Friday, March 16, 2012

Crop Circles - Doug and Dave and their Grand Hoax

Doug and Dave, eh? What are we to make of these two? They're the chaps who lobbed up in 1991 and not only said that they'd invented crop circles but had in fact done them all. To be honest I can find no glaring holes in their story, at least not of the stand-up-in-court variety. But nor can I find anything that makes any sense either.

The story was that these two blokes, Doug Bower and Dave Chorley, had been sitting in a pub one evening and, what with Doug having lived in Australia and being familiar with 'saucer nests' (that appeared in Tully, Queensland in the mid sixties), thought it would be rather jolly if they did something similar. And off they went.

It certainly must have been very, very jolly because they went on to do it hundreds of times for the next thirteen years. They did it right up to the point where they realised that there was money in the caper and that they weren't making any and how dare anyone else. That's why they went on the media and effectively announced their retirement. Curiously in spite of being driven to take credit for the whole thing on account of others making money, at no point did they ever try to make any themselves. No books, no t-shirts, no nothing.

Astoundingly the otherwise hard-bitten hacks of Fleet Street who reported the whole thing never so much as cocked an eyebrow at two jumped up Johnnies who were unambiguously declaring themselves as hoaxers. Madly, between the two possibilities of a hoax involving: a telephone call and five minute demonstration; and a hoax involving thirteen years of anonymous, unrecompensed labour for no clear purpose, the hacks gave no thought to the former.

Never mind me being surprised last week that no one on QI was interested in the question 'why', it seems that when it comes to crop circles this failure to ask obvious questions is as traditionally English as thrashing fags. Almost no one asked the question and those that did, did so in a very cursory fashion, which is to say, any answer would do.

Apparently Doug Bower was appointed main spokesman. Dave Chorley's gig it seems was to smoke cigarettes and glower (presumably at the stupidity of all the people who fell for their trick - but more on Dave later). This is pretty typical of Doug's answers to the unasked question of why did they do it:
"I said why don't we put a circular depression in this corn field the same as they had out in Australia. I said the UFO society out here, which was at its height at the time, Warminster especially, I said that they will probably think that it is a UFO that had landed."
And I don't know... that's not so terrible is it? I'm prepared to buy it. It sort of reminds me of us as a bunch of uni students drunk at a party one time and coming up with the brilliant and very jolly idea of stealing the garden gnome from across the road. The only problem was that the owner of the gnome had somehow attached it to a square metre of concrete slab that was buried underground. So there we were drunk and gnomeless standing in the by now destroyed garden as various house lights came on. Run away! Run away!

But now that I think about it, I don't recall us doing that a dozen, two dozen, three dozen times a year, for thirteen years. Once is fair enough, maybe even two or three times, but beyond that you'd really have to wonder at someone wouldn't you?

Thankfully Dave Chorley, on one of the two occasions where he actually spoke, sort of addressed the 'why' in terms of doing it more than once (sensibly avoiding the phrase 'hundreds of times'):
"And when you get in one of these fields at midnight, or two in the morning, we would rather, I'd rather be out in one of these fields than a week away in the South of France or something. Anyone that's not been out in one at midnight in the English countryside with the moon up, and you're doing that, and a few beers and a couple of cheese rolls - Absolutely wonderful. Absolutely wonderful."
It's poor of me I know but I think a perfectly reasonable reply to this assertion would be 'You're joking surely? You'd rather be crashing about in a field in the pitch dark than spending a week in the South of France?' Perhaps the journo he said it to was deterred by his somewhat aggressive if-you-haven't-done-it-you-can't-comment gambit? Who knows?

Yours truly falls asleep and dreams of a spiffing new game show...
"Okay Janet, you've already won a week in the South of France but how'd you like to trade up to A 2am walk through a field in Hampshire in the pitch dark with a pint and a cheese roll!!! "
"Gosh Simon, that does sound tempting... I, er... sorry, did you say 2am in a field in Hampshire? With a pint and cheese roll? Are you mad?"
But our Dave wasn't mad. He was English! And proud of it. Why shouldn't a man love his country at two o'clock in the morning? And like the best sort of mad Englishmen nor were he and Doug to be deterred by a complete and utter lack of success for the first two years (or three, it depends on who's talking). Here's Dave again in a really curious telephone interview that he did with a Canadian radio station late in 1991:
"We did this for two years... and nothing came of it. So we decided then, that what we'll be doing, is putting them down in sites right under the view of the general public."
Wow. Talk about undeterred! They did it for two years and no one noticed? Sorry, but wasn't that the point of the exercise? To trick UFO people? For over two years they went out week after week, with dozens of repetitions, before they realised that maybe they were doing it wrong?

