April 12th Show

[Paul Kimball]

Holly and I are going to be in the UK filming and taking a holiday in May - June, and we'll be staying down in Salisbury with a friend for a few days. Maybe we'll take a camera and camp out in a field overnight and see if any crop circles form around us, or if they follow us from there. It would sure beat being followed by ghosts and demons!

In all seriousness, while I think Sherwood is full of it, I don't discount the possibility, as Nick Redfern talks about, that there is some non-human intelligence directing the crop-circle makers in some cases, as a way of trying to communicate with us. After all, that's really no different than what the world's major (and minor) religions have been saying all this time, i.e. direct contact with the divine (i.e. a non-human intelligence of some sort).

 

[anthromom]

I absolutely was riveted by the crop circles show, not because the ideas were so great, but because of the absolute delusions of the guests. I couldn't believe this guy actually believed what he was saying. Why in heck would a crop circle define a crop circle? And what the heck is he thinking that he believes these are directed at him? This man is utterly under the spell of his own warped beliefs. His thinking is totally circular, not that circular thinking is always bad, but in this case he is merely confirming all the time what he already believes. This man is probably not crazy, but he certainly doesn't realize -- and I believe he is sincere -- how utterly crazy his perceptions are.

 

[Blacknight]

...In all seriousness, while I think Sherwood is full of it, I don't discount the possibility, as Nick Redfern talks about, that there is some non-human intelligence directing the crop-circle makers in some cases, as a way of trying to communicate with us. After all, that's really no different than what the world's major (and minor) religions have been saying all this time, i.e. direct contact with the divine (i.e. a non-human intelligence of some sort).

Good idea, planting that notion. Within 6 months we'll have an Archbishop of The First Church of Crop Circlery, in 9 months they'll be organized as a not-for-profit, within a year they'll be wearing funny hats and within 18 months they'll excommunicate their first heretic for claiming crop circles are man-made!

Seriously, using "possibility" as a standard is weak. Almost anything is possible. We need to narrow the field of possibilities to something resembling probability. And, in my opinion, the notion of anything intelligent communicating by using indecipherable images in a poor farmer's crop is so improbable as to not warrant much time, effort or consideration.

There is simply no credible evidence to suggest that crop circles are not entirely man made. And I'm not sure I'd care of there were. I'm a big believer in the precept that "listening grants the power of speaking". If one wants me to understand a message communicate it in a manner which I can comprehend. It is incumbent upon the speaker (especially an intelligent one!), NOT the receiver of the intended message, to know the audience to which it is attempting to communicate. So either these paranormal crop circle artisans don't have a message, don't want us to understand their message or are lacking in the intelligence required to communicate clearly. In any case, I come back to one big shrug about the entire thing.

I just don't get the whole obsession with crop circles. It seems a huge frivolity and waste of time and energy better focused elsewhere.

In any case, enjoy the holiday!

 

[anthromom]

These people don't see the recursive nature of their own thinking. They have made up a belief system and then their belief system confirms their belief system. It's absolutely nuts that these people think the crop circles are talking to them about the nature of crop circles. Why would some other intelligence (or a collective intelligence) waste its energy defining itself rather than endeavoring on some of message? Surely more people are thinking about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan than about the nature of crop circles. Why don't crop circles refer to something like that? No, the collective unconscious is more interested, it seems, in talking to crop circle researchers. This is an interesting form of delusion and reinforces my belief that all crop circles are the result of real human energy that has nothing to do with "collective unconscious."

 

[7 String]

I looked at a couple of pieces he has posted on Youtube, and came away quite unimpressed. The footage is low quality, and has that balloon-like look that I've seen in a lot of faked stuff.

dB

Thanks Dave! That's exactly my point. I mean if this guy can sense these things before they happen,,,yadda, yadda, yadda..... Then I would think that he would be able to better capture these things in High Definition. I'm no expert but I can tell you if I had the ability to sense this shit, you can damn well bet I would have some indisputable footage.

There is no doubt that there is something to crop circles in general, the real ones obviously. I'm just not comfy with Ed's direction. I'd love to be proved wrong. That's one band wagon I'll stay away from.

~A

 

[anthromom]

I don't know -- I think craziness is interesting. That's what interested me about this podcast, that people can actually believe what this guy was saying -- that he believes it himself!

 

[CapnG]

Dave and Gene, my prickish-ness is not directed at you,,,, I just can't put my finger on this guy. I listened to the entire interview and have no idea what the hell he even said? Talk about lost time? Maybe that's what happened to me?

