomes more and more complex, as this happens
    you start to spend longer and longer in it. One day you retreat into it
    and do not emerge. 

    We have mental institutions full of people who have done this, we don't
    need any more.

    Jamie.

    re: .290 (Craig)
    
          Thanks for the emotional support...in truth, however, things
    are going fairly well for me, and if doesn't seem so, I must be
    miscommunicating.  I *do* get frustrated and show anger, etc., 
    DEJAVU is no exception.  I agree that perhaps a bully gets to be
    that way because "they" were bullied in the first place.  To the
    extent that I *get* bullied (and this notesfile *can* be a minor
    subset of that umbrella) is to the extent that the bully inside me
    is alive, well, and kicking, unfortunately.  The "trick" is to 
    discover it guises, to forgive that part and to work to change 
    habituated patterns which make up the annoyances...in other words,
    look for other ways to deal with it.
    
    re: .291 (Jamie)
    
          You seem to have a one-note horn on the matter of reality.
    There is not even the slightest proof in what you offer that 
    reality is objective.  Each of us is quite capable of proclaiming
    subjective reality, but no one has (and no one will) ever proven
    the existence of objective reality [that can't be inclusively a 
    part of subjective reality...;] it's impossible.
          Another of your failings is to be able to distinguish between
    adult dreams and childhood fantasies.  Yes, fantasy can lead to 
    gross distortions of personal reality...to the point where one becomes
    disfunctional in the reality in which one lives.  But if you take the
    time to explore the mechanisms involved, you will undoubtably discover
    that the individual in question 1. has never learned to process (think
    and feel, discern, etc.) and 2.  has never learned to get into a
    truly adult state of dreaming (i.e., the visions are the same childhood
    visions which do not function in an adult world.)
          Dreaming is beautiful...from dreams come our entire reality; 
    momentary fantasies can be useful tools in developing the fantasia
    which help source or supply our dreams.  But taking responsibility for
    the reality means functioning fully as adults.  Recognizing dreams
    for their potential and learning how to discriminate between useful
    and helpful dreams and useless or hopeless distortions is part and 
    parcel to being an adult.  
          I rather suspect that you haven't had much experience around
    true adults...otherwise the distinction would be much clearer, I
    believe.
    
    Frederick
    

    Frederick as you so rightly point out I have only one horn on the
    subject of reality. 
    
    This is because there is only one. 
    
    True, we are all entitled to embroider on it. And as long as we can tell
    the difference between our embroidery and what is real, no problem
    exists. I, like you and everyone else find reality rather boring from
    time to time and slip off into my own private world. However I know
    that the things in that private world exist only there and do not
    effect the reality that I share with other. 
    
    You however have made some statements which tend to make me believe
    that you have brought some of your fantasy world back into reality and
    are trying to make it work there.

    Now whether you choose to label your fantasy as a "subjective reality"
    is mere semantics.

    BTW I seem to be surrounded with true adults. Mind you, your definition
    of a true adult and the conventional definition will most likely be at
    odds.

    Jamie.                                                 

Jamie,

If there is only one reality for the lot of us, but each of us
slightly distorts it, then where does the one true reality reside?
And how can we know it?

If there is no Central Infallible Reality Board, then the
point is moot.  I mean, if I were to accept the idea that there was
only one reality, why shouldn't it be mine?  Why should I accept another
person's view, if it differs from mine, when that person is as 
vulnerable to distortion as I am?

I dislike the idea of the majority rules when it comes to reality because
the majority is often wrong.  According to the Majority Rules Theory of 
Reality, in the Dark Ages the world was flat and the Earth was the center of 
the universe.

Sue

	Reality?

	It's obvious, innit?

	If you can't measure it, it ain't real...
	
	;-)

	Delia (who will not be measured when anyone's looking!)

> If there is no Central Infallible Reality Board

Ah, but there is! And they go by many names (and by none).

> I dislike the idea of the majority rules when it comes to reality because
> the majority is often wrong.

Right you are. No amount of legislation can repeal the law of gravity
or make pi equal to three. Reality is neither a consensus affair, nor
is it any man's choice to define.

    re: .286
    
    Well, Jamie, I re-read topic 641 and still don't know what you mean. 
    But if you choose to believe what I wrote was a demonstration of my
    "superiority," so be it.
    
    However, I agree with you on one point.  Feeling pity for someone is
    condescending.  I usually lean more towards compassion towards others, 
    but sometimes I slip.
    
    BTW, you are insisting here that you have no memories of emotional
    hurts.  I don't think hurt needs to be emotional in order to trigger an
    emotional or psychological response.  Also, you have written in other
    notes (I believe in Holistic) about some of your friends dying.  Are
    you saying you felt no emotional pain in response to their suffering
    and death?  Also, did you feel no emotional pain with your near death
    experience?  (I'm not trying to pry here.  These are mainly rhetorical
    questions...)
    
    re: .280  Maybe your response to Topher appeared to me to be a snide
    remark because I've come to expect sarcasm from you.
    
    BTW: regarding your comment that you use sarcasm and cynicism as
    weapons, we have a saying here in the states (don't know if this is a
    worldwide saying or not) --
    
    "The best defense is a good offense"
    
    Why the need for weapons here, Jamie?  I don't believe the participants
    in Dejavu are here to fight.  I, for one, am here to learn and to share
    experiences.
    
    There is also a wonderful quote on sarcasm that may apply here -- I can't 
    remember the whole quote or who said it (if someone here knows it...feel 
    free to share it) --  something about sarcasm being the last refuge of 
    someone who something (real helpful, right?).
    
    Mary

    There may be one ultimate reality, but I believe that it is so vast
    that we are a long, long way from perceiving and understanding it.  In
    the meantime, all we have are "models" which explain what we do
    understand.  As our knowledge expands beyond our current models, we
    develop new models of reality that accomodate the new information.
    Acceptance of these new models results in a paradigm shift that can take 
    a long time to be fully assimilated into our culture.
    
    An obvious example of this, to which we have been witness, is the shift
    in physics from a Newtonian model of the universe to an Einsteinian
    model (and beyond).  It has taken years for traditional science to
    develop the means to test and "prove" Einstein's theories.  It is
    taking many more years for them to be assimilated into everyday life.
    
    Mary

> all we have are "models" which explain ...

The "we" in this sentence is the "we" of worldly human existence. The
spirit has access to Reality, and the potential to experience it
directly. It needn't be limited by models, though, for the most part,
we are limited by our own shortcomings.

Concerning the claim that we do not create reality, consider this: the
human brain has no direct access to much other than patterns of
electrical impulses which arrive along nerve fibers. An electrical
impulse does not have properties of color, flavor, or temperature. It
has intensity and time-related properties (duration, frequency, etc).
In an absolute sense, the brain can't distinguish between an impulse
arriving from an ear and one coming from the tongue. From conception
onward, the neural tissue of the human body learns to distinguish
differences in the patterns (timing and intensity) of impulses. This
ability to distinguish differences evolves (extensively) and becomes
the "models" to which you refer. But at the base of the models is
electrical impulses. Reality, for the brain, is the models which are
created by it, which enable it to deal with and make sense of what
would seem to be random electrical impulses. The brain creates its
reality from patterns of impulses.

The brain and its models do not constitute the totality of a human's
sentience. It (brain and models) is the part which belongs to the
material world. Human sentience also exists in a spirit dimension, and
this aspect of human sentience has direct access to Reality. This kind
of perception is generally possible when the brain and its models are silent.

The discussion in this topic is the antithesis of silence.

    Well Mary I feel no hurt about my friends dying. Dying is after all not
    optional, it is an integral part of life. So I'm afraid that your quest
    for my "hurt" that you seem so sure that I suffer has missed again.

    Re .299

    >The brain creates its reality from patterns of impulses. 

    No, the brain creates its concept of reality from patterns of impulses.
    The reality is there, the brain does not create it.

    Jamie.

>	Delia (who will not be measured when anyone's looking!)
    
    Love it! :-)
    
    I believe Mike in .299 brings up some thought-provoking issues...If we
    take a robot, wire it with some sensors and include image recognition
    logic and some rule-based artificial intelligence. We would agree the
    robots' perception of the "one-and-only-reality" would be a limited
    view? We would also agree that there is much more going on in this
    reality that the robot would have no way of perceiving. 
    
    I suspect that we humans, too often, put our view up on a pedestal and
    claim "absolutes", when there may be much more to this so-called "solid"
    reality than is currently perceived. We may be very much like that
    robot, accepting our inputs as absolutes?
    
    I personally, am very interested in the realizations that people like 
    Fred are discovering, having the courage to break with the view that we
    should merely be spectators, but that we may be an active part in
    influencing this reality. If the discoverers of old took the view:
    "this is it, there is nothing else" our reality view would be much
    different than it currently is.
    
    There is the lie, and there is the truth. The lie looks very much like
    the truth, contains aspects of the truth, but it is a
    deception/delusion. Discerning the difference is the key.
    
    -Brian   

  Re .300 (Jamie)

> No, the brain creates its concept of reality from patterns of impulses.
> The reality is there, the brain does not create it.                    

    Correct but as the interpretation can be "fooled" from the inside (a change
  of reference model) or from the outside (misleading stimuli) or even during
  reception (drugs/disease interfering with the messaging operation), this
  brings us back to subjective, objective, and consensus reality again ...
  it's a vicious circle ... (OK, we're back on the topic again folks ! :-)

    Whilst it can be said that the objective ["true"] reality usually� matches
  the consensus reality ["highest common factor"], there are still fringes that
  cannot be accurately defined yet due to lack of information - hence there is
  still a place for subjective reality in terms of interpretation of currently
  undefined data ... a different phrase for the accepted scientific process of
  defining then refining a model ... there are many levels between the widest
  consensus model and the narrowest subjective model so there is a lot of
  leeway in positioning the [movable] labels "reality" and "delusion".

  Frank

  � Consensus closely matches objective when sufficient explanation is provided
  that people can believe. This falls down when the "believable explanation" is
  inaccurate (eg., flat earth, geocentric universe). Unfortunately, when the
  latter occurs, it takes a great deal of effort to correct the consensus to
  match the more accurate model of the objective.

    Consensus reality = what most people believe is true
    Subjective reality = what some people believe is true
    Objective reality = what actually is true

  Unfortunately, by definition, we cannot experience objective reality as we
  always interpret it via our senses to fit our internal model(s) hence the
  single absolute reality that we all share has been modified/translated/
  refracted/distorted/changed/realized by the process of observation ...
  Heisenburg ? Schr�dinger ? (Spell-Checker ? :-) Many famous names throughout
  history have accepted that the absolute is a very elusive item ...

    But as a brain perceives reality it does not in any way alter reality.
    Therefore there is but one reality which we all commonly perceive.
    
    Jamie.

  
  > Therefore there is but one reality ...
  
    Yes (IMHO)
  
  >                                    ... which we all commonly perceive.
   
    No (IMHO) else this discussion would have never arisen !
  
   As I see it, the problem is not that people refuse to believe in a single
  shared reality but that they insist that *their* *perception* of that single
  shared reality is the *only* correct one.  The different perceptions have
  not altered the objective reality but they affect the interpretation of
  and the reaction to it. (Hence different people respond in different ways
  to the same, shared stimuli).
  
  Frank

    
    Note 1392.303  
    HOO78C::ANDERSON
    
    >But as a brain perceives reality it does not in any way alter reality.
    >Therefore there is but one reality which we all commonly perceive.
    
     This statement is not true.   
    
    There is not one reality which we all commonly perceive.  
    
    Our reality is a combination of many, many different individual realities 
    which together make our collective reality and any one of us can alter it
    if he or she is aware that he or she is able to.   Reality doesn't even
    exist outside of the perception of our selves.... there are different
    levels of reality that are dependent upon the perception of the being
    perceiving it... a plant reality is different than an animal reality
    and that is different than a human reality.  What we have is an overlap
    which forms the whole of our collective reality.  The layers are
    interdependent upon each other.  

    Well, Mary, retirement ain't what it's cracked up to be,
    is it?   ;^)
    
    Joel
    

    Jamie, how can you possibly say that when the brain perceives reality
    it doesn't alter reality?  Certainly, on occasion, it does just that.
    When Einstein, for just one example, 
    perceived reality differently he altered it for all of us.
    
    This is an interesting sort of game and I've been mulling it over.
    Basically, I think it comes down to that old chestnut about the
    tree falling in the forest when no one's there.  In other words,
    you apparently believe in a One True Reality that can exist
    separately from human perceptions.  I don't.  I think it's all
    much more muddled than you would like it to be.
    
    Sue
       

Re .305 (Dave):

    >>But as a brain perceives reality it does not in any way alter reality.
    >>Therefore there is but one reality which we all commonly perceive.
    >
    > This statement is not true.   
    >
    >There is not one reality which we all commonly perceive.  
 
'Scusa.

I believe that nobody is _really_ close enough to the source to take either
positrion unequivically, save as a matter of faith.

    >Our reality is a combination of many, many different individual realities 
    >which together make our collective reality and any one of us can alter it
    >if he or she is aware that he or she is able to.   Reality doesn't even
    >exist outside of the perception of our selves....

This position suggests that "reality" is a collective construct. Neato, except,
if so, how'd it all start.  Pasrticularly from an "evolutionary" standpooint:
does this mean that the Earth, say, _was_ flat, until the collective unconscious
(as it were) decided that it should be round?  That there was a geocentric
solar system until enough believed the contrary to alter it to a heliocentric 
one?  If one takes evolution to mean what Darwin did, does that mean that there
was _no_ conscious reality until a sufficiently aware set of critters developed
it?

    > ..................................................there are different
    >levels of reality that are dependent upon the perception of the being
    >perceiving it... a plant reality is different than an animal reality
    >and that is different than a human reality.  What we have is an overlap
    >which forms the whole of our collective reality.  The layers are
    >interdependent upon each other.  

A nice metaphysical model, but the implication is, well, still begging the 
question on origins.

Re .306 (Joel):

   >Well, Mary, retirement ain't what it's cracked up to be,
   > is it?   ;^)
 

Joel, this writer is Mary's husaband (note, there's no "long, strange trip"
personal name).

Re .307 (Sue):

    >Jamie, how can you possibly say that when the brain perceives reality
    >it doesn't alter reality?  Certainly, on occasion, it does just that.
    >When Einstein, for just one example, 
    >perceived reality differently he altered it for all of us.

What Einstein did was to develop a _model_ that more closely approximates
the state of affairs, behavioristically (say with regard to masses and
accelerations).  This did not "alter reality" as it did our percerption
of it.

Analogous example:  When it was demonstrated one could circumnavigate the 
Earth, it didn't suddenly snap from planar to spherical.