Ha ha ha ha, never mind shake my head, I just have to laugh out loud. Here we have Doug and Dave as a magic act that never advertises and only performs in empty halls. Or something. Most people would be disheartened after the first, second, third, fourth, fifth effort - hell, pick a number - but not Doug and Dave. I doubt that there's anyone in the history of Mad Persistence in the Face of Constant Failure who could even come close to them. Except Charlie Brown perhaps, with the old snatch-the-football gag. Mind you he was six years old. And fictional.

In their TV appearances it's perfectly evident that neither of them are stupid, but to repeat an exercise dozens of times for two years for zero results speaks of what? Some kind of mental retardation? And Murdoch's hard bitten hacks bought this and thought nothing of it did they? Yeah right.

Mind you, Doug and Dave were 'artists'. And as we all know, artists do things for 'art's sake', which is to say 'the hell of it'. They care not a whit if anyone pays them any attention or not. Ha ha ha, good joke! But let's carry on. What kind of artists were these two? Water-colourists or so they say. Whilst I admit that this story predates the internet, in spite of a dozens of searches involving every possible permutation of their names +art +artwork +painting +water-colour +gallery +exhibition +catalogue I couldn't find a single thing apart from one painting that I suspect is by Doug Bower. It sold for £20 and it probably only got that on account of his fame for crop circles. Whatever, we'll declare them both amateurs.

I'll admit that the absence of their art is no killer blow argumentatively but I bring it up because both Doug and Dave mentioned it, and they did so in what I would declare a very curious fashion.
Doug - "we used to go out on Friday evenings, to have a drink in the pub and talk about paintings."

Doug - "and we used to go and venture out on Friday evenings and have a chat about watercolours and things and have a pint of beer."

Dave - "So we were out one night and we discussed, whatever, about watercolor painting, and having a beer together."
I don't know if that's worth mentioning but I just can't help feeling that the constant superfluous mentions of what they talked about rings a false note. Would one ring the other and say, "Hey, let's go down the pub and talk about painting"? Why would you mention it? Keep in mind this wasn't a single event pivoting on a single germane topic - the topic wasn't painting, it was crop circles, and the event was a weekly Friday night usual. To me, these repeated mentions smell of rehearsal. It reminds me of those extraneous facts that bullshit artists throw into a story to make it more believable. Or so they imagine. But whatever! I just wanted to mention the art because it kicks in big time in the next piece.

But why don't I wrap up with another really curious exchange from Dave's Canadian interview:
Interviewer - "How do we know, Mr. Chorley, that your are not hoaxing us now about the hoax?"

David Chorley - "You don't know, do you?"

Interview - "No I don't."

David Chorley: "You don't know."

Interviewer - (laughter)

David Chorley - "You don't know!"
Is it just me, or does he sound exultant there? It's as if he knows he has one over the interviewer and he doesn't even need to bother with any window dressing. Safe in the knowledge that no one can disprove him, rather than protest his innocence, or declare that there are photos, or witnesses, or any other to-be-expected thing, he instead crows at the perforce ignorance of the mug at the other end. He reminds me of no one so much as a spook.

* One last thing. In 1993, Doug Bower gave a talk at the Nafferton Hall in Marlborough so that he might put paid to the criticisms of crop circle believers. Never mind Dave Chorley's absence, nor the fact that it was run by a fellow named Ken Brown who did a very fine impression of a handler, the extraordinary thing is that it featured a display of never before seen photos of Doug and Dave actually making the crop circles. Apparently they were quite convincing. One wonders why they weren't produced the first time round. Still, they exist now but astoundingly (given the insane interest crop circles garner on the net) are nowhere to be found in google.

Or is this one? Are they making a crop circle? Where are they? Does it predate 1993? And who took the picture? And why wasn't this person offered as a witness as to their veracity? As Dave himself said, You don't know, do you?


Pstonie said...

Good to see you posting again, Nobody.

