[Kristoferson]

the next good question, which the movie didn't touch upon, is a follow-up to the evidence that man-made circles do possess weird characteristics which were not expected. if the man-made circles present characteristics which were not expected to be there, then let the skeptics please explain a process by which they may become. perhaps the geometry is responsible; perhaps the mass of dead/damaged crop is responsible; perhaps the thought and/or intention of the persons creating the formation is responsible; perhaps it's all horse-...stuff

again people are too quick to focus on the idea that either something is or it isn't. i like that the film noted how the men who create some formations are themselves somewhat spiritual, and admit having weird experiences while creating them. but where is the scientific research trying to explain why known man-made circles have properties totally unexpected and generally considered to be genuine? i guess i ask too much from scientists to leave their childish comforts behind and to bravely explore the controversial without doing a half-assed job then calling the case conclusively closed. perhaps i'm too hard on people but i consider myself a scientist and have a degree to show for it, yet am disgusted to be even indirectly associated with some of this rubbish which pervades the field.


-charles