    >This is an interesting sort of game and I've been mulling it over.
    >Basically, I think it comes down to that old chestnut about the
    >tree falling in the forest when no one's there.  In other words,
    >you apparently believe in a One True Reality that can exist
    >separately from human perceptions.  I don't. 
 
That old chestnut was a philosophical opne, and actually was, "If a tree falls
in a forest, and nobody's there, does it make a sound?"  The answer: if you
define "sound" as "something heard," (inferentially by a person) then the
answer is "no."  If "sound" is defined as "transverse atmospheric concentrations
and rarefactions that radiate out from the origin of a disturbance at Mach 1,"
the answer is yes.

Thought experiment.

A person goes into a forest on Monday, notices a tree, and departs.
The next day, that person goes back and notes that the tree is now
horizontal and not vertical.

1) Did it "not fall" until tyhe person returned?
2) Did it "not make a sound" because nobody was there when it fell?

Now to sweeten the dilemma:

Suppose on Monday the person left a sound-actuated tape recorder and
camcorder pointed at the tree.
Tuesday that person retrieves the tapes.  On his monitor, the person
sees an image of the tree falling. 

1) Does this give "retroactive reality" to the act of falling?
   Or is falling an illusion?
   Or did it just really fall?

2)  Same for the sound and the audio tape reecorder.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re: .307 (Sue)
    
         Exactly!  The "raging adolescent" within us likes to see
    everything in absolutes--black or white--and screams at us to
    make the decisions based on this "Please decide, is it this way
    or is it that way?"  Unfortunately, some in DEJAVU are "in their
    adolescence" and cannot step beyond that far enough to discover
    the adult within--who can accept that life is much closer to
    being shadings of gray than absolutes of black or white.  It *is*
    more "muddled" than that.  There are realities on all sorts of
    levels...one can step in at any level and perceive an entirely
    different reality than can exist at another level---which exists
    at the same TIME and same SPACE.  This is the difficulty I recently
    discovered in WOMANNOTES when I attempted to discuss taking 
    responsibility for our lives.  On a certain level, this is true.
    However, on another level, it isn't...therefore those who had 
    experienced certain traumatic and even devastating realities had
    a difficult time feeling "responsible" (actually, they misused the
    word responsibility and substituted the word "blame" instead) and
    let me know about it.  ;-{  My error was in not being able to address
    both groups...those on the separate levels of reality.
    
    re: .302 (Frank)
    
         I liked that.  I differ in my place, however.  Whereas you state
    that subjective reality is what some people believe to be true and
    objective is what is actually true, I say it's just the reverse:
    subjective--what is actually true
    objective--what some people believe is the truth.
     
         But then this could be qualified, as well.  Actually, I am
    leaning on believing that reality "flip-flops."  That is, I think
    it is objective, then subjective, then objective further out.  Then
    it again becomes subjective, etc.  "all the way to God..."
    
    Frederick
    

    
    Re .302
    
 >Unfortunately, by definition, we cannot experience objective reality as we
 >always interpret it via our senses to fit our internal model(s) hence the
 > single absolute reality that we all share has been modified/translated/
 >refracted/distorted/changed/realized by the process of observation ...
 >Heisenburg ? Schr�dinger ? (Spell-Checker ? :-) Many famous names throughout
    
    	Heisenburg had the Uncertainty Principle, Schr�dinger had the cat....
    
    
    		Ian G.

    re: .308 (Steve)
    
         I don't agree with you.  You are apparently insisting that
    objective reality supercedes subjective reality.  I say it doesn't
    exist until we allow it to exist.  The world is flat until we
    find out that a "greater truth" is that the world is round.  
         There are certain boundaries that can be used to hold us locked
    into place...beyond which we cannot grow...that can be used as
    models of existence.  It is when we finally realize that those
    boundaries are keeping us locked in that we finally begin to reach
    for other realities, for other dreams, for other beliefs, for 
    other attitudes, for more than just acceptance but rather than for
    having a determination to make it evolve.  It is WHEN we finally
    reach that place, where "magic" has allowed us to stretch out for
    something grander than what we had originally believed and held,
    that the reality has an opportunity to shift.  It is only when
    we are afraid of our dreams (in the positive sense of that word)
    that we are held locked in to the limitations of our past 
    experience.  
         So, no, the tree never made a sound.  It never even fell.  
    When you come across this situation, a part of you determines 
    whether or not this tree will be down...and will eagerly supply
    all the necessary data to make this event "believable."  Our
    sub-conscious mind thrives on consistency.  It is against our
    consistency to believe that a tree could fall and not make a 
    sound.  If it takes someone to develop a tape recorder or a 
    Camcorder, etc., to "prove" our consistency, then that will happen.
    But for those who still hold on to the magic of possibility,
    that tree won't be "fallen" until the moment the eyes are ready
    to place it in it's location.
    
    Frederick
    

    re: 303
    
    (and sticking to some old chestnuts...)
    
    Depending on the methods used for examining light, light behaves (and
    is perceived by the brain) as either waves or as particles.  But (to
    date, anyway) never as both at once.  So here we have two realities:  
    light is waves and light is particles.  Naturally, within the greater 
    reality -- light is both waves and particles, but never the same at 
    once, or the act of looking at light changes it from one to the other.
    
    BTW Jamie, I noticed that you didn't reply to my question as to why you
    use weapons in this conference.
    
    Mary

    	Steve, I see Mary/Dave/? changed your perception of reality for
    	a moment back there.  ;-) 
    
    	re: .312, Mary M.,
    
>    (and sticking to some old chestnuts...)
    >Depending on the methods used for examining light, light behaves (and
>    is perceived by the brain) as either waves or as particles.  But (to
>    date, anyway) never as both at once.  So here we have two realities:  
    
    Is there such a thing as a degree to which
    an idea is abstracted ?  A recognizable difference between a percept
    and a constructed mathematical model ?   There's something that
    I think is a clue to how this issue is conceived by an individual.
    
    Light waves and particles, like points and lines, are mathematical 
    constructs, equations, that have some resemblance to things we
    perceive 'directly' with our senses, like waves in the ocean and 
    particles of dust.
    
    The actual basis of your example comes from results of two different
    kinds of experiments that produce results which in one case are
    more consistent with the wave model, and in the other case, more
    consistent with the particle model.
    
    As others have said, callig these two contexts 'different realities'
    is useful psychologically in some frames (like creative endeavors or
    the use of metaphor), but really begs the question when used to
    debate the metaphysical question of single objective reality.
    
    I think that to the extent that I can alter my own perceptual process
    enough to actually perceive light as waves or particles in a given
    situation, it might be useful to say that they are different
    realities.  But when the result is only 'observable' by inference
    of a laboratory experiment, there's no impact on our life, 
    except how we make use of the new mathematical model.  To me,
    this means these cases are not usefully 'different realities,'
    they are curiosities.  
    
    The macro-observation of Schroedinger's experiment outside of
    a laboratory would be much more convincing, for example ... !
    
    							todd

    re. 308: (Steve)
    
    Yes, I know that the statement is "if a tree falls.... does it 
    make a sound" - since I assumed most everyone knew that I didn't
    think it worth completing.  About Einstein, I didn't mean that
    he changed reality in a second but that his observations have
    been the basis for many things that have changed the reality
    we live in.  
    
    Sue

    
    Say you could change reality ... what would yu do?
    
    Say that we wake up on Sunday, September 22, 1991 to a different
    world.  What do you want it to be like?
    
    I'd like a world with no nuclear, biological or chemical weapons
    and no inclination within humanity to create any more.  I'd like
    us to be as free of disease as we can manage to be.  I'd like
    all of us to be comfortable ... well fed... warm in the winter..
    and to have someplace in which to live.
    
    I'd like the Earth to be clean and healthy again.  I'd like the plants
    and animals to be healthy and free and to proliferate once more.
    
    I'd like humanity to have a new frontier... to be able to expand once
    more .... out into the stars this time.  I'd like us to be able to
    explore new worlds and greet new lifeforms.
    
    I wish peace for us all....  and freedom....  that is my dream.

Interesting question. I guess if I could learn to be less destructive
and agressive, the world would be a somewhat better place. That might
be as much as I could hope to contribute to the world.

    
    That is a beautiful vision, Mary, and a beautiful beginning, Mike.
    
    Cindy

Re .311 (Fredrick):

    >     I don't agree with you.  You are apparently insisting that
    >objective reality supercedes subjective reality.  I say it doesn't
    >exist until we allow it to exist.  The world is flat until we
    >find out that a "greater truth" is that the world is round.  

This then becomes a matter of what's effectively a religious faith.

The Earth was determined to be quasi-spherical long before popular concensus
agreed to it.  (Greeks, Egyptians, and various others came to that decision
in ones and twos; however, the general populace, from which one presumes the 
concensus originates, thought it flat.)

I presume the planet existed before life -- much less intelligent life --
appeared.  As an article of faith, you are, of course, perfectly free to
assume that all is an illusion, that the fabric of reality is infinitely
plastic, and that somehow, by some seed-crystal process, I suppose, reality
shifts by something altering the concensus of what's "real."
    

    >But for those who still hold on to the magic of possibility,
    >that tree won't be "fallen" until the moment the eyes are ready
    >to place it in it's location.

Again, this is faith.  But let's say that _two_ people see the tree upright;
they return, simultaneously to the opposite sides of a clearing, each expecting
to see the tree upright.  How will the tree be?  Upright?  Fallen?  Or one of
each?

The operative thought is akin to solopsism: "nothing is really real but me -- 
the quintessence of Descartes' "Cogito, ergo sum" -- "Cogito, ergo est"?
If you leave one facet of the jewel of truth, you can approach another --
but you can also move away from the jewel altogether.

Re .312 (Mary):

    >Depending on the methods used for examining light, light behaves (and
    >is perceived by the brain) as either waves or as particles.  But (to
    >date, anyway) never as both at once.  So here we have two realities:  
    >light is waves and light is particles.  Naturally, within the greater 
    >reality -- light is both waves and particles, but never the same at 
    >once, or the act of looking at light changes it from one to the other.

Actually, the key is "light behaves as if it were ...".  The point is that
a wave _model_ or a particle _model_ makes it easier for our minds to deal
with (e.g., make calculations involving) light.  It no more means that
light is either of those things in actuality; it's just an easy way to
make predictions about its behavior.

Re .315 (Sue):

    
    > ......................  About Einstein, I didn't mean that
    >he changed reality in a second but that his observations have
    >been the basis for many things that have changed the reality
    >we live in.  
 
I don't understand in what way "reality" was changed.  The reason he came to
some of his conclusions was because of observed anomalies in the Newtonian
model of the "mechanical" universe.

Re .317 (Mary):

Nice dream. [No sarcasm.]

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    Steve, 
    
    ... we are differentiating between human reality and Earth reality and
    animal reality... they overlap and are interdependent but they are not
    the same (in my humble opinion).  One acting as a magickian can effect 
    them all ... but in different ways.
    
    I think thats what the others are saying... it's what I believe anyway.

    re: 314  I'm not sure, but it sounds good to me!
    
    re: 313
    
    Hi Toddy, ya lost me in there somewhere, but I think I get what you're
    driving at.  Yikes, talk about diving in over my head.  Anyway, yes I
    think there are different levels of abstraction.  I think that the fact
    that we can't perceive the duality of light with only our natural
    senses does not preclude the possibility of alternate realities and, in
    fact, I think it supports it.  I think that a large part of the 
    basis for the ongoing argument over where (or what) ultimate reality is 
    lies in the idea that ultimate reality exists beyond that which we can 
    perceive with our ordinary senses.  Furthermore, my guess is that large 
    parts (like, most?) of reality exists outside of that which our technology 
    and measure, perceive and report on. 
    
    gotta run, just got call
    Mary 

    re: .319 (Steve-arino)
    
         Solipsism aside (as a tenet,) I believe that the reality is
    illusion, as I have stated countless times before in here.  There
    is no such thing as a solid, etc.  Okay, then, using this as a
    premise, I agree that there *IS*  *A*  reality.  This "illusionary
    reality" has a basis in and from somewhere else.  I believe 
    ("religiously" seems somehow inaccurate) that there is an emotional
    basis...but that isn't exactly where I want to go with this discussion.
    Rather, let me add to your premise about two people.  No matter what
    you do, you will *never* get the two people to discuss the observation
    identically.  You will always get two different accounts (especially
    as the detail is insisted upon)...hence two different perceptions of
    reality or maybe even two different realities.  Will the tree be up
    or down?  It depends on what each believes...and what they "decide"
    (consciously, sub-consciously or un-consciously) to believe.  One
    person may have a strong interest or motivation (for creating) for 
    finding the tree a certain way and will, in fact, influence the other
    person (who is therefore "allowing" the reality) into seeing it his/her
    way.  This is an ongoing process with virtually our entire reality.
    We have put individuals and things into our reality precisely to give
    us an opportunity to either consciously generate or to, perhaps, 
    sub-consciously "allow" the reality to happen.  
        People aren't "real."  (Neither is anything else physical.)
    Why are they here?  To GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERSTAND IMPACT.
    To allow us to have impact and to Allow them to have impact on us.
    This is the game.  This is the "reality."
    
    Frederick
    

    re: .321, Mary M.,
    
>               -< gee, has anybody seen a magic circle lately? >-
    
    	Yeah, some kind person posted some a few Notes back.
    	Don't you read <sixel> ?  If not, you missed an awe-inspiring
    	experience.  It was just like the ones in the tabloids.  :-)
    
    						todd

  Huh, leave some people alone for half a day and you get 20 new replies ...

  Re .308 (Steve)

> Thought experiment.                                                  
> ...
> Suppose on Monday the person left a sound-actuated tape recorder and 
> camcorder pointed at the tree.                                       
> Tuesday that person retrieves the tapes.  On his monitor, the person 
> sees an image of the tree falling.                                   

  The response is that the camcorder is a proxy person ! It is an observer
  so the normal case (just another noisy tree falling over) applies - the
  fact that it was sound-actuated merely represents the observer watching
  a beetle nearby until hearing the first creak, the _presence_ of a potential
  observer appears to be the crux of the matter. [ If, however, the camcorder
  was incapable of observing - no batteries for example - then there is no
  reason to believe that the tree made a sound ... but who can tell ? :-) ]

  Re .309 (Frederick)

  As I don't think there's a way to prove either case [ according to both of
  our views ] shall we agree to differ ?

  Re .310 (Ian)

> Heisenburg had the Uncertainty Principle, Schr�dinger had the cat

  Thanks, I knew which was which but without going into details, I just
  wanted to remind people that there are fully accepted scientific models
  of "undefined reality" [for want of a better term]. (Of course you could
  complicate it further by saying that Schr�dinger *might* have had a cat and
  Heisenburg thought he had an Uncertainty Principle ... probably in a box
  somewhere :-)

  Re .316 (Mary)

  Amen to that, especially :

> I'd like the Earth to be clean and healthy again.  I'd like the plants 
> and animals to be healthy and free and to proliferate once more.