Doug and Dave reek of bullshit, but it might as easily be a way to get certain people to believe in crop circles based on the obvious bullshit.

For myself, the UFO field seems to be the most obfuscated of all, so I won't be able to say either way until I've been in one myself. Apparently from that it's easy to tell the hoaxes from the real thing: the stems on the hoaxes are broken where they are bent and the ones on the real circles have been bent like they had grown that way naturally, which we don't know how to do yet, or so goes the story.

It makes me wonder though what the big deal is in (assumedly) trying to disprove the existence of aliens. It seems fairly obvious, just statistically speaking, that there exists most likely another race at least as advanced as us somewhere in this huge collection of stars. Maybe it's more about the message in the circles, once decoded?

We'll work it out regardless.

Anonymous said...

How difficult must it b to go into a field and make these extraordinary designs completely in darkness or, daylight for that matter?

Give it a try and see why.Fraud and deception,are the order of the day,I mean come on, we are told to believe in santa claus and the easter bunny etc.

Give your sheeple shank a shake.
Thanks for the post.

Anonymous said...

My gnomes are protected by genies.

Don't believe the high school principal in the story of the bad genie.

- Aangirfan

john said...

Just a few of points on the last photo. The angle of the camera seems odd to me as it appears to have been taken from slightly above, looking down. Maybe this was done to include the ground in the photo, but an amateur photographer wouldn't think to raise the camera above their head and point it down, they would just take it face on, amateur portrait style.

The flash/light seems to be slightly to the left of the camera to me, though I could be wrong here. I say light as well because I'm wondering how they focused the camera at night, unless it was just a point and shoot camera. Also I am thinking light rather than flash as they seem to be avoiding looking at the bright light rather than the more normal 'caught in the headlights' expression when people look at the camera as it flashes. Could be wrong here as well though.

There's no trace of red eye in Dougs' eyes. He seems to be looking forward, though maybe down a bit.

I also don't think this was taken much before (if at all) they were interviewed because they appear to be roughly the same age as in the other photos, so it certainly wouldn't have been taken a long time before.

The crop doesn't appear to have been flattened by them here, so this might be a 'setting up' photo.

Dave Q. said...

Hi Nobs,

Good post for causing one pause, which is all I EVER need actually. Something isn't right, but I just don't know, do I? (deja vu)

You mentioned 'magic' in the post; have you seen the latest "Inside The LC" post? Smoke and mirrors are the order of the day!

Best to you always.


nobody said...

Hey Boys and Girls,

Well, trust you all to keep spoiling my punchline (Pstonie and anon). Mind you, it's my fault for taking so long to tell the gag. But I'll keep going because there's actually a lot to this. P's link to Terrence McKenna's discussion of it all (previous comments) was an absolute cracker, my kind of big picture. Well not quite, but there certainly is a big picture and I'm going to have a crack at my own take on it.

Aang, a pleasure as always. Speaking of scientists sitting up and taking notice, crop circles ain't got nothing on Genie DNA! Finally scientific proof of supernatural creatures. I can't wait. Otherwise I promise never to steal your gnome. (Thinks: given that Indonesia is a Muslim country, ought not the principal to have been guilty of idolatry or somesuch? I'd have thought that the mere suggestion that he has genie was some variety of heresy? No?)

Thanks John, nice one. I think you're right about the angle and the lighting. Good call. There's also the provenance of that pic. I found it on a Spanish website and nowhere else (that's why I titled it with their caption). As to where they found it, I have no idea because I ploughed through endless pages to find that one and saw nothing else even close. It's a true orphan.

And Dave, just barge in here and tell us there's a new LC why don't you? A fellow could strangle himself on his yoghourt or something. Anyway, to hell with you, I'm off to McGowan's place!

nobody said...

God, he's good isn't he? Wotta guy. What a great read.

nobody said...

Sorry John, I also meant to add (re that photo) that Dave does seem to have slightly longer hair. But only by a month or so from the looks of things. Whether that means it was taken earlier or later, it's impossible to say. Keep in mind that the Nafferton town hall pix didn't appear until two years after the initial hoopla.

Were Doug and Dave spooks, and were they to warrant a handler, and were it decided to fake some photos, and were that to involve a trip to various crop circle locations with photographer in tow, would it be beyond the realms of possibility that someone in a meeting planning it all might have wondered how they could make those pix look like they were taken ten years earlier? If I was there, I would.

"Well you should wear some different clothes obviously. And perhaps if you were to have longer hair? Not you Doug (audible laughter) no point. But Dave... you're due for a cut yeah? Okay, don't. Just leave it grow."
"But we're doing it in a couple of weeks."
"Don't worry we'll put it off for a month. There's no rush. And by then it should be collar length and that'll do. It's not like you were ever a hippy or anything. Down to your collar will be fine."
"Yeah, yeah, if you say so."
"And Doug, when you do this talk thing don't point it out. Best to just leave it unmentioned. People will spot it and convince themselves. And funnily enough, the fact that you don't mention it will the final thing that will trip them across the line. All this stuff is easier than you think."
"Right. Who's for a pint?"
"And a cheese roll!" (audible laughter)

Anonymous said...

I am anxiously awaiting how doug and dave created the pyramids to fool the sheeple.

slozo said...

It's a double fake - for me, not hard to guess at this. Shit, I've seen triple and quadruple-layered fakes . . . (see: middle east shenanigans, and check out Pen's posts).

They are hired by spooks, but they are total dummies who may or may not have done a couple of crop circles - the badly done ones - and some other professional crew did the others. Or more likely they did none, and are just stooges to make it look like a hoax of a hoax . . . just for people who need to believe.

Look, just because there are aliens out there somewhere - surely quite probable, I agree - doesn't make something you can't explain an alien thing.

just like, without any hard evidence to support something, you don't blame it on godhood to explain it. That's so caveman it's not funny!

But, we are weak humans, and bloody damn, many still do it. I'm not pushing myself on a pedestal much, trust me - I have to fight it every day, and had to fight through it a ton for the alien stuff especially (I grew up inundated with alien propaganda in the 70s and 80s, so of course it's the first thought, impossible to psychically block out).

And there's your clue there, folks. No hard evidence of existence, full stop. No hard evidence of an alien present at a crop circle. And yet . . . because we can't explain something . . . it's an alien?

Use your powers of cognition, deduction, reasoning, people. Examine the hardest of propaganda streams, and what their purpose must be.

Anonymous said...

McGowan is great on most things. But he has a "blind spot" on others. I turned against him when I heard him laugh and joke about the nuts that thought Israel had something to do with 9/11. And all of his examples of utterly evil men he always uses Nazi's, like Mengale or Eichmann, who likely had little or nothing to do with any - so called - holocaust. He is very plausible but ... and I hate to see such apparent hero-worship without credibility checks.

nobody said...

Thanks anon,

Aargh, double post, sorry.

And don't worry we all get it. I've written more than a few pieces on this. I'm thinking you've only just lobbed in yeah? Nothing wrong with that of course, it's just that I've described the death cult by way of its twin pillar system many times. One pillar is the zionist/banking pillar and the other is the satanist/paedophile/mkultra (etc. etc.) pillar.

The thing is, I started out at WRH and then settled over at smokingmirrors for a while, a couple of years I guess, and I was in that all-Israel-all-the-time headspace. Mind you, it didn't quite explain everything. There were holes in the logic I didn't get. Funnily enough, I backwards engineered the pedophocracy. I just figured paedophilia was the only means by which non-Jewish power could be blackmailed.

And then I read Dave McGowan. And it all became clear. This was the mechanism.

Anyway, I guess I should give you some links. Waitaminute.

Yeah, here you go -

Blink, and Blink Again
Jews, Satanist, and that wretched lesbian cabaret act
The Deluded Servants of Heartless Masters

Actually, I'm sort of dumping you in it there. It's kind of like the middle of the conversation. It took me a while to work up to that with a lot of missteps along the way. It stands to reason when you're groping about in the dark. But either way you'll see the split addressed.

Really I could give you twenty links detailing what I think of this mechanism, how it works, and what it all means. But you can do that. If you're really curious you can just put searches into the search field at the top of the page.

The thing with McGowan is that hardly anyone else is there. He's it. Like I said, prior to discovering him (and tons were there ahead of me of course) I'd only hung at places that utterly ignored him. To what I consider an impossible extent. Mike Rivero has had his nose rubbed in this and won't touch him. Hell, he deleted all my letters. I wrote all about it, put it on the front page. And Les Visible absolutely knows about McGowan but it's all a bit too close to the bone for him and he doesn't really want to go there.