  Re .325 (Paul)

> The concept of reality created by consciousness is itself a part of reality.
> Hence by creating or modifying this portion of the whole, consciousness     
> creates and modifies the totality.  Since reality is a continuous process   
> and not a static object, this act of creation is ongoing.                   

  Hence reality is the ultimate in turbulent flow ?  As the result after a
  specific time period cannot be defined without knowing the complete set
  of initial conditions, and as the finer details of those conditions are
  undefined until observed, then this could explain the unpredictability of
  conscious life ... I always knew there was a reason for all this chaos ...

  Frank

    Right let us try again. There is one reality. Each of us perceives this
    reality and in so doing does not alter it. Reality operates on a set of
    rules. We perceive these as "natural laws". Let us look at one as an
    example, the law of gravity.

    Now no matter how we perceive reality we find that the law of gravity
    still works. Thus although some people suffer from the delusion that
    they can do something, like fly unassisted, they cannot and sometimes
    die trying to demonstrate this.

    The world was never flat, this was a misconception and when it was
    corrected the world did not change shape to accommodate this. Likewise
    there never was a geocentric universe. In reality the universe never
    rotated round our sun.

    Einstien did not alter reality in the slightest. He just pointed out
    some things that already existed but had not been explained.

    As to the question about the tree falling in the forest, it always
    makes a sound. There are millions of insects, not to mention other
    animals, to hear it.

    Mary, as to your question why do I use weapons in here. I use them for
    the same purpose that you use your supercilious manner.  

    Jamie.
         

Reality:

	I believe in part in what Jamie is trying to say, but also see how some
	of you have valid points in trying to add to his view.

	I believe that there is one (present, at this moment) reality, and that
	we perceive it each *in our own way*. The expanse of this reality,
	however is vast, and some of us cannot perceive, or conceive of, the
	elements which are non-physical (e.g. Jamie - no offense). Others *do*
	perceive some of these extra elements - which are not unlike the hidden
	elements of the EM spectrum which we do not normally perceive - and 
	these people use this "extra" perception to add to their own personal
	model. This personal model or view will differ, but it is derived from
	the same basic "whole" reality. People seem to have been discussing the
	differences in their "windows" on this whole reality.

	I *do* believe, too, that we can alter reality by our actions and
	perceptions of it, by nature of the action of one of the normally
	"unseen" elements - thought, and the interactions of subtle energies
	which pervade matter ,but maybe this is straying too far from the base
 	topic.

								- JIM CAD*

  
  > ... ,but maybe this is straying too far from the base topic.
  
  Rats ... someone nearly mentioned the subject again ...
  

	Maybe the word "Reality" needs to be defined?
    
    I am standing in the middle of a busy road. There is a large bus
    bearing down on me. The "reality" going by past experience, indicates
    that the bus would probably flatten me. However, I step aside and the
    bus misses. What then is the reality in this case. 

    1. The bus came along and I stepped out of the way. This then is only
    "reality" in hindsight. Therefore, is reality something that only happens
    in retrospect?

    2. There where at least two possible realities, I chose the less severe
    one. 

    3. By moving out of the buses way, have I not altered reality? 

    4. Therefore, "reality" is possibly time-based and is therefore
    temporal. Does reality  exist in the future, does it exist in the
    present, maybe it only exists in hindsight? But does the past really
    exist? 

    5. Reality only lasts in the present moment and not a split second
    longer than the present moment? 
    
    6. If events where not time-based, would there be a reality as we know
    it?

    -Brian
    

	.311 Fred Freud
	
>         So, no, the tree never made a sound.  It never even fell. 
	
	*Only* in  *your* reality.  I was there.  I saw it fall.  I heard
	the sound!
	
>    that tree won't be "fallen" until the moment the eyes are ready
>    to place it in it's location.

	Again, in *your*  reality.    
	Your car wasn't "stolen" until you  came back to find it missing.
	But to the thief that stole it, by the time you came back to find
	it missing, it was actually in pieces on the way to be sold.
	[ assuming your car is worth stealing for parts  ;') ]
	
	Jay

    Re .330

    You made a physical movement and altered the local area of reality
    slightly. However if you had just thought about moving the outcome
    would have been different. Either the bus driver would have taken
    action to avoid hitting you or you would be hit. But it required a
    physical effort not just a mental one.

    There was a report about a Russian Mystic recently. According to him
    things, usually vehicles, could be brought to a halt by him exercising
    the power of his mind on them. He would demonstrate this by stepping in
    front of cars and watching them come to a halt. 

    Skeptics pointed out that it was in fact the drivers of said vehicles
    that caused them to stop, and offered the verbal abuse heaped on him
    every time he did it as proof. He therefore decided to perform the
    ultimate proof and want to a railway line and stepped in front of a
    train.

    The shaken driver later said, "There was this guy standing beside the
    track and as I was just about to pass him he jumped onto the track
    right in front of me. I never had a chance of hitting the brakes and he
    died instantly.

    Alas the Russian Mystic made the mistake of thinking that he had his
    own personal reality in which some of the rules were different, he was
    wrong.

    Jamie.                   

    re: Frank,
    	We *all* live in this rat race.  :-)
    
    re: Jamie,
    	I don't think many people missed your point.  Few of them that
    	I know of go around stepping in front of trains. One reason I can 
    	think of that some people might want to debate your position is that 
    	aspects of it are SO obvious that they seem to cry out for alternative
    	views.  What's interesting conceptually about 'there is one
    	reality and I see it right now, thre's a tube in front of me,
    	and a keyboard at my fingers ?"   Short discussion, wouldn't it be
    	?   Especially among types who enjoy philosophical discussions.
    	I think there is a need just under the surface here to bring
    	some things back into context in order to communicate
    	productively (?) IMO.
    
    	re: Paul C.
    
    		You lost me, Paul.  Are you talking about something like
    		process philiosophy ?  Sorry for my denseness today.
    
    							todd

    re 332.
    
    >You made a physical movement and altered the local area of reality
    >slightly.
    
    Ha, we've managed to solicit a "slight" move in reality here ;-)
    
    O.K so there was thought and there was action. The thought used the
    central nervous system to get the body out of the way. This in your (Hi
    Jamie) opinion is not altering reality.
    
    You appear to suggest if I could alter the course of the bus without
    there being evidence of physical means, then this would be "altering
    reality"? 
    
    If I could move the bus with some kind of super mind-control, then this
    would constitute altering reality? Surely this only means that a 
    different "moving" mechanism was used to alter reality. Wether it is
    super mind-control (if it were possible), or the simple mind telling the
    body to move...both would result in the altering of reality?
    
    -Brian
    
     
    

From: [email protected] (Robert Trevelyan)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Doug and Dave on hoaxes
Date: 16 Sep 91 20:19:07 GMT
Organization: IBM AIX Systems Support Centre, UK.
 
In England the crop circle season is now over as just about all fields
have been harvested. Recent events have brought about details of a 
ministerial meeting in London about a year ago when Margaret Thatcher
was still PM.(though she was not present at the meeting).The purpose
of the meeting was to discuss Crop Circles and three ministeries were   
involved in this namely Defence, Agriculture and Environment.
It was agreed at this meeting that the cause of Crop Circles was completely
unknown and and the meteological theory was *out of hand* and that all        
crop circles were *not* hoaxes although there had obviously been a fair
few hoaxes.
Responsibility for keeping a watch on crop circle developments was handed
over to the Ministry of Defence whose brief was to take *appropriate action*.
The MOD were to update the other two ministries but during this meeting
the word "disinformation" was mentioned on several occasions.The above 
details were passed on by someone who attended the meeting.
 
During the last few weeks it appears as if this disinformation campaign
has actually started by the arrival of Dave and Doug. There is at present
no way of finding out who is behind the disinformation campaign but it is
certainly being seen to happen.The newspaper "Today" has now produced two
    gents in the 60's who claim to have been creating crop circles for the last
13 years.They can obviously only fool a few people with these claims as even
if all crop circles were hoaxes two people of any age would not be able to     
create formations all over the English countryside let alone the world.
The assertation by the Today newspaper, famous for quoting that the 1990 
pictogram at Alton Barnes was a Sumarian warning to double your wells as 
there was going to be a drought,(could have been mistaken for oil wells 
in the Gulf that needed the warning), that this explains the crop circle
phenomenon is absurd.
 
The scam relied largely on catching one of the leading Circles experts in
a trap which was carefully laid for him. This was undertaken by a informing
Pat Delgado that a strange crop circle formation had appeared in a field in
Sevenoaks, Kent, England, the paper said they believed it to be a hoax and
that the farmer also was sure it was a hoax. They asked if Pat D would give
a professional opinion.
 
Pat Delgado agreed and travelled to Ightham near Sevenoaks and was taken to
see the formation which, to his amazement, was an "insectogram" formation
closely resembling the ones in the Hampshire in June and July of this year.
All the features were present of the usual "insectogram" although imperfect
but Pat D gave his unqualified blessing which was recorded on tape and he 
was filmed in the formation by a camera crew in a helicopter. The trap had
closed in on him.
 
The Today newspaper then waited until Sunday before bringing two alleged
hoaxers, Dave and Doug to Pat Delgado's house.There they confronted him    
with a film taken of the two hoaxers making the formation in Kent that
Pat D had said was genuine.They claimed to have been faking circles for 
13 years near Winchester and so on..Pat Delgado had to then make any 
concessions that the Today newspaper demended of him. It is interesting
to find that at a later stage of the confrontation Colin Andrews appeared
and fought back by cross-questioning Doug and Dave. He soon found that
they were unable to answer many questions and their minders withdrew them 
before their case was badly damaged.
 
Obviously at the stage the irreparable damage had been done to Pat Delgado's
reputation but nevertheless no concrete evidence had been presented that
Dave and Doug had faked any other known circle or pictogram apart from the
bogus one at Kent which has been conveniently removed in the meantime by
harvesting. The two appeared on TV on Monday to demonstrate to the press 
and the TV how they create such a formation in a wheatfield in Chilgrove,
Sussex.The dumb-bell formation which they produced was a pathetic mess and
could be clearly seen on TV as such although the two hoaxers complained
that was due to over-ripe wheat.
 
The story in the Today Newspaper originated from a shadowy outfit called
"MBF Services" who suplied the story to Today and have doubtlessly paid
Dave and Doug, also indemnifying them against all lawsuits and claims  
of criminal damage from Hampshire farmers.
MBF Services have been tracked down to an accomodation address in 
Shepton Mallet near Bristol, England and are registered clients of an 
expensive up-market firm of accountants, Barclay Jackson. All attempts
to identify the people behind MBF Services have failed and the Today will
either side-step or remain silent. The firm of accountants describe their
clients as a "scientific research and development" company but obviously
what or whoever is behind this front has a great deal of financial backing.
Undoubtedly this is infact a well organised and long planned attempt to
rubbish the crop circle phenomenon and may even turn out to be 
government-inspired but when the 1992 season brings its new crop then
this fiasco will end.
 
I have personally met both Dave and Doug about 2 years ago at the site of
of a formation near Winchester. Dave is retired and has a hobby of recording
bird songs on a portable tape machine. He told me,whilst at the side of the A272
main road that passes by Cheesefoot Head Winchester,that he had been
wandering through some crop fields recording bird songs back in the 1970's
when he came across a flattened swirled area of corn. A bit amazed he 
wandered around the formation trying to ascertain what it was and unknowingly
left his tape recording. Basically when he played back the tape after he had
been in the crop circle he heard voices on a tape which was a brand new tape
previously, the voices were not heard whilst he was alone in the formation
but nevertheless he claimed he recognised the voices as a converstion he had 
had 30 years previously. I am not sure how he knows this or even if I believe
what he told me but it kinda shows he did not hoax crop circles back then
and was very enthusiastic about the crop circle we were by at the time and
could offer no explaination of how it had been created.
 
Doug was the more genial of the two he said at the time, back in 1990,
that he "could just imagine them [UFO's] darting between two clouds", that
were at the time directly over Winchester, "and creating a crop circle"
The day was very overcast and the clouds were the dark grey variety we get
quite a bit in the UK but there was a bright gap between two of these.
He definatley gave me the impression he was interested in UFO's and the
like and said to have taken photographs of crop circles (plain circles)
back as far as tha mid 70's but I never saw any of these.
 
One thing that really struck me is that they were not very pleased with
either Pat Delgado or Colin Andrews as they believe they (PD and CA) had
not given Don Tuesley, one of the original crop circle researchers, any	
thanks for his help in the then current book "Circular Evidence". Dave
and Doug believed that the fame had gone to both Pat Delgado's and Colin 
Andrews heads and that they did not give anyone else any credit for help
they received. I know both Pat Delgado and Colin Andrews and totally
disagree that this is the case as they go out of their way to credit any
photos or information received from anyone. I have had the privilege of 
having a mention in their book "Crop Circles- The latest Evidence" for 
finding the first pictogram, although Pat D seems to call me Bob and adds
an extra L. I am not alone in being credited with information or photos
as one can see in their books.
 
Sorry to waffle a bit but my opinion is that Dave and Doug are off their
trolley and I do not believe all crop circles are hoaxes by "D+D hoaxes"
or not. There is a genuine phenomenon and it is not a vortex, note that
D+D never claimed to have created any formations in Wiltshire. 
PS. If you see a grey Nissan Sunny by the side of a field with two gents
in their 60's in it thats Dave and Doug hoaxers extraordinaire.
 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                          DISCLAIMER:                              |
| The views expressed in this document are not a corporate view     |
| nor reflect the views of my employer by any means but are my      |
| own personal views on this subject .                              |
|                                                                   |
| Robert Trevelyan			UKnet: [email protected] |
| AIX Communications 			VNET: TREVELR at BASVM2     |
| 					Voice: +44-(0)256-56144     |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

Re .326

 "Thanks, I knew which was which but without going into details, I just
  wanted to remind people that there are fully accepted scientific models
  of "undefined reality" [for want of a better term]."

Well, I don't know about "fully accepted."  Also, the zone of undefined 
reality in question is strictly limited.  The idea is that certain physical 
qualities do not have definite values until they are observed.  When observed, 
they assume some particular value (while some other quality becomes even more 
indefinite in balance).  However, the value they do assume is held to be quite 
real, the same for everyone, and the mathematical function giving the 
probability of assuming a given value is held to be quite objective.

Uncompromising, objective reality seems to be very hard to get rid of.  I 
notice that even Mr. Ward has developed a system of doctrines concerning the 
development and relationships of personal realities; presumably he holds this 
system to be true and real.