If you want to read about it just whack their names in the search field on the front page. It's all laid out.


nobody said...


And so! The anti-Jewish side ignores the satanist pedophocracy. And yep, the anti-satanist pedophocracy side ignores Jewish control. And that's how it works. Welcome to the world. Me, I'll call them both out. I am an equal opportunity arsehole.

Now, the question is: are these people clueless? Or are they there, if you can dig it. That's the question.

As for McGowan, I think he's a variation of clueless. Hell, I said so. Well, not quite. I was a bit more polite than that.

But the thing is, what you need to do, and this is my opinion, is look at who seems to be the most professional. Who's able to devote otherwise astounding amounts of time to putting out their... well, propaganda, really. You should really wonder at people who seem to have no visible means of support (yeah, yeah, pun). Spooks are busy bees. They earn their money. They have to.

Now. Would you call Dave McGowan's site professional? Or chronically bad? How's his output? Does he work and work and work as if he has nothing better to do? Like he was paid? Or not. I'm thinking not.

And yeah, he's not interested in all that Protocols of Zion stuff. But you know what? I'm prepared to forgive him. As I've said many times I'm prepared to forgive the clueless. Because it used to be me. I used to be that guy who'd have been aghast had you told me that there's a Jewish conspiracy.

Oh wait, here's the other half of it: What do the Jewish sites say? Do they all pile in on McGowan and offer him lots of support, and links, and put his name up in lights? Or do they ignore him utterly?

Why don't I sum it up: Look for the guy who's hated by both sides because he's probably the only honest bloke in there.

Funnily enough, these precise thoughts have been running through my head for the last couple of weeks and as soon as I'm past this silly crop circle thing I'll whack it on the front page.


nobody said...

Fuck it. Why don't I do it? I'm hellbent and that's as good a reason as any. I'll come back to the crop circles thing later.

And folks, keep your eyes peeled on when precisely the links disappear. It'll be sooner rather than later I'm thinking.

gallier2 said...

Funny what you write about Dave McG. I had 2 moments when I took pause and questioned his "wisdoms". The second you know it, I've been long been annoying enough about the subject of the moondoggie, so that I don't need to repeat it. The first thing that made me go ??? was, when he was conspiracy-consultant for the cheesy Hollywood blockbuster with Nick Cage "National Treasure: Book of Secrets". Dave, gave at that time a link to the Disney promotion webside featuring the DVD bonus material in which Dave McG was prominently featured. Knowing the spooky & jewy nature of Hollywood, I wondered how this could really fit in, in his truthseeker image, and I came to the conclusion that it didn't.
Your 2 pilars metaphor of how things work is really astute and makes my inference a little bit more plausible: Dave is on one side of the pilar and can only "reveal" things from the other pilar.

... said...

Hi again nobody, there is definitely some weird synchronicity in the air lately. I have been reviewing my own work. I hope you will read my silly ramblings about ufology where I mention albeit briefly Doug and Dave!!!

For coherence, you may want to start at 'Prologue Hi Strangeness' and then follow the excerpts. I'm just saying this because I think you might enjoy it - no need to comment - I don't get a lot of comments but if only one person reads it and finds it funny, then I'm happy. Please feel free to edit or not to post this comment, if you like - its your prerogative. I know some bloggers don't like members posting links to their own blogs.
I was contemplating making mine private but I got a couple of e-mails saying that people are reading it so at the moment I've kept it open to all. Primarily I use it to get things off my chest so there are gaps when I don't write anything for a while, then I write about a post every week!

Mine is

P.S. I've started to read the David Macgowan stuff.

aka Marty

Pstonie said...

Re the obvious ownership of hollywoodland; I've often wondered how something like They Live (1988) gets made. If any haven't seen it, I recommend it. Found it at the local video shop under the horror section.

Usually when something that overt comes along, they seemingly like to attach a message of "you're already beaten so don't even try" ala Nineteen Eighty Four or Network. Oh, how they wish.

@slozo: That's a valid theory, but I don't currently see a way to prove either, so I'm undecided. I don't currently have an application for the UFO/crop circle field, so for the most part I simply ignore it.