This view is called the "Copenhagen Interpretation" of quantum mechanics, 
after the home town of Niels Bohr, the man who invented and championed it.  
There are moderate and radical versions of the Copenhagen Interpretation.  
There are also competitors, including the Hidden Variable Interpretation and 
the Many Worlds Interpretation.

For a good discussion of the metaphysical side of quantum mechanics, I 
recommend "Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics" by Nick Herbert,
Doubleday, about $10.00.  The book is scientifically accurate without
requiring mathematical effort.  See topic 221 of the ATSE::Philosophy
conference for a review.

I'm glad to see some actual discussion going on under this topic, instead of 
(or at least in addition to) the slanging match that preceded it.  

Earl Wajenberg

    One point that I would like to clear up. I never said that reality
    could not be altered by physical means. I, by typing this alter it
    slightly. However if I just thought about typing this, or dreamed about
    it, then reality would not be altered at all.

    Physical actions can and do alter reality, abstract thoughts, do not.

    Jamie.

COMICS::BELL 
    

>> The concept of reality created by consciousness is itself a part of reality.
>> Hence by creating or modifying this portion of the whole, consciousness     
>> creates and modifies the totality.  Since reality is a continuous process   
>> and not a static object, this act of creation is ongoing.                   
>
>  Hence reality is the ultimate in turbulent flow ?  As the result after a
>  specific time period cannot be defined without knowing the complete set
>  of initial conditions, and as the finer details of those conditions are
>  undefined until observed, then this could explain the unpredictability of
>  conscious life ... I always knew there was a reason for all this chaos ...

    Yes, Frank... it also explains the *predictability* of conscious life.
    
    Define the initial conditions yourself... as an observer of the Whole
    process.
    
    Jamie speaks of gravity... gravity *isn't* human reality, it's earth
    reality... which overlaps into ours.  
    
    Altering earth reality is more difficult than altering human reality 
    ... and it requires that element that no one has mentioned yet in order 
    to manifest.... time.
    
    mary

Note 1392.339                     
HOO78C::ANDERSON 
    
>    Physical actions can and do alter reality, abstract thoughts, do not.

     You are wrong, Jamie.

    
    >abstract thoughts, do not.
    
    Jamie, I can't agree with this.  I can 'sense' love and hate from
    others consciously when in the same physical space, even though 
    they try to pretend or cover it up with their outward behavior. 
    Animals can sense this too.
    
    All people can sense this actually, albeit at a completely unconscious
    or subconscious level.  It does affect the physical reality directly,
    particularly it affects the person who is the recipient of the love or
    hate.  It shows up in the body.
    
    Cindy

    >Physical actions can and do alter reality, abstract thoughts, do not.
    
    Ah but...Jamie...give us some time..we're working on it! We're still
    attempting to move beer glasses around the table by "thought
    energy"...have not quite worked up to trains yet ;-)
    
    -Brian

    re: Brian
    
    You have unreal expectations... thats not the way reality works...
    you seek phenominon like in a Hollywood movie.... the real thing is
    much less dramatic but far more exciting.
      
    If you want to alter something, you don't work with the present... you
    work with the future.
    
    Why not develop some kind of a test ... an experiment... just for fun?
    
    Got any ideas?

    
    And Brian... you don't flaunt the Strange Attractors if you want it to
    work... you confine your work within them.
    
    Gravity is a Strange Attractor for Earth reality..
    
    You see... there are 'rules' to magick too.

    re .42
    
    I totally agree with Cindy!
    
    Every thought is energy and influences reality.
    How could the concept of 'positive thinking' work otherwise?
    
    Karin

Jamie,

I understand your view of reality, of course.  It's the one taught
in schools and it's very hard, try as one might, to escape without 
being beaten about the head with the One True Reality. I even believe in
almost all of it, and think it's fine as far as it goes.  The problem 
I have with it is that, while claiming ownership to logic,
it never admits that there are limits to logic.

All the natural laws you talk about make sense but they are 
the easy ones.  There's a nice logical flow to scientific 
descriptions of the origins of the universe, the earth, humanity,
whatever.  But they never go back far enough.  They never attempt
to explain how that first molecule of matter came into being.  Did
it come out of nothingness?  Logically, something can't come out of
nothing.  Did it just always exist?  Logically, something can't 
always have existed.

Because I've never had these questions adequately explained to me, I
continue to believe there are limits on logic, and that reality is
more than physics.

Sue

    It seems pretty obvious that thoughts and consciousness directly influence 
    material reality.  How else could we ever move our fingers to type ?
    
    Oh no, foiled by the deadly mind/body dichotomy again !
    
    		:-)
    
    								todd

    try an experiment if you want more proof...   what do you want to do?

Re .339 et seq.

As Todd points out in .348, somewhere along the line abstract thought DOES 
affect physical reality, even if it is only to give rise to motor impulses 
coming out of the brain.  (Unless you want to be a strict epiphenomenalist, 
which is almost as weird a thing to be as a strict solipcist, strict skeptic, 
or most other extreem positions.)

On the other hand, this is hardly in the same class as deciding whether or not 
to be human, be born, be subject to gravity, find the tree upright/fallen, and 
the other sorts of arbitrary world-choosing that seems to be part of the
you-create-your-own-reality (YCYOR) package.

I detect a tendency in this argument to polarize the available positions into 
"YCYOR" vs. "no-you-don't."  People may assume that if they can gouge a chink
in one position, the only alternative is the opposite position.  That could
waste a lot of keystrokes.  What we have hear is a scale, which might be
described as running from rigorous to psychotic, rigid to whimsical, or 
psychicially poor to psychically rich, depending on personal conviction.  It 
runs approximately: 

	Epiphenomenalism
	Mind as Software / Standard Materialism
	Mind as Software plus Psi (via unknown physical effects)
	Mind-Body Dualism, no Psi
	Mind-Body Dualism plus Psi (via extended mental effects)
	Astral Worldview (souls, spirits, etc. & matter too)
	Idealism (souls, spirits, etc., but matter is an illusion)
	YCYOR (objective truth is illusory, but not subjective truth)
	Solipcism (there is only experience and, perhaps, the subject)

Just because one party punches a hole in some remark or argument for YCYOR, it
doesn't follow the only alternative is, say, standard materialism. Just
because another party scores a point against materialism, it doesn't follow
that the only alternative is, say, YCYOR. 

The job is much harder than that.

Earl Wajenberg    

  Re .337 (Carole)

  Thanks for putting that one in ... intriguing nest-ce pas ?

  Re .338 (Earl)

>> "Thanks, I knew which was which but without going into details, I just       
>>  wanted to remind people that there are fully accepted scientific models     
>>  of "undefined reality" [for want of a better term]."                        
>       ^^^^^^^^^
> Well, I don't know about "fully accepted."  Also, the zone of undefined       
> reality in question is strictly limited.  The idea is that certain physical   
> qualities do not have definite values until they are observed. 
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  Not possessing a definite value equates pretty well with undefined in my
  book ... please note that at no time did I dispute the fact that the final
  observed state in the above was 100% real.  The point is that until that
  observation is made, there is NO absolute state from the range of possible
  states that can be associated with the object, regardless of the calculated
  probabilities involved in each of the options. [ Was the comment about being
  "fully accepted" serious or did I miss a smiley somewhere ? ]

  Re .340 (Mary)

> Define the initial conditions yourself... as an observer of the Whole
> process.

  I beg to differ : I am not an observer of the *whole* process any more than
  a met office balloon in London is an observer of the influences further
  afield (eg., in the mid Atlantic). I can observe the local cause & effect
  and draw certain conclusions (or predictions of the immediate future) but
  when the chaotic nature of a phenomenon overrides the ordered nature, the
  influence of events well beyond my sphere of observation overrides that of
  the local events.

  Frank

    re: .350 (Earl-y bird-y)
    
         Well, my view is not necessarily expressed in you "synopsis" of
    possibilities.  I believe in YCYOR, but that view also includes making
    my own being illusionary, as well.  I also *accept* (though do not
    yet have an understanding) that YCYOR is also simply another belief,
    which though WORKS, like all beliefs will eventually be replaced by
    a greater truth.  (Bottom line: All beliefs are ultimately false.)
    And though I also believe in being all that is (solipscistically,
    if you will) I also paradoxically believe that there is more of me
    than just me, although it is *a* me (so-to-speak.)  So, your labels
    don't quite fit my particular stance.
        
         AS for the crop circles, maybe they'll appear in the snow,
    sans prints!
    
    Frederick
    

COMICS::BELL 
    

>  I beg to differ : I am not an observer of the *whole* process any more than
>  a met office balloon in London is an observer of the influences further
>  afield (eg., in the mid Atlantic). I can observe the local cause & effect
>  and draw certain conclusions (or predictions of the immediate future) but
>  when the chaotic nature of a phenomenon overrides the ordered nature, the
>  influence of events well beyond my sphere of observation overrides that of
>  the local events.

    I don't understand, Frank.  ... why must you confine yourself to
    your physical sphere of observation of local events?  Why can't you
    observe the patterns in the chaotic nature of phenomenon influencing
    events well beyond your sphere of observation?  It's the same principle
    basically, isn't it?  
    
    Do you see patterns in the collective order of chaotic activity?
    

MISERY::WARD_FR 
    
>         AS for the crop circles, maybe they'll appear in the snow,
>    sans prints!
    
    They already have, Frederick... in Russia.. they will continue too..

Re .351

No smiley was intended.  The Copenhagen Interpretation is the most popular 
interpretation of quantum mechanics, but it is not the only one.  The
Hidden Variable interpretation still has some adherents, Roger Penrose has
one of his own that certainly isn't Copenhagenist, and Everet's Many Worlds 
Interpretation was, at least for a time, popular and included John Wheeler as 
an advocate.

Re .352

I said "roughly."  My list was intended to illustrate the range over which
this argument is going on, by picking out some of the popular positions in
that range.  It wasn't intended to be a comprehensive classification.  For 
that matter, I'm sure one could spread it out into several more dimensions
if desired; pure skepticism, for instance, doesn't fit well anywhere on it.

Earl Wajenberg

    Someone come up with an experiment for demonstration purposes 
    and we'll give it a shot...  
    
    	..... if you want to that is... 

    Re .356
    Mickey Mouse and Kilroy come to mind as likely test patterns.
    ESW

    Are you talking about crop symbols now?  
    
    I don't know what Kilroy looks like... we could try Mickey but they'll
    call it a hoax for sure... but then... they will anyway so what the
    heck... lets give it a shot..
    
    	Jarrick... remember Mickey?  ... two round eyes, a round nose, big
    round ears and a big smile...  do Mickey please, Jarrick...

    re: (Mary)
    
    With all these notes flying around I missed just what it is you
    wish to demonstrate via experiment.  So... what did you have
    in mind?  We have at least one expert here in such protocol,
    and we might be able to get some professional help.
    
    re: (general)
    
    Actually, I thought CYOR fell into the category of sophistry,
    in the true sense.  As in: if you can create reality, you can
    create a reality in which no one else can create reality, but
    must "use" yours.
    
    Joel
    

    re: .359 (Joel)
    
          There are complications (or, preferably, intricacies) to 
    creating your own reality.  The first and most important of which,
    from a human standpoint, is the negative ego.  In order to have
    dominion in physicality, one must first have the ego properly
    "harnessed."  Otherwise, one must resort to domination, which will
    *not* result in dominion.
         
    Frederick
    

    re: .360 (Frederick)
    
    Well, if by "negative ego" you mean "being a meanie" I suppose
    we all fall into that category at one time or another...
    
    But suppose, having properly harnessed my ego and having done
    whatever it is I need to do, I then create my own reality.
    Part of which is that *you* can not create your own reality.
    
    You see the logical and (perhaps) recursive problems with
    this, do you not?
    
    Joel
    

    Re .341

    >Jamie speaks of gravity... gravity *isn't* human reality, it's earth
    >reality... which overlaps into ours.  
     
    Sorry Mary but you are wrong here. Gravity affects everything in the
    universe. You and I have gravity fields just like the earth. As we are
    much smaller than the earth and have proportionally less mass our
    gravity fields are very weak, but they are there.

    However my point was, no matter how you try to get round it gravity
    affects you in exactly the same way as it does everyone else on this
    planet. There is no way that you can alter it, it is part of reality.

    Re .341

     >>Physical actions can and do alter reality, abstract thoughts, do not.

     >You are wrong, Jamie.

    No Mary, I am right.

    Re .342          
    
    >Jamie, I can't agree with this.  I can 'sense' love and hate from
    >others consciously when in the same physical space, even though 
    >they try to pretend or cover it up with their outward behavior. 
    >Animals can sense this too.
      
    That, Cindy, is called reading body language. People subconsciously
    make certain movements or facial expressions that you, equally
    subconsciously, interpret. It is not a purely mental thing they make
    physical movements. Animals are very good at reading body language as
    it is for them major means of communication.
                                                
    Re .343
    
    >Ah but...Jamie...give us some time..we're working on it! We're still
    >attempting to move beer glasses around the table by "thought
    >energy"...have not quite worked up to trains yet ;-)
    
    Were they full or empty at the time?

    Jamie.

  Re .353 (Mary)

> I don't understand, Frank.  ... why must you confine yourself to       
> your physical sphere of observation of local events?  Why can't you    
> observe the patterns in the chaotic nature of phenomenon influencing   
> events well beyond your sphere of observation?  It's the same principle
> basically, isn't it?                                                   

  Yes, I can observe patterns but, as they are results of previous operations,
  that is not the same as observing the initial conditions. [ I'm not having a
  go at your view, just explaining that I see it differently ]. Given the exact
  starting environment, the result will be the same as the previous pass so in
  that aspect the result is 'predictable' but if the starting environment is
  ever so slightly different then the results are 'unpredictable'. This means
  that a very slight grey area - lack of precise information - can completely
  blow any attempt at prediction ... it *might* be the same but it *might* be
  wildly different - the point is that it can't be defined with any degree of
  certainty. 

> Do you see patterns in the collective order of chaotic activity?    

  I see patterns in most areas of my life, in the subjects I study, in the job
  I do and in my interests (especially music, nature and art) so, in answer to
  your question, yes, I do. What I have to keep in mind is that most of the
  time (ie., unless I'm actually creating something myself) the patterns being
  viewed were laid down by someone/something at an earlier time and I am
  looking at the developing or final pattern, not the initial structure.
 
  Re .355 (Earl)

> No smiley was intended.  The Copenhagen Interpretation is the most popular   
> interpretation of quantum mechanics, but it is not the only one.

  OK, my ignorance : I've heard of the Many Worlds interpretation but I'm not
  sure about the others - a pointer to summaries of them (eg., in the physics
  conference ?) would be nice if you have one please ?