Sometimes I like the exercise of trying to reason it out though. If I were an advanced alien race I'd leave us alone until we'd managed to get rid of pyramidal control on our own, unless of course another alien race is responsible for the sub-human things at the top of the pyramid, in which case I'd find it more effective to fund or support something like Star Trek (or They Live, for that matter), than to tag some corn fields.

Anonymous said...

The grass in crop circles all indicate cellular changes. The designs are all very intricate and precise, the real ones anyway. 85% occur around Stonehenge. I suspect there is a correlation between Stonehenge and the pyramid but I cannot prove it. I doubt Dave and crew could pass a geometry course much less make these patterns and also change cellular makeup.

We do know there are underwater pyramids also, in the Bermuda triangle as naval vessels took photos years ago but much of this I cannot find on the web now. There are pyramids in China, Bosnia and off the coast of Africa.

They have a Russian team there checking it out in Bosnia as a new find, the Pyramid of the Sun is said to be projecting light beams.

Crop circles related to the sun.


Anonymous said...

We have apparently been adopted by the milky way.

Strangely our solar system will be in alignment with the center of the milky way galaxy around 12-21-2012. This is about the time the earth travels through an energy field called the photon belt. I personally think it is why the Mayans did not leave a symbol beyond this time period. Probably nobody knows what is going to happen.

I think it is an easy matter for the sun to form these crop circles however with simple plasma outbursts. Nature is rather geometrical.


slozo said...

(pstonie) "@slozo: That's a valid theory, but I don't currently see a way to prove either, so I'm undecided. I don't currently have an application for the UFO/crop circle field, so for the most part I simply ignore it.

Sometimes I like the exercise of trying to reason it out though. If I were an advanced alien race I'd leave us alone until we'd managed to get rid of pyramidal control on our own, unless of course another alien race is responsible for the sub-human things at the top of the pyramid, in which case I'd find it more effective to fund or support something like Star Trek (or They Live, for that matter), than to tag some corn fields."

See, this is my whole point - what your response is, is a total product of conditioning and propaganda, my friend. There is no way to put this nicely, so pardon the rude way that sounds.

I have no theory, as you contend - one cannot have a "theory" that (and this is my contention) there is not enough (see: none) solid physical evidence to even indicate an alien presence/cause for the crop circles.

Full stop.

If there is no way to prove YOUR theory . . . it remains an unsubstantiated theory with no physical basis to think it, other than years of socialogical conditioning.

Full stop.

And I imagine, fully concious or in some subliminal, unconcious way, the theory you vaguely hold out as a possibility has a scenario backdrop from movies or television.

Full stop.

That is what I am talking about, dude (or dudette, but then I'll have to come up with something else since that sounds weird). Real, physical evidence.

Like at 9/11 for instance, as an example of how you can have circumstantial evidence that strongly indicates something (dancing Israelis, the video filming, for instance), and then you can have totally unsubstantiated conjecture projected as evidence (a sick, ex-CIA asset living on dialysis coordinating and controlling a massive terrorist operation that somehow put the US military into a trance, with not a shred of physical evidence or credible witness testimony to support that).

The problem is .. . the alien thing? We've gotten about 30 more years of propaganda on it, compared to the last 10 or 15 years of concerted "dark middle-easterners are mad, raving terrorists" stuff.

Hey - we can agree to disagree, but . . . without anything from your end to even give a HINT of alienness . . . why do you really think it could be aliens?

skinnylegsandall said...

I once read your whole blog,which lead to Dave McGowan which I read about Country Walk in Dade county,USA.When Hurricane Andrew struck Dade August 1992 Country Walk was completely demolished.All building codes were for hurricanes were bypassed.I worked for utility contractors in Dade County,after Andrew,rebuilding.We went to country walk no houses to reconnect.The whole community I believe was built to collect little children.This pedophocracy must be huge yet seemingly totally silent.

Pstonie said...

@Full stop: The fact that there is no concrete physical evidence to support the theory does not mean that it is definitely invalid and should be completely discounted as a possibility. I see no problem with entertaining the possibility that it might be aliens, especially when that's moderated by entertaining the possibility that the whole thing is just a distraction. As I've attempted to get across, I hold none of the possibilities as a favourite, since I have access to so very little information on the subject. I in fact know very little about crop circles and have only seen pictures of them on the internet. As far as I know they may not even exist.

The scenario backdrop which supports the validity of the theory as a theory (and only a theory) for me is that, since the technology used is said to be beyond our means, it is likely wielded by a group of people that have access to technology beyond our means, which could include black ops government agencies, and yes, other sentient races.

As for the thirty years of propaganda (I must assume you have solid physical full stop evidence that all of it was in fact lies), I personally would not like to so heavily base my opinions on guesses whether their lies have four layers or five.

nobody said...

Hey Skinnylegs (I hope you don't mind me calling you that, it just looks a bit rude written that way). Interesting point, a skimpy one but interesting. All I can say is that given the scale of the pedophocracy, it's entirely possible. I no longer put anything past them. Did you have anything beyond a suspicion? I'd be keen to hear about it if you did.

Otherwise, hey boys and girls, is there an argument going on here? Gosh, how exciting. My tuppenceworth on this topic is a firm who knows?. Without wishing to continue killing the punchline with this crop circle series, I will say that I have no intention of stating what I think is causing the crop circles beyond that which is demonstrably provable, or at least eminently do-able, ie. by the likes of me.

As for UFO's I shall state for the record that I definitely believe that there are flying objects out there that qualified, credible people have been unable to identify. I only ever use the term in its strict acronymic meaning. As for what they were, where they came from, and what was controlling them I would absolutely refuse to hazard a guess.

Mind you, given their connections to crop circles and cattle mutilations and abductions that resemble nothing so much as MKULTRA experiments, all of which have clear indications, if not downright proof (in the case of cattle mutilations) of spook involvement, only a fool would leave that out of the equation. Everything else is just guesswork.

I did notice whilst watching every goddamn youtube story on crop circles I could find (the ones from the MSM, that is. I skipped the ones that consisted of photos dissolving into each other accompanied by Vangelis) I noticed that the reporters were always keen to ask people what they thought caused it.

Me, I think this is a trap. As soon as one says UFO's, or some variation of that, I reckon you've lost the argument. Viewers mentally switch off and think, 'well it must just be blokes, like those two blokes, what were their names again?' I'm sure you can dig it.

I'd like to see someone who tells me what it isn't, refuses to say what 'it' is, and then leaves it up to me. Kind of thing. Um... so that's what I'm going to do.


That aside, I got rid of anon's bee that was buzzing around in my bonnet and I'll get back to tearing down some more crop circle phonies shortly.

Anonymous said...

Here we see that ancient native American pictographs seem to resemble the computer holograms of an energy field around a massive solar flare. I think that is what the survivors of the end of the fourth sun were trying to convey some 26,000 years ago. We are again coming to to the end of such a period this year and most don't think the flares are at their zenith yet.

For me this has been the story for sometime and I do think it ties into the crop circle angle.

It just may be that some in Japan remember some of this also as the sun emblem looks quite a bit like some of the pictographs.


skinnylegsandall said...

I don’t know how you feel about Eric Hufschmid.I know don’t list him in your links.Still he has some interesting Neanderthal pages of various “leaders” with very similar physical characteristics.Fascinating stuff.
Next,media at work,the Memphis three,jews one and all.Jessie Misskelley, Jr. was 17 years old, Jason Baldwin was 16 years old, and Damien Echols was 18 years old.When they were arrested.Nichols was on death row.They walked out of jail with a no-low contendetre? ple this fall,2011.How, first a movie summer 2010,Wynona Ryder,jew,the eddie vedder jew and Natilie Maimes Dixie chick,not jew but married an Iranian named Pasdar,an actor no less,no doubt a jew in my mind,to control Miss Maimes.Misskell is slightly retarded.Going back in my memory Echols mother is said to be adopted as well as her mother.Something weird going on here.Echols I’m sure is queer although he married some woman from inside the prison.The retarded one went home from prison in his fathers van.Echols and Baldwin got right in Vedders suv and drove off.I’m pretty sure what went on was some of jew covenant to drink the blood of the little boys.Some other the jews came I believe too.One more thing Echols had a friend named Jacobi, why always just say his friend? There are ZERO pictures of Jacobi, I researched him his blood is almost identical to Echols,one Nucleotide different in fact.He had role in this.I’m not sure how though.

skinnylegsandall said...