  Frank

    Re .364 (requested pointer)
    
    See ATSE::Philosophy, 221.1, for a summary of the various positions on
    quantum interpretation from Nick Herbert's book "Quantum Reality."
    
    See also note 254.1 in the same conference, for a discussion of Roger
    Penrose's own theory or speculation on quantum interpretation, from his
    recent book, "The Emperor's New Mind."
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    re: .364,.365,
    	I also enjoyed John Casti's presentation of the various interpretations
    	in his 'Paradigms Lost.'  His contribution is a unique courtroom
    	style presentation of arguments and counterarguments for the
    	various interpretations, and then a summary and analysis of 	
    	evidence, piece by piece, in a very easily understood manner.
    	He makes a clear attempt to point out where his own bias is
    	entered into the interpretation.  He does this not only for
    	Quantum Mechanic models, but also various other 'big questions.'
    
    							todd

Note 1392.359                     
RIPPLE::GRANT_JO 
    
>    With all these notes flying around I missed just what it is you
>    wish to demonstrate via experiment.  So... what did you have
>    in mind?  We have at least one expert here in such protocol,
>    and we might be able to get some professional help.
    
    How we can affect reality with our minds.
    
Note 1392.363                     
HOO78C::ANDERSON 

>    Sorry Mary but you are wrong here. Gravity affects everything in the
>    universe. You and I have gravity fields just like the earth. As we are
>    much smaller than the earth and have proportionally less mass our
>    gravity fields are very weak, but they are there.

    Well .. it's a Strange Attractor but it's associated with the physical
    not the mind.
    
>    However my point was, no matter how you try to get round it gravity
>    affects you in exactly the same way as it does everyone else on this
>    planet. There is no way that you can alter it, it is part of reality.

    To me, Jamie... that only means that it's a Strange Attractor... so
    don't try to get around gravity... get around something else..
    something that works.

>    No Mary, I am right.

    No Jamie... you are wrong.. I've proved it before and I will again.. to
    myself if no one else.
    
    Note 1392.364                     
    COMICS::BELL 
    
>   -< Seeing patterns is different from understanding them >-
  
     It's a beginning.
    
>  Yes, I can observe patterns but, as they are results of previous operations,
> that is not the same as observing the initial conditions. [ I'm not having a
>  go at your view, just explaining that I see it differently ]. Given the exact
>  starting environment, the result will be the same as the previous pass so in
>  that aspect the result is 'predictable' but if the starting environment is
>  ever so slightly different then the results are 'unpredictable'. This means
>  that a very slight grey area - lack of precise information - can completely
>  blow any attempt at prediction ... it *might* be the same but it *might* be
>  wildly different - the point is that it can't be defined with any degree of
>  certainty. 

    Why can't you influence it by your observation?  Why can't you
    determine which initial conditions will cause the desired result?
    
>  I see patterns in most areas of my life, in the subjects I study, in the job
>  I do and in my interests (especially music, nature and art) so, in answer to
>  your question, yes, I do. What I have to keep in mind is that most of the
>  time (ie., unless I'm actually creating something myself) the patterns being
>  viewed were laid down by someone/something at an earlier time and I am
>  looking at the developing or final pattern, not the initial structure.
    
But it's all connected, Frank... isn't it?  I mean where does the initial
    structure begin and the final pattern end?  Time... as used in that
    sense... might as well not exist (for all intents and purposes).  Why
    can't your observation by the one that guides the course of reality?
     
    Mary

    
    Re.363
    
    >body language
    
    Jamie, OK, I can agree partially with that.
    
    However I can also sense the 'vibes' in such a room with my eyes closed
    as well.  It isn't a 'mind' experience - it is experienced by me at the
    body level.  I can feel it.
    
    Last week while at Kripalu, my eyes were closed quite a bit during
    various meditations, and I could feel the energy shifts.  For example,
    when Gurudev did his posture flow, suddenly energy traveled up from my
    hands, through my arms and into my heart center.  
    
    Cindy

    Re .367

    >To me, Jamie... that only means that it's a Strange Attractor... so
    >don't try to get around gravity... get around something else..
    >something that works.
    
    Every piece of matter in the universe is attracted to every other piece
    of matter in the universe. This is called the force of Gravity. There
    is no need to make up your own words for it Mary, we already have one.
    This force acts on you and on me in the same manner, no matter if you
    think that you have your own version of reality or whether you think
    that you share the common one, gravity and all other natural laws work
    on you as they do others.

    >No Jamie... you are wrong.. I've proved it before and I will again.. to
    >myself if no one else.
    
    Alas Mary to prove something, you must be able to demonstrate it to
    others, otherwise it could be a delusion, or you could be lying.

    Jamie.

    re: .367 (Mary)
    
    I think we need to focus it a bit if we are to conduct
    an experiment.  Got anything *quite specific* in mind?
    
    Joel
    

    Bet she wriggles out of it again.
    
    Jamie.

    Jamie,
    
    If you have no logical explanation for the origin of the first
    molecule of matter, then might you not be willing to admit that
    some things exist that can not be logically explained?
    
    Sue

Note 1392.369                     
HOO78C::ANDERSON 
    
>    Every piece of matter in the universe is attracted to every other piece
>    of matter in the universe. 
    
     How do you know this?  You're just guessing, right? :-)  You couldn't
    possibly know this for sure.  Have you travelled the universe
    accumulating proof, Jamie?
    
    >This is called the force of Gravity. There
    >is no need to make up your own words for it Mary, we already have one.
    
    I apparently felt there was a need, Jamie or I wouldn't have done it.
    :-)  
    
    >This force acts on you and on me in the same manner, no matter if you
    >think that you have your own version of reality or whether you think
    >that you share the common one, gravity and all other natural laws work
    >on you as they do others.

    So what?  As I said... it's a Strange Attractor... what has that to do
    with anything?  Gravity isn't one of the things a magician seeks to
    change as a rule.  
    
>    Alas Mary to prove something, you must be able to demonstrate it to
>    others, otherwise it could be a delusion, or you could be lying.

    I have demonstrated it to others as a matter of fact.  
    
    You, however, may assume that I am deluded or lying ... because I don't 
    choose to prove anything to you... I don't like your attitude and I don't 
    particularly care what you think or what your opinion of me is.  

Perhaps a demonstration of telepathy would be a good experiment. If
someone who is competent at this could transmit the notion "telepathy
exists" or "don't enter that nasty reply" to Jamie or Joel, we might
make some progress here. This dialog has probably gone about as far as
words can take it.

    ...if not further.

    I'm not a telepath... perhaps one of the telepaths might be
    interested in responding... 

    re: .375, .376 (Mike and Earl)
    
    Hold on there gents, I haven't been transmitting any "nasty"
    replies at all.
    
    Don't forget, it was Mary who suggested an experiment!
    
    Joel
    

Sorry, Joel, I didn't mean to accuse you, but I think you'll agree that
there have been a number of critical remarks made by *many* people in
this dialog. Maybe not "nasty" in the eyes of the writer, but certainly
not complimentary in the opinion of the reader.

But my point wasn't to claim that you've made such statements, but
rather to suggest a particular experiment which could be performed by a
competent individual. It's likely that at some future point in this
discussion, you would be preparing to enter a debating sort of reply,
and at that point, the experimenter could "do his thing" and suggest
that you not enter it. You would "get the message" and have an
opportunity to consider whether it was a telepathic transmission. Of
course you could never be sure, but that's the nature of these phenomena.

Well, let's do a "macic circle" experiment.

Remember those "smiley faces" so ppular in the late '70s?

Let's do the following:

Two circles: one "smiley face" one "frowney face."  The circles would lie
next to each other in an East-West line.  As viewed from above, with the faces
upright, the "frowney face" would be to the left of the "smiley face."

Let's see if it can appear within a week.  The surrounding circles should
not be less than 20 feet across; the eyes and mouth proportional to the
circle.

Simple/universal enough?

Steve Kallis, Jr

    OK Mike, I guess I see your point.
    
    It would seem to me, though, that the "success" of such a
    set-up would depend upon a.) rather subjective criteria,
    and b.) someone's  ...frankness... in reporting results.
    
    If I, for instance, were part of the experiment, you would
    just have to trust me.  Sort of like if I wrote down, say,
    a nine digit number and asked someone to "see" the number.
    Would I tell the truth if they scored a hit?
    
    More generally, I am not sure that such a construction would
    qualify as a valid experiment.  As to how you would set something
    like this up, well, as I suggested, it would take an expert.
    
    Any experts out there willing to share some ideas?  
    
    Joel
    

    re: .380 (Steve)
    
    Notes collision.  Sounds like a valid approach.
    
    What I really need, though, are some advanced NFL scores
    as I am about to place my weekly $5 wager with my office
    football buddy...   ;^)
    
    Joel
    

Re Joel:

> It would seem to me, though, that the "success" of such a
> set-up would depend upon a.) rather subjective criteria,
> and b.) someone's  ...frankness... in reporting results.

Quite so!!! And yet the importance of frankness in reporting results is
only of importance if bystanders are to draw any conclusions. From the
point of view of the receiver of the transmission, though (the person
on whose frankness the bystanders must depend), *that* person *knows
what actually happened*. For that person, the experiment may meet all
the criteria of a rigorous scientific experiment.

> If I, for instance, were part of the experiment, you would
> just have to trust me.

Yes, indeed, I would have to trust you, assuming I'm interested in the
outcome of this particular experiment. What's more important is that
*you* would have to trust you. I assume that you know how to do that.

    I am willing to help anyone who wants to to design a rigorous
    experiment.  Its a little unclear just what is desired to be proven,
    however.  That people can influence reality through means not accepted
    by conventional science (e.g., not by musclar action or bodily
    secretions)?

    Crop circles are out -- I understand that the grain harvest is in, in
    the area where they are wont to appear.

					Topher

By the way, experiments like the one Steve suggested are much more
difficult to conduct. Any time you need to alter/create reality for a
large number of consciousnesses, the task is very difficult. The
experiment I suggested is on a much smaller, more manageable scale, as
it involves altering reality for a single (or small number of)
consciousnesses. It suffers the small weakness that being conducted on
such a small scale, it runs the risk of being dismissed as "too
subjective" (except, of course, in the perception of the direct participants).

    re: (Mike)
    
    Good points.
    
    re: (Topher)
    
    Well, just the expert I hoped would volunteer.
    
    And I agree, Topher, what we are trying to test is still
    rather undefined.
    
    Ideas, anyone? 
    
    Joel
    

Simple. We're trying to test one of the central issues of this
conference: do the phenomena which are the subject of this conference
exist? Can they be demonstrated? These are phenomena which, if they
exist, are unexplained by current physical models of the universe (and
may even be contradictory with these models). That is, in essence,
their definition.

Note 1392.380                     
5848::KALLIS 
    
    Steve, what is the purpose of the level of detail in your suggestion?
    Why not just propose the smiley face and frowney face... what
    difference does it make what position they are in or how many feet 
    across?  Adding that level of detail will only screw things up.
    
Note 1392.384                     
CADSYS::COOPER 

>    Crop circles are out -- I understand that the grain harvest is in, in
>    the area where they are wont to appear.

     Well, Topher... crop circles have shown up in many countries all over
    the world and in snow as well.  Why don't we just select another
    country?
    
Note 1392.385                     
ENABLE::glantz 
    
>By the way, experiments like the one Steve suggested are much more
>difficult to conduct. Any time you need to alter/create reality for a
>large number of consciousnesses, the task is very difficult. 
    
    Why?  Whats the difference?  On that level of reality, there shouldn't
    be a difference... one would think anyway.
    
    >The experiment I suggested is on a much smaller, more manageable scale, 
    >as it involves altering reality for a single (or small number of)
>consciousnesses. It suffers the small weakness that being conducted on
>such a small scale, it runs the risk of being dismissed as "too
>subjective" (except, of course, in the perception of the direct participants).
    
    Its also impossible to prove.  The target would be "aware" and
    consequently expecting it or blocking it.  It doesn't seem (in my
    opinion) to be a viable experiment as I don't see how it could prove 
    anything.

    re .387
    
    yes.. that's what we're doing... an honorable 'intent'...

Re .388 (Mary):

    >Steve, what is the purpose of the level of detail in your suggestion?
    >Why not just propose the smiley face and frowney face... what
    >difference does it make what position they are in or how many feet 
    >across?  Adding that level of detail will only screw things up.

Because I believe that the level of detail helps establish the experiment's
_bona fides_.  If we keep the definition loose enough, then something could
be force-fit into the solution.  I used a smiley face (and its complement)
because these are extremely well known, use very few elements, and have
been seen worldwide (hence have become multicultural).

I wanted to keep this as open as possible.  I could have suggested something
equivalently simple, but far more esoteric -- say, the sign of the spirit
(demon) Buer, from the _Lemegeton Solomonis_, but the only one who would be
likely to recognize the pattern would be an occultist.  By using a near-
universal symbol, the demonstration would be obvious to many.  I mean, there
are _two_ whole generations that wouldn't recodnize the "Kilroy" pasttern
[For those who wonder: during World War II, the legend "Kilroy was here" 
was found scrawled on walls, various objects like cars and trucks, and the
like, often on the battlefield.  Right after the war, someone made a crude
design of a head and hands over a fence: the face was half-hidden, with
the nose hanging over the fence: this line drawing was positioned so the
"Kilroy was here" legend appeared to be scrawled on the fence.  For a generation
of U.S. citizens, the line drawing alone would be instantly recognizable; but
those who remember Kilroy are a diminishing breed.]

Part of the business is this: if there's any objectivity (or "concensus real-
ity") to the phenomena; and if the (or "a") mechanism is creation/implement-
ation solely by force of (possibly collective) will, then the experiment ought
to have some defining parameters.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

  By the way, Jamie's probably asleep, but where's Marcos?

    re: .361 (Joel)
    
          "Meanie" is a good, child-like definition of negative ego.
    I can accept that.  :-)
    
          To your question, I would say that you have *not* "properly
    harnessed" your negative ego if that would be the view of reality.
    Moreover, it would be virtually totally negative ego to be so
    self-centered as to suppose that "I am special enough" that *I*
    am the only one who can create my own reality.  It's the better
    than (or, similarly, the "worse than") ego that determines it to
    be negative.  
    
    re: Jamie
    
         I support Mary's contentions (if not the passion of them ;-) )
    to a certain degree.  But by way of clarification, perhaps it would
    be safe to assert that we (*ALL* things physical) "play" by certain
    "rules."  These rules consist in part the understanding that there 
    exist four physical forces (gravity, strong, weak and electromagnetic.) 
    It would take a great, great deal of BELIEF to overcome these forces.
    It would take bringing into physicality that which lies beyond
    physicality.  Can it be done?  Yes, I think so.  But I don't think 
    most of us have yet learned to have dominion *IN* physicality,
    let alone having anything remotely close to dominion beyond it. 
    And anyone who is "in negative ego" cannot and willnot and doesnot
    have dominion in physicality.  It is only in those rare moments when
    we might find ourselves *not* in negative ego that we might be
    experiencing that which goes beyond the physical.  No matter how
    much effort we make to lie to ourself, we cannot fool ourself.
    If we have a "hidden agenda" (which might be hidden from others)
    we are "in" negative ego.  We only fool ourselves when we think
    we have a truly hidden agenda.
    
    Frederick
     

    re: .392 (Frederick)
    
    I see what you're saying, but my point is not whether I or
    any particular individual has met whatever criteria are
    needed to be able to CYOR.  The point is that if such
    individuals exist they are, logically, able to create
    a reality in which no one else may create reality.
    
    And this wouldn't do.
    
    Joel
    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    True, Frederick... 
    
Note 1392.390
5848::KALLIS 
    
>Because I believe that the level of detail helps establish the experiment's
>_bona fides_.  If we keep the definition loose enough, then something could
>be force-fit into the solution.  I used a smiley face (and its complement)
>because these are extremely well known, use very few elements, and have
>been seen worldwide (hence have become multicultural).

    The smiley face and it's complement are ok, Steve but not all the
    numbers and east/west stuff. 
    
>Part of the business is this: if there's any objectivity (or "concensus real-
>ity") to the phenomena; and if the (or "a") mechanism is creation/implement-
>ation solely by force of (possibly collective) will, then the experiment ought
>to have some defining parameters.

    Yea, but Steve... having a smiley and frowney face show up somewhere is
    proof enough... what difference doesn it make how many feet they are
    from each other or what directional line they lie upon?  
    That is adding too much unneccessary and cumbersome detail... the
    magickian cannot be expected to focus upon trivia... just to do the
    job should be enough.... don't you think?  ... unless you work better
    in detail, of course... I don't though...

RE: .383 (Mike)

>For that person, the experiment may meet all the criteria of a rigorous
>scientific experiment.

    The experiment you proposed would not meet those criteria even for that
    person.  Misreporting would be eliminated but not any of the other
    sources of misattribution of the effect.  In this case, suggestion
    would be too overwhelming an alternative explanation.  Given the right
    circumstances most people will "hear" any desired voice inside their
    head saying any desired thing.  Almost by definition, that voice would
    be indistinguishable to that person from the "real thing" -- that's the
    way the mind works.  That person may well *believe* that something
    paranormal has occured, and they may even be right -- but that doesn't
    mean that their belief is logically or "scientifically" justified.

    Telepathy experiments are the hardest kind to do "right" -- which
    doesn't mean that they aren't the best choice.

    To do an experiment you *must* first decide exactly what you mean to
    test.  The general statement is too broad.  Here are some traditional
    more specific statements (which would still need further refinement):

	1) Information may be shared paranormally among groups of
	individuals (telepathy).

	2) Individuals may learn things paranormally about things remote
	from their location (clairvoyance).

	3) Individuals may learn things paranormally about things which
	have not yet occured (precognition).

        4) Individuals may paranormally influence the outcome of chance
        events, e.g., the fall of a die (micro-PK).

	5) Individuals may paranormally influence the movements or
	positions of deterministically moving or static objects (macro-PK).

	6) Individuals may paranormally influence the health/well-being
	of other living systems (paranormal healing/cursing).

					    Topher

Note 1392.394                     
RIPPLE::GRANT_JO 
    
>    I see what you're saying, but my point is not whether I or
>    any particular individual has met whatever criteria are
>    needed to be able to CYOR.  The point is that if such
>    individuals exist they are, logically, able to create
>    a reality in which no one else may create reality.
>    And this wouldn't do.
    
     Why not, Joel?
    
    There are levels of creation... just like there are levels of other
    skills.  I guess I don't understand what you are saying anyway...
    

Re .395 (Mary):

    >Yea, but Steve... having a smiley and frowney face show up somewhere is
    >proof enough... what difference doesn it make how many feet they are
    >from each other or what directional line they lie upon?  
    >That is adding too much unneccessary and cumbersome detail... the
    >magickian cannot be expected to focus upon trivia... just to do the
    >job should be enough.... don't you think?  ... unless you work better
    >in detail, of course... I don't though...

I guess it depends upon what you're trying to demonstrate with the experiment.
If your experiment is to prove to your own satisfaction that "you" (individually
or rhetorically) can create a smiley-face crop circle, then less rigor would
be fine.  If you're trying to demonstrate that to a wider "audience," then
it might not be enough.

In terms of "real magic" ("magick") -- if you wish to categorize induced crop
circles thus -- if there's one thing that nearly every trasdition states, it's 
that no part of the act, or its attendant details, can be trivial.  

But somehow I don't perceive crop circles in that light.

Lest we run a-haring down a humungous rathole (as a lot of thisd note/reply
chain has already done), let's keep this in perspective of a simple experiment.
Let's agree on what the "audience" for this experiment is.  

If it's numerous people, then the ambiguity quotient has to be very low.
If it's to satisfy either yourself, or a small number, then the ambiguity
quotient can be higher, just so long as it's low enough to satisfy you.

In that case, though, not everybody may agree you've had a successful demon-
stration.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re: .397 (Mary)
    
    Let's try it this way.
    
    Person A says: I can create my own reality.
    
    Person B says: So can I.  In fact, the reality I have created
    does not allow you to create reality.
    
    Now if you truly *can* create reality, Person B is able to 
    create a reality in which Person A cannot be correct in
    his/her statement.  If Person A so chose, Person B would not
    be allowed to create reality.  
    
    And yet each is convinced they can in fact create reality.
    
    Joel
    

   Re .372 


   > If you have no logical explanation for the origin of the first
   > molecule of matter, then might you not be willing to admit that
   > some things exist that can not be logically explained?
    
    Sue, I cannot really se the above as relevant in any way to the
    argument.

    Re .273

>    Every piece of matter in the universe is attracted to every other piece
>    of matter in the universe. 
    
   >  How do you know this?  You're just guessing, right? :-)  You couldn't
   > possibly know this for sure.  Have you travelled the universe
   > accumulating proof, Jamie?
    
    If every piece of matter in the universe was not attracted to every
    other piece then the solar system would not exits, you would not be
    attracted to the earth and life would not be possible.

    >This is called the force of Gravity. There
    >is no need to make up your own words for it Mary, we already have one.
    
    >I apparently felt there was a need, Jamie or I wouldn't have done it.
    >:-)  
    
    Why do you need to unnecessarily complicate things Mary. Do you think
    it impresses people that you have your very own words for things? Are
    you in some way incapable of using the terminology that the rest of us
    use. Gravity is after all not a very complicated thing for you to
    understand. 
    
    >Gravity isn't one of the things a magician seeks to change as a rule.  
    
    Happen as well, because no one, not even a magician can change it.

>>    Alas Mary to prove something, you must be able to demonstrate it to
>>    others, otherwise it could be a delusion, or you could be lying.

    >I have demonstrated it to others as a matter of fact.  
    
    Really? Well demonstrate it to us, if you can.

    Strange how when ever you are asked to demonstrate it here you find some
    oh so convenient excuse. I am of the opinion that you only think that you
    can do all these things, but in real life nothing happens.

    >You, however, may assume that I am deluded or lying ... because I don't 
    >choose to prove anything to you... I don't like your attitude and I don't 
    >particularly care what you think or what your opinion of me is.  

    And you Mary can make great claims to have powers. But as you yourself
    pointed out:

    1511 .85

    >Talk is cheap... actions speak louder than words... 'by their works,
    >shall thee know them'
    
    So far Mary we have had a heck of a lot of fancy talk from you, but
    absolutely no action. 

    Loads of excuses as to why you can't fulfill your grandiose claims,
    lashings of cheap double talk and plenty of nice confusing terminology,
    but not one single shred of evidence.

    Jamie.

RE:                     <<< Note 1392.345 by VERGA::STANLEY >>>

    
�    Gravity is a Strange Attractor for Earth reality..
    
    Mary, the above statement would appear to imply that you believe there
    to be more than one reality. Perhaps you would be kind enough to
    explain to me what these are, as I'm afraid I cannot for the life of me
    imagine just what "Earth reality" can be.
    
    I can see that perhaps you have labelled individual aspects of reality
    for some reason, but I fail to see how they can become distinct,
    individual, and separate realities.
    
    Laurie.

  Re .400 (Jamie)

> Gravity is after all not a very complicated thing for you to understand.

  Depends on the definition of "understand" : to appreciate that there is a
  "something" that has this effect is merely to acknowledge its existance,
  to be able to explain it accurately and definitively is to show that you
  understand it ... and the mechanism is still unknown so I doubt that any
  contributor to this conference could prove "understanding" of gravity
  rather than glorified acknowledgement of its effects !

  To be a little less pedantic, yes, I sometimes find it confusing when people
  use other terms in place of the familiar ones - especially when a 'substitute'
  already has an accepted use or meaning.

>> Gravity isn't one of the things a magician seeks to change as a rule.
>
> Happen as well, because no one, not even a magician can change it.

  Not wishing to rathole this rathole too far but does the above imply that
  *no* reports of levitation are to be believed or that maybe some are true
  but lacking an explanation other than "magic" ? :-)

  Frank

    Frank, aeroplanes fly through the air, but they still obey the law of
    gravity. Magicians can "levitate" but they too must obey the same.
    I for one find no complication in understanding the fact that gravity
    works, the actual mechanics at the level of individual atoms may still
    be a bit hazy however that in no way alters the way it works.

    Jamie.

Jamie,

	I believe that you have misinterpreted a term that Mary uses to
	be her own name for gravity. Is this what you are getting at?

	Mary's term Strange Attractor is not merely a weird name for gravity,
	but is a term relating to a completely different phenomenon.
	In Mary's view, gravity itself is an example of a Strange Attractor
	of a particular type. The term Strange Attractor initially comes
	from chaos theory, although I am not sure if Mary's use is a strict
	"by the book definition" usage - it is just a convenient term for
	her to use to describe phenomena that she perceives (these too are
	related to the idea of chaos, and the subject matter here).

	(I hope that's alright, Mary)	:-)

	Perhaps somebody could suggest a pointer to an explanation of the
	chaos theory term, or give a brief explanation themselves, I am
	definitely unqualified for that job!

								- JIM CAD*

    But gravity is not the strange attractor. Mary was using the term to
    confuse rather than enlighten. 

    Jamie.

re: .400

Jamie,

You continually disparage other's beliefs by asking them
to prove them according to rules of logic.  By pointing out
that the first particle of matter makes no logical sense, I
was attempting to show that there might be more in
reality than can be logically explained.

Sue 

Note 1392.399                     
RIPPLE::GRANT_JO 
    
>    Now if you truly *can* create reality, Person B is able to 
>    create a reality in which Person A cannot be correct in
>    his/her statement.  If Person A so chose, Person B would not
>    be allowed to create reality.  
>    And yet each is convinced they can in fact create reality.
    
     Your example assumes that an *unchanging* condition can be established
    and maintained, Joel.... that is not the nature of reality.  Even if
    person A were sufficiently adept to establish the initial condition...
    some other equally adept person would ultimately come along and alter
    it.

    re: .399 (Joel)
    
          That's not unlike those who believe that they will pass
    through a tunnel of light, amongst dead relatives, etc. and will
    come to St. Peter and so on.
          The belief is/may be strong enough that *that* indeed will
    occur...but eventually that "illusion" will fade and a greater
    truth will emerge.  That is, that will be seen to be a "trick of
    light" complete with astral plane manifestations until the energy
    that it takes to accomplish that will have diminished.  That belief
    is simply not sustainable.
          So, too, will the individual who believes that they create
    their own reality and no one else does.  It is not supportable outside
    their own (negative) ego.  If that person uses any kind of rationale
    at all, THAT ISN'T SELF-SERVING (that doesn't come from a place of
    better than negative ego, in other words,) then they too can admit that
    it cannot be that way.
          If it were to be true that *I* am the sum total of all that 
    exists, then I would face complete isolation and desolation.  There
    are, however, paradoxical understandings that encompass both being
    alone and being with "others."  This does not eliminate the truth
    of being able to create one's own reality.  Since we are all the same,
    then, paradox or not, each of us must therefore *ALSO* be able to
    create their own reality.  And still, for each of us, every other one
    of us is still an "illusion."
    
    Frederick
     

Re .406 (Sue):

>You continually disparage other's beliefs by asking them
>to prove them according to rules of logic.  By pointing out
>that the first particle of matter makes no logical sense, I
>was attempting to show that there might be more in
>reality than can be logically explained.

_Any_  logical system is based on assumptions that are unprovable.  These are
considered either axioms ("self-evident truths") or postulates.  Here is something
that is logically correct (courtesy of the late John W. Campbell, Jr):

     All green things are explosive.
     All men are green.
     Therefore, all men are explosive.

From a logical standpoint, it is prefectly correct; however, neither the major
premise ("all green things are explosive") or the minor ("all men are green")
happens to be correct.

The first particle of matter makes no logical sense; it shouldn't have to.  
However, after noting its existence (i.e., "Given: that there is a particle
of matter"), then a logical picture can be drawn up from its subsequent
behavior.

Re .407 (Mary):

    > Your example assumes that an *unchanging* condition can be established
    >and maintained, Joel.... that is not the nature of reality.  Even if
    >person A were sufficiently adept to establish the initial condition...
    >some other equally adept person would ultimately come along and alter
    >it.

But Joel's point is still arguable.  Given: there's an A who can create a 
reality where nobody, including A him- or herself, can create a different
reality, _ever_.  Then what?

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Then we name Person A God and worship Him, I guess. :-) 

  
  Re .403 (Jamie)
  
  > aeroplanes fly through the air, but they still obey the law of gravity.
  
  Yes but they fly thanks to the 'laws' of aerodynamics. If you didn't know
  about fluid flow then it would appear that not only did the plane overcome
  or sidestep the law of gravity by actually staying aloft but it also managed
  to move around too - hey, no strings ! The idea that the two actions may be
  connected isn't obvious to someone who "knows" that a lump of metal will
  fall to the ground due to the effects of gravity but who has never seen a
  shaped foil exhibit lift.
  
  > Magicians can "levitate" but they too must obey the same [law of gravity]
  
  OK so now we come back to the difference between reporting an effect and
  understanding it. If an object is levitating then there is a force that is
  counter-acting gravity : this force could be expressed as a positive value
  in the opposite direction to that which gravity is acting or a negative
  value in the same direction. The former ["something pushing it up"] is
  assumed by most people as we have no theoretical grounding to support the
  latter ["reduced gravity"] as a possibility.
  
  > I for one find no complication in understanding the fact that gravity 
  > works, the actual mechanics at the level of individual atoms may still
  > be a bit hazy however that in no way alters the way it works.         
  