Just for record Skinnylegsandall is the title of a book written by Tom Robbins.A hugely funny great book.Other books Jitterbug Perfume,Even Cowgirls get the Blues.He is sort a counter-cultural author from mid-70's to present.When I was younger I read them at least 5 times.I still enjoy rereading them.
Now the Memphis three,now men,walked right out of jail absolutely no fanfare on any so called jew-wise websites.I don't get it still.

slozo said...

"@Full stop: The fact that there is no concrete physical evidence to support the theory does not mean that it is definitely invalid and should be completely discounted as a possibility."

- Sure. And I didn't require only concrete evidence, I inferred that there should be some indication, clue, circumstantial evidence - anything. So yeah, all the crop circles could have been created by a real life ET, just like in the movie. He probably had a glowing finger, and did it with that bike move from the movie. There is nothing to indicate that, but yeah, we shouldn't discount it as a possibility. True true.

"I see no problem with entertaining the possibility that it might be aliens, especially when that's moderated by entertaining the possibility that the whole thing is just a distraction."

-And I see no problem in believing that the tooth fairy might indeed be real - as you say, no harm, no foul.

"As I've attempted to get across, I hold none of the possibilities as a favourite, since I have access to so very little information on the subject."

-Clearly. And have you thought about my argument on the mass media constantly trumpeting and promoting aliens as one of the key possibilities? And in fact, that despite that, almost no evidence of any kind suggests this?

"I in fact know very little about crop circles and have only seen pictures of them on the internet. As far as I know they may not even exist."

I haven't seen any in person myself either - but I have done the due diligence in tracking down the veracity of some of the people involved in terms of witnesses, people whose land they were on, etc. Half spooky/connected, half real people from what I found. So, I do think they physically exist, yes, but as you say, you don't know until you actually see one yourself, I agree.

"The scenario backdrop which supports the validity of the theory as a theory (and only a theory) for me is that, since the technology used is said to be beyond our means, it is likely wielded by a group of people that have access to technology beyond our means, which could include black ops government agencies, and yes, other sentient races."

-Which is exactly the same mistake in procedural logic that early man made when assigning godhood to lightning, floods and volcano eruptions.

And, my whole point is in having the REQUIREMENT of a scenario backdrop . . . this kills any kind of solid deductive reasoning in any investigation. Never approach a mystery with pre-conceived notions of what it might be - or at least, try your hardest not to (obviously impossible, but we do our best)

"As for the thirty years of propaganda (I must assume you have solid physical full stop evidence that all of it was in fact lies),"

- Doesn't matter if there is some truth or no truth in it, propaganda is propaganda. It is the fact that it is force-fed to you, instilled in you, in repeated phrases, suggestions, motifs, and symbology, that makes it propagandic in nature. Much good propaganda is in fact filled with half-truths and truths.

" I personally would not like to so heavily base my opinions on guesses whether their lies have four layers or five."

Ahem. Most of your opinions on any world matters would be almost entirely made of guesses. Just like all of us. Now, they may be made up of educated, good reasonng and logical deduction-type guesses, but really . . . we are ALL guessing.

I'm guessing I've pissed you off again, but . . . I'm used to it. Just needed to get this point of view off my chest. And, in fact, inviting people to maybe show me some actual indicator of alien involvement in crop circles?

Pstonie said...

@Full stop: I know you had to get it off your chest. I had got the impression that you've been carrying around this peeve, just waiting for a place to drop it. I battle a habit of doing that myself sometimes. I am glad that I was the recipient, though. You've not pissed me off, I greatly enjoy academic discussions like these.

I will however not further be explaining my conjecture that other sentient races with access to technology beyond our means is one possible cause of something it is said is done with technology beyond our means.

Suffice it to say that I will not be completely throwing out what I view as a marginal possibility just because some guy on the internet has made up his mind that the very possibility is of the most evil forms of propaganda. That's mostly because I dislike the idea of weakening myself by discounting any possibility. You would agree that many people can't make the leap to seeing 9/11 for what it is because they have utterly discounted the possibility of a conspiracy as large as it implies.

As for mass media's influence on thought patterns, I know from personal experience how difficult it is to recover from the scar it's left, especially on people around my generation that's grown up loving television.

Anonymous said...

I created the crop circles using ropes and boards. Where is the mystery in that?