  You have no problem in *acknowledging* the fact that gravity works. You
  [ and me and most people ] have problems in *understanding* *how* it works
  but that in no way alters the way it works in our everyday examples.
  
  Frank

    Re: .407-.409 and points west...
    
    Working on from Steve's note:
    
    When I (and apparently a lot of other people) hear the claim "you
    create your own reality," it sounds like a claim for multiple copies of
    omnipotence, which sounds (1) bizarre, and (2) self-inconsistent.
    But I notice that, in the replies to Joel's hypothetical examples,
    we find "rules" for "creating your own reality," rules relating to
    development of the personality, overcoming negative ego, the subsequent
    edits of other reality-creators, the difficulty of sustaining the
    effort, etc.
    
    All these conditions and features on reality-making  bring the whole
    claim "you create your own reality" back within the realms of finitude,
    but also make the claim much less clear.  How does it differ from
    "you contribute to reality" or "some of reality is your own doing"?
    I, at least, always took that to be the standard view of things.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    re: .412 (Earl-y and earier points East)
    
         Because, Earl, there is *DEPTH* to "You create your own
    reality."  It requires understanding about what this means.
    It means: (a.) that you create reality by consciously "doing"
                   it.
       and/or (b.) that you create reality by consciously/sub-consciously/
                   or unconsiously "ALLOWING" it.
    
          Unfortunately, most of us fall into category (b.) above. 
    Nontheless, it is *our* reality, created entirely by oneself (and
    components therein.)  This includes events, things animate and 
    inanimate and all other things within our universe.  That you 
    cannot understand or be in touch with all parts of your sub-conscious
    mind or your unconscious mind does not mean that it isn't within
    your realm of "responsibility."
    
    
    Frederick, from points west...
    
    

re. .409
    
Steve,

Sorry, I don't understand how quoting something with two faulty
premises says anything about logic, other than that the statement
is incorrect.

The only point I am trying to make is that logic is limited.  
The fact is that matter exists and yet our minds reel trying to 
logically understand its origin.  You can make as many systems
as you want, based on as many axioms, and that fact will still
be true.  Given the basic unknowableness of our existence, I
think limiting any definition of reality to the standards of
logic used in western science is absurd.

Sue

The standards of scientific logic I'm most familiar with are medical.
In order for a medical theory to be accepted by the medical community
at large there are generally three requirements.  First, the empirical
evidence for your theory; next, good scientific reasons why you think
your theory is correct; finally, verifiable predictions based on this
theory.  This is fine for a science like medicine, but isn't it a 
liitle odd to say that any beliefs that cannot meet these requirements are,
ipso facto, unreal?

Sue

Re .414 (Sue):

>Sorry, I don't understand how quoting something with two faulty
>premises says anything about logic, other than that the statement
>is incorrect.

It helps define logic and shows both its strengths and limitations.  Logic is
an excellent tool, but like any tool, can be misused.  Logic cannot be used
to establish basic premises: thus, your example about there being no "logical"
aspect about the existence (or absence) of primal matter ays nothing about
the efficacy of logic as an analytic tool.  A premise (or postulate) upon which
a logical structure can be built is .inherently beyond the logic of that 
structure.

>The only point I am trying to make is that logic is limited.  
>The fact is that matter exists and yet our minds reel trying to 
>logically understand its origin. ...

But why would we try _logically_ to understand its origin?  That's the
crux of what appears to be a problem.  _That_ matter exists, if taken as
a given, becomes a foundation upon which, with other data, one or more logical
constructs can be developed.  

>       ... Given the basic unknowableness of our existence, I
>think limiting any definition of reality to the standards of
>logic used in western science is absurd.

Except for two points:  

1) Western science hasn't attempted, ever, to define reality; and
2) Within the sphere of knowledge encompassed by "science," "reality"
   is variable, depending on perspective.  Human senses span roughly
   nine audio octaves and just under one light-spectrum octave.   To
   one who "sees" in, say, infrared, "reality" would look different.
   To one who "hears" in, say, infrasound, the surroundings would
   sound different.  Even within "sdcientific" knowledge, "reality"
   is colored by perception.

Then why bother?

Because of a couple of things:

o  Applying the principles ofg what appears to be "scientific reality," if
   you will, has advanced the material (any in many ways, spiritual) standard
   of living of multitudes.  Within the limitations of our senses, application
   of an understanding of the world through such perspective has produced an
   extraordinarily enhanced appreciation of what surrounds us.

o  Every one of us can be deceived, and one of the easiest is self deception.
   When one enters a subjective realm, it becomes extremely to project one's
   wishes as if they were something outside ourself.  So doing can impede
   the approach to "truth"

Re .415 (Sue):

> ...........    This is fine for a science like medicine, but isn't it a 
>liitle odd to say that any beliefs that cannot meet these requirements are,
>ipso facto, unreal?
 
Nobody says they're "unreal"; just that they've not been demonstrated scientif-
ically.  Most beliefs, real or imagined, are just that -- beliefs.  If someone
says, "I think Leslie lives me," that's a belief, and no more.  There is no
_scientific_ way to prove (or disprove) whether Leslie really loves the speaker
or os lying.  Likewise, religious beliefs (or even antireligious beliefs) lie
well outside "science"; nor would they ever fit.

Steve Kallis, Jr. 

    re: .416 (Steve)
    
          To nit a rathole ;-) (not knit, but nit...as in not knot)
    [Not knot, who's there?]  :-)
    
          I don't think it's necessarily correct that science has given
    us "better spirituality" (to paraphrase your expression.)
    As Lazaris has told us, and it makes sense to me, we (modern
    human) have *MORE* negative ego than those in other eras had,
    *PLUS* we tend to think less (actually, those two are 
    mutually inclusive...that is, less thinking *means* more negative
    ego and vice versa.)  Moreover, because the world is mechanically
    easier, more people feel that spirituality is less worthwhile
    than they did when life was more "primitive."  So, to your assertion,
    no, I don't think so.
    
    Frederick
    

Re .417 (Fredrick):

    >      I don't think it's necessarily correct that science has given
    >us "better spirituality" (to paraphrase your expression.)
 
Umm, what I said (with typos corrected) was:

>o  Applying the principles of what appears to be "scientific reality," if
>   you will, has advanced the material (and in many ways, spiritual) standard
>   of living of multitudes.  Within the limitations of our senses, application
>   of an understanding of the world through such perspective has produced an
>   extraordinarily enhanced appreciation of what surrounds us.

By that I mean:

1) More people have a better chance to be educated (e.g., are literate) than
   ever before in history.  This provides a better chance for them to expand
   their mental horizons.  The dark-age peasant, who toiled in the fields from
   dawn to dusk had neither the time nor the inclination to study; at night, 
   exhausted (not to mention illiterate), he or she didn't have much opportunity
   to do so.  Prior to modern methods that lifted the burden off many (not all,
   to be sure, to this day), the chance for spiritual enlightenment has spread
   from a relatively few students _to the multitudes_.

2) By finding out more about the world around us (e.g., strange life forms
   like deep-sea tube worms, the existence of new planets, radiocarbon dating,
   or microscopy), individuals' mental horizon is broadened.

Note also I said "in many ways," which is far from all inclusive.

The opportunity for enlightenment shouldn't be an elitist thing; in times of 
yore, it was, by necessity.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: Last couple...		

Frederick:
----------
I agree somewhat with what you said, however I believe you are saying that
the proliferation of technology has dulled our "natural" paranormal faculties 
and instilled in our culture a somewhat materialistic dependence on machines
and tools in general - thereby making us "lose touch" with nature and other
levels.

Steve:
------
You too have a valid point, but you are addressing the fact that technology has
made the possibility to development more freely available, and has spread the
available information to a wider audience.

My bit... (desperately intent not to write pages & pages :-)  )
---------
With reference more to Frederick's point of view, Colin Wilson in a few of his
books (especially _Beyond The Occult_) has studied the idea that the onset of
the industrial revolution and the spread of technology, coupled with our
mundane urban life-style has caused a change to the nature & structure of our
brain, which has caused the dulling of "other senses" etc. He cites cases of
Maslow's "peak experience" as times when the shackles of mundane life are 
thrown off and the true capabilities of our perception are released. He also
considers some other ideas, such as the fact that our senses do not represent
the limits of our perception, but are more like a "filter" which prevents the
torrent of energies which we *could* perceive from invading our day-to-day life.
He even suggests that the bi-cameral brain (two distinct halves) came about due
to the above conditions. I do not think he is a good writer (style) but his 
books are good, interesting material. Maybe worth a look!

								- JIM CAD*

    re: .416 ,Steve
    
    well, then you and I agree logic is a fine tool and that western
    science has improved the quality of life for many.  Where we 
    still disagree: your assertions that "western science hasn't attempted
    to define reality" and that no person's beliefs have been called 
    "unreal."  Jamie is clearly arguing the western science definition
    of reality and has repeatedly implied that people who believe
    differently are either lying or mad.
    
    Sue
     

    re: CYOR
    
    It looks to me like Steve and Earl have made my point more
    succinctly than I.  What we actually have with CYOR is a
    rather limited `C' - as someone pointed out, so what else
    is new?  ;^)
    
    Interesting discussion; sorry I was out of the office
    yesterday!
    
    Joel
    

    Steve,
    
    Maybe science has made it more possible to *study* spirituality, while
    at the same time interfering with our capacity to *experience* it.
    
    Mary

    
    I still like Steve K.s smiley/frowney face idea...
    
    Cindy

    Oh all right... what country do you want it in? :-)

    
    Let's see...so many choices...how about France?  Yes.  France.
    
    Cindy

    Is it growing season there?  Pick a warm country... I don't know if it
    works in grapes. :-)

    Actually, there are three criteria that need to be met.
    
    1) There must be some corn to 'agitiate'.
    2) There must be a reliable medium (or media) in the place in question,
       in order that we all get to hear of it from independant sources.
    3) The time and place (pretty closely) must be pre-ordained.
    
    I cannot think of anywhere that matches those at the moment, you'll
    have to wait for July next year in England.
    
    Laurie,

            
>>    Let's see...so many choices...how about France?  Yes.  France.
    
        Why not?  I don't think you'll find any unharvested corn, (could be
        wrong about that) but I've no objection to a (necessarily smallish)
        smiley face being drawn in my garden.
	
	There's nothing that could be bent into the pattern, but you could
	get the stones that I've marked out areas with, and rearrange them
	as required.  There are plenty more stones available without
	digging.

	Will you tell me when, so I can peep through the shutters?

	Just one condition...
	
	You (or your "agents") won't frighten or otherwise harm Milady, my
	feline b�te noire, who spends all but the coldest and wettest
	nights outside.

	Delia

    
    Mary,
    
    How about Libya then.  
    
    Cindy

    Ok then... we'll do it in the sand.  Maybe we'll even find out about
    it if it happens... that would be nice.... sand won't last long
    though.. desert winds and all, but...
    
    YOU GOT IT :-)

    But how are we going to know you've done it?
    
    Laurie.

	Well, if you pick some middle eastern desert where there is no
	"free" press, we probably aren't going to know about it.

        In my garden, on the other hand, you will have *me* for a witness.
        What's more, I promise to alert the local media (TV, radio, daily
        newspaper) as well as the D�javu readers, if patterns appear.
	
	If moving rocks around seems a bit pedestrian, perhaps you could
	suggest something else that would be recognized as a sign.  For
	example, if my daffodils should suddenly grow and flower within the
	next couple of weeks, this would certainly attract attention.  
	
        Is that possible?  Can you make flowers grow out of season?  That
        was just an example, albeit a pleasing idea, but I'm sure you could
	think of something else that would be equally conclusive.

	Delia

AZUR::HALDANE 
    
	I didn't pick some middle eastern desert .... Cindy did.

>        What's more, I promise to alert the local media (TV, radio, daily
>        newspaper) as well as the D�javu readers, if patterns appear.
    
        Sounds like a good reason to stay out of your garden.... 

PLAYER::BROWNL 
    
>    But how are we going to know you've done it?
    
     I don't know... 

    You guys are being so picky! Personally, when a large smiley face
    appears mysteriously anywhere, in any medium, anytime during my
    lifetime, I'll give a tip of my hat to Mary.  It's not like
    ordering something from Sears, you know.  You've got to be able
    to recognize magic when you see it.
    
    Sue

    
    Go forth and cover the Earth with smiley faces.  We've got a symbol at
    last!!!!!!
    
    Cindy

        Well how about arranging my blooming daffs into a smiley?  Double
        proof there!

	And I won't alert the media if the noters will accept my word for
	what I've seen... (That includes Jamie and Laurie.)

	Delia

    Go forth and smile.... I rather like the sound of that... it sounds
    like something God would do....   
    
    As the Grateful Dead would say....
    
    	"nothing left to do but smile, smile, smile" :-)

AZUR::HALDANE 
    
    >	And I won't alert the media if the noters will accept my word for
    >	what I've seen... (That includes Jamie and Laurie.)

    I'm sorry, Delia... thats an unacceptable condition.  
    
    Single proof should be enough anyway... don't you think?

    
    We could even have T-Shirts made.  Smiley faces on the front, DEJAVU on
    the back...
    
    Cindy

            
>>    Single proof should be enough anyway... don't you think?

	Mary,

	Do you mean I can have a smiley but not with daffodils, or that we
	need only a single witness?

	I like the idea of a daffy smiley, and I can assure you that, after
	performing various sanity checks (insert smiley - please, Mary!) I
	am inclined to believe the evidence of my own eyes.

	Smiles to all readers,

	Delia

    You may find that use of the Kp comma key is faster than the Kp 3.

    Jamie.

    
    
    
                    Here in the United States (East Coast) tonight October
    18, 1991 the Fox network (WPXT) will air a program on U.F.O.s . The 
    pre-views of the program included crop circles, film footage of uni-
    dentified filing objects, and an interview with a former U.S.
    government scientist. I'm not certain of the time; perhaps after eight
    o'clock- consult your program guide to be sure. Friday, October 18,1991
    Fox network.
    
    

    
    >unidentified filing objects
    
    Using extraterrestrials in the office now? ;-)
    
    I'm glad it is tonight, and not last night - I couldn't have competed
    with the baseball playoff game last night (Braves vs Pirates, my
    husband is from the metropolitan Atlanta area, home of the Braves).
    
    Beth

I always thought an unidentified filing object was a substitute
secretary!  

;-)

Nanci

    Gee, I always thought it was the bulk of the clutter in my cubicle!
    
    Mary  :-)  :-)  :-)

    Unidentified Filing Object
    
    A term coined by a orthopedic surgeon Dr. Hanson R. Makleroy of the
    Louisiana Institute to indicate the presence of foreign or misplaced 
    matter in a joint capsule, causing the articular surfaces of the joint 
    to be gradually eroded.
    
    Sometimes thought to be linked to activities on the planet Sirius,
    possibly related to a conspiracy to cripple the Terran 
    economic systems.
    
    Believe it or not ...
    					The Ham-on-rye Writer

>>                    -< disimportant disinformation dis is. >-

	Toddy, I dunno?  After attending the Lazaris Sirius intensive
a year ago.....anythings possible from that very important place.

	8-)

	Meredith

    Unidentified Frozen Objects are those strange objects that materialize
    in your deep freeze. Every so often we dump several of them into a pot
    and re-heat them as a UFO stew.

    Jamie.

    
    
    Just read a note in UFO that TBS will be airing a National Geographic
    show on the crop circles, this Sunday, November 24th at 9:00 pm.  Check
    listings for local channels.
    
    Carole

    So what's new this year on the crop-circle front ?? Its been a year
    since we last added a note on this issue. 
    
    Please let us know what's been happening in this field in 1992. Have
    all circles been changed into Olympic rings ??
    
    Victor
    

    RE: .452
    
    A couple of months ago, I (and friends) went to hear an English
    dowser speak about the crop circles.  Though much of the lecture 
    focused on the spectacular symbols of 1990 and 1992, he did mention
    that there had been 5 new formations this year, 2 of which were
    verified to be fraudulent.  I've heard nothing else since then.
    
    Carole

they were covered on a TV show this weekend (no, I can't remember the name),
basically they're growing in complexity (never said I could spell), and they
look like the peroglyphs the Hopis are familiar with.  They asked the Hopi
if they could interpert the symbols and the Hopi said that it was a cry
from mother earth to let her heal....

I think I read this somewhere else too but can't remember where -

anyone else heard anything??

mary c

    
    See the UFO notes conference note # 33 and #84.686
    
    /TT

    Isn't it strange that crop circles abound in the UK, while just across
    the North Sea they in Holland they never seem to appear.

    Actually they were fairly well proved to be the work of man last year.

    Jamie.

    Actually... who cares?

    Aha! the old "who cares" ploy again.

    Interesting very interesting.

    Jamie.

    :-)
    
    Well gee, Jamie.. it gets old after awhile, you know?

RE: .456 (Jamie)

>    Actually they were fairly well proved to be the work of man last year.

    If so it is a very well kept secret.

    What occured is that someone was paid to announce that he had produced
    *some* of the crop-circles over the years.  No evidence to back up this
    claim.  He did produce a small circle, though it took him a rather long
    time, according to witnesses.

    An expert with a reputation for gullibility was brought in and
    pronounced the circle genuine.  Other people familiar with crop
    circles, who arrived later, claimed that there were obvious signs
    of breakage and irregularity which should have alerted him.  They did
    know, of course, that it was a hoax circle so those claims must be
    taken with a grain of salt, but it gains credibility from the fact that
    essentially the same methods had been used before and spotted by
    people as unsatisfactory.  At best, and dismissing these difficulties,
    this proves only that someone has now learned to create reasonable
    facsimiles, under ideal working conditions, given strong motivations.
    (You will find, if you check the UFOs conference, that I have been
    arguing for some time that this was almost certain to occur, and that
    the nonreproducability of the circles cannot be relied on for evidence
    of their non-hoax status).

    Nothing but the hoaxter's claims support the contention that he has
    been doing this for any length of time, and little or no effort was
    made to answer the many real problems apparent in the hoax hypothesis.

				    Topher

    Does anyone really care about crop circles anymore anyway?

    
    Mary,
    
    Maybe I shouldn't say this, but I do. I have formed no opinions as to
    who or what makes them, but I still care. I'm not satisfied that it was
    the work of those two guys (what *were* their names?)  Maybe I should
    rephrase that to say I still would like to know why and how they're
    made.
    
    OnceI know that, I'll know if I care.
    
    
    Marilyn
    
    
    

    I care, Mary.

    It stands as an interesting phenomenon that has not really been
    adequately explained.  I do not think that the hoaxter (as I remember
    one was making the claims to having invented the process, while the
    other had supposedly started helping him later, but I wouldn't swear to
    that) has, of yet, made a very credible case.  Without question, many
    of the figures -- especially the more recent ones -- are fake. But the
    case that they all are has not been made very strongly yet -- other
    than the argument, which some people find very convincing, that if they
    aren't fakes then something we don't understand is going on.  I should
    add that I think it is unlikely that there is anything which will
    require a revamping of the scientific view of the universe, but there
    may be some new applications of existing scientific "law" (e.g., the
    Meaden charged vortex ring theory).

					Topher

    I guess I've just lost interest.  
    
    I don't find Meadens weather vortex theory very compelling or very 
    interesting.  Who cares if he proves it or not?
    
    I know.. Topher... you're a scientist type of person so you probably
    see things differently..  

    
    Yup, I do Mary.  I'm surprised to read that you've lost interest.
    
    Carole

    Well gee, Carole...  it's hard to remain interested when no one ever
    tells you the truth about what's happening.. all we ever hear is the
    same old stuff... "they're man made", "they're man made", "they're man 
    made"... 
    
    Well ok.. fine then.. they're man made.. what's to talk about?  Why
    argue about it?  Let them believe whatever they want to believe.  We
    know what we know.
    
    They served a purpose... for some of us anyway.. 
    
    It's time to move on.. don't you think?

    Hi Mary (.461),
    
    I have to say I care too!!!  In fact, a friend who visited England last
    month has offered to share her experiences with the crop circles at a
    gathering in my home.  She'll show slides and talk about the energy and
    visions she experienced there.  We hope to do this sometime in early
    October.  I think you'd be interested in what she has to say Mary and
    are cordially invited to attend.  8^)
    
    Roey
    

    Well Topher perhaps it did not make the American press, but at the back
    end of the crop circle season last year two men came forward to one of
    the British papers and demonstrated how it was done. In a very short
    time they produced some classic crop circles. Then the paper took the
    "expert" on crop circles to see the results. In his opinion they were
    absolutely genuine and perfect examples of the phenomenon.

    To my mind this points out that the crop circles can be made by man and
    there is no reliable way of proving that they have not been made by
    man.

    Dear old Occam's famous razor tends to make me think that all the
    circles are manmade. Boring I know but life is sometimes like that.

    Jamie.

>     Boring I know but life is sometimes like that.

	Not in my reality, friend.
	
	cheers,
	Jay

    Re .469

    Do you really find two old men running round at night making circles in
    the wheat fields really exciting? Gosh what a dull life you must lead.

    Jamie.

    He has a life beyond crop circles, Jamie... most of us do.  Why are you
    so obsessed with them?

    Jamie,
    
    as I replied in the "red alert" note, the more recent crop circles are
    not circles at all, but increasingly complex combinations of circles,
    lines, triangles and other geometric figures.  With astonishing
    precision.  And I find the precision and detail of the one from the 
    mandelbrodt set especially interesting.  I find it hard to believe that
    anyone could reproduce that by simply running around trampling wheat.
    
    Mary

    I have no obsession with crop circles. I am however amazed with the
    level of gullibility of the population in general.

    Re .247

    Yes the hoaxers explained to the reporters how it was done and how
    complex patterns could easily be produced. Given that the papers have
    a circulation of millions it would be most unusual if this year's crop
    were not more complex. The articles must have told a lot of people
    exactly how to do it.

    Jamie.

    
    There is a lot to be amazed about in the population in general.
    
    For someone who isn't obsessed with crop circles.. you sure do talk
    about them a lot.... just forget about them, Jamie.
    
    If someone pulled off a hoax and you saw it for what it was.. you'd
    mention it once and then forget it.  The 'red alert' material is 
    probably a hoax of some sort... but you don't keep going back to it
    over and over and over.
    
    If you really, genuinely believe the crop circles to be a hoax then
    just write them off as such and walk away.  Nothing more to discuss, 
    right?
    

    The English Daily Telegraph had an extensive article on these patterns.
    One, in the shape of an eye, with letters in it, was described in
    detail. Using taut ropes and accurate positioning, a team of people can
    easily and quickly create almost any geometric pattern you like.
    
    Unsurprisingly, I'm with Jamie on this...
    
    Laurie.

	Mary S
	
	Jamie, it would seem, has a rather boring life.
	That's why he comes here to stir things up a bit.
	After all, we're generally gullible and perfect for his needs.
	It must amuse him so.
	
	Jay

    Guess so, Jay. ... certainly amuses us. ;-)

PLAYER::BROWNL 
    
    You could write a letter to the editor, Laurie and ask him not to print
    such garbarge... then just forget about them.
    
    So... how's the weather over there? :-)

RE: .468 (Jamie)

    One of the problems with application of Occam's Razor is that people
    tend to see anything that is consistant with their own preconceptions
    as "simpler" and therefore Occam's razor almost always is seen as on
    their side.

    Tell me, Jamie, if I saw someone throw a rock off a building and claim
    that he had been doing so for years, and suggest that maybe other
    people imitated him; if I brought in as an expert an amateur collector
    of meteorites whose collection contains many specimines that other
    collectors consider spurious and had him attest, on brief examination,
    to its authenticity; would Occam's razor justify concluding that it
    was virtually proven that all meteorites were hoaxes?

    The incident did reach the American press, and in any case I regularly
    access some segments of the British press (Nature, New Scientist, The
    Economist, and BBC news), and have sources of information outside of
    the mainstream news media.  It is just that by no reasonable stretch of
    the imagination -- even if we accept your Occam's Razor statement
    (Occam's Razor is used to weaken -- cut -- support for theories not
    generate proofs) -- can that incident be considered "virtual proof" (I
    think that was your phrase) for the hoax hypothesis.

    And the evidence, at least as of last year, that these particular
    hoaxters could produce a simulation of the "genuine phenomenon"
    (whatever its cause) which would fool a critical observer is very weak. 
    Please read my note again on this point.

    Note that I do believe that simulation is possible and I think that it
    is likely that the current "crop" (if you'll pardon the expression) of
    highly elaborate figures are simulations.  But the "Bartles and Jaynes"
    incident does not add much credibility to this.  It was a setup to sell
    newspapers, eagerly embraced by credulous "skeptics" (oxymoron alert),
    nothing more.

    And there is too much about the years (and, quite plausibly, centuries)
    of the occerance of the phenomenon before their was such high
    motivation for fakery that the hoax theory has not yet explained.
    When it is able to do so (and perhaps someday it will) without invoking
    a lot of elaborate assumptions and special pleading, then and only then
    will we be able to apply Occam's Razor properly.

    In the meantime, we have a scientific anomaly which has not yet been
    adequately explained -- and that is where science happens, whether that
    science turns out, in this case, to be meteorology, sociology,
    psychology, botany, physics, military science, UFOlogy, parapsychology,
    some-other-ology, or some combination.

				Topher

    >Tell me, Jamie, if I saw someone throw a rock off a building and claim
    >that he had been doing so for years, and suggest that maybe other
    >people imitated him; if I brought in as an expert an amateur collector
    >of meteorites whose collection contains many specimines that other
    >collectors consider spurious and had him attest, on brief examination,
    >to its authenticity; would Occam's razor justify concluding that it
    >was virtually proven that all meteorites were hoaxes?
    
    Of course not. Stones dropped from a building and meteorites have many
    differences. You are doing your old smoke screen trick here. 

    Let me see Topher; boiled down to its essentials Occam's Razor states,
    "Theories should not be made needlessly complicated."

    Theory; "It has been proved beyond all shadow of doubt that these
    circles can easily be made and these can fool those who consider
    themselves experts. In addition the two men confess to having done this
    for several years."

    You will notice the simplicity of this theory. Why complicate it
    needlessly?

    As I said they gave detailed instructions on how they created them.
    This year the, as Mary noted, they are more complicated. Theory; "The
    people who read the papers now have the information on how to make more
    complicated patterns, they then go out and do it."

    >And the evidence, at least as of last year, that these particular
    >hoaxters could produce a simulation of the "genuine phenomenon"
    >(whatever its cause) which would fool a critical observer is very weak. 
    >Please read my note again on this point.
    
    I read the original article and found it quite convincing. The expert
    was at first most insistent that the circles were genuine. When
    confronted with irrefutable proof that they were manmade he became
    quite annoyed and started to back off. There are two assumptions that
    can be made here. 1 the circles were of the same type as others that
    had been found. Or 2, the alleged expert is a fake and you can easily
    slip forgeries past him.

    I also can't understand why they appear only in the wheat fields of the
    UK and never on Continental Europe. Mind you it could be the fact than
    most people on the Continent of Europe tend not to read the UK papers.

    So far I have not seen any theory that fits the facts as neatly as the
    entire thing being a hoax. However if you can come up with one I will
    be happy to check it out for you.

    Jamie.                                               

If Occam had a beard we wouldn't have half the trouble! :-(

								- JIM CAD*

    I think it's a mistake to get too hung up on phenominon.

    >I think it's a mistake to get too hung up on phenominon.
    
    Something which fortunately you never do?

    Jamie.

    :-)

    
    How many years was the Earth flat before it became round?
    
    The Church *proved* it was flat, you know.
    
    Cindy

RE:          <<< Note 1392.485 by TNPUBS::PAINTER "worlds beyond this" >>>
    
�    How many years was the Earth flat before it became round?
    
    Now now Cindy, the earth has never been flat. It was *believed* to be
    flat, but that's another matter.
    
    Laurie.

    
    The ancient Greeks knew it was round. The New Testiment implies
    it's flat.
    
    I think it's turtles all the way down, myself.

    Jamie,
    
    I think I've read (at least a year ago) that circles and other 
    geometric forms have appeared in other parts of Europe.  Unfortunately, 
    I can't remember where I've read it.  Might have been here.  Might 
    have been elsewhere.
    
    And, no, it hasn't been proved that people can create "real" crop 
    circles.  Only that one "expert" could be fooled.
    
    And while some geometric shapes are easily created, I'd be interested
    in seeing how someone could recreate an enormous Mandelbrodt.  The one
    that appeared was not the simplest of the set (which could be more
    easily duplicated), nor the most complicated (which could be fudged as
    it has so much detail that it would be extremely difficult to verify). 
    Rather it was one with enough complexity to be very hard, if not
    impossible, to recreate, yet not so much that you couldn't see if it
    was fudged.  
    
    Mary       

         
    You got it Laurie!  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    Re -1

    Follows the standard pattern I notice. Hint of something for nothing,
    points out that scientists have been wrong in the past. Reports on
    experiments that mysteriously can't be repeated and of course there is
    always the bogey man who is trying desperately to make sure that not a
    word of this gets out.

    They could use a new plot line, this one has been done to death.

    Jamie.

> They could use a new plot line, this one has been done to death.

Why? This one still works!