In a nutshell: 90% of crop circles are man-made, while "real" crop circles are made by aliens and God. That's the TRUTH because he says so.

 

[Stillborn]

I gotta admit, listening to the first 1/2 hour or so I was very much in the "these guys are nuts" camp. I think they are on to something though with the pics from HST and the angel crop formation...I mean , look at these pix. They are very,very close....hell, they both even have the small radiating lines!! FWIW, I still think the Oliver's Castle vid is the real deal....

Was what appeared in the field before or after what happened to Jupiter? The question goes for both "circles".

 

[subject x]

Indeed... although would you really want Bigfoot following you around?

Oh, absolutely!! That would just be to much fun!

Not to mention lucrative. "Oh, you want to see bigfoot? Well for a "reasonable" fee, you can hang out with me, and I guarantee you'll see him. Bring your camera."

 

[fahrusha]

I have never personally seen a crop circle manmade or otherwise, so my jury is still out on the phenomena. I do believe that the Earth is a sentient being, but I freely admit that this is a part of my belief system and not a "fact" that I can verify.
My ears perked up when the Sherwoods spoke of the sound recordings from within the crop circles as I had just attended a lecture with Colin Andrews another British cerealogist (sp?) this past weekend and he possesses sound files from within the circles and also says that most of the circles are manmade but not all. Mr. Andrews appeared to me to be a very serious and sincere researcher and I was pleased to have made his and his wife's acquaintance. We spoke together about the possible reasons for disinformation and he seemed very astute.

 

[Blacknight]

I do believe that the Earth is a sentient being, but I freely admit that this is a part of my belief system and not a "fact" that I can verify.

First, let me say that I appreciate your setting a context that this is a belief, so I wouldn't condescend by asking you for a "proof". But I find this an intriguing proposition. Exactly what do you mean; that the planet is capable of forming and acting upon rational thought? What led you to that? I must say that such a belief certainly would open up a whole (no pun intended) world of possibilities.

 

[fahrusha]

I guess that first one must define the concept of living. Biologically we equate living with respirating, that is in the case of animals, breathing oxygen, or in the case of plants, breathing in carbon dioxide and exhaling oxygen. (Yes, I know there are other words than breathing that are used for plants.) When a person stops breathing for a period of time, the heart stops and we consider him or her biologically dead.
But then there is consciousness as a different concept of what is living. Are electrons alive if they know where one another are where ever they are in the Universe? The Earth is a living ecosystem. I have personal experience that leads me to believe She is alive. We are to the Earth as bacteria in our human guts are to us. I am not suggesting that humans have the mentality of bacteria, only that there is a symbiotic relationship. You might check out the Gaia Hypothesis on the Internet for the general concept.
Furthermore, as I have mentioned in another place on these forums, that I have experienced light balls in several places in the USA and I am lead to deduce that they are manifestations of nature divas. Nature divas are thought to be the oversouls of a plant species, like red clover may be many individual plants, but some think that a field of clover has one oversoul or diva. I cannot categorically prove this, but it seems like a good theory and was believed in some form by the Druidic people, the Celts and some Native Americans and other indigenous shamanic traditions. So some of the light manifestations may be the consciousness of the Earth or another species oversoul. Most of this is a theory, but I truly believe that the Earth has a consciousness.

 

[CapnG]

Not to crap on your beliefs but I just can't accept the idea of the earth being "alive". To me it's like saying if I took the chemical compounds that make up the human body and threw then in a drum and added water I'd somehow magically have a human being instead of a bucket of chemical sludge...

Some things are EXACTLY the sum of their parts.

 

[fahrusha]

No problem. I freely admit it is a belief, not at this time a verifiable fact by the scientific method. There is so much happening around us that is beyond the scope of our limited senses, that I'm sure we'd all be blown away by it if we had a wider bandwidth sensory apparatus. Also I have no desire to proselytize. "Blacknight" asked a question and I did my best to answer. To you I'd merely ask if you were familiar with the Gaia Hypothesis?

 

[CapnG]

To you I'd merely ask if you were familiar with the Gaia Hypothesis?

Only vaguely but what I know of it I don't buy for the reasons stated above. We live on the earth the same way moss lives on a rock as far as I'm concerned, the distinction between which is living and which isn't is quite clear, only the scale is different.

You should know I'm not really convinced that souls even exist in the conventional sense so you can see why a "planetary spirit" would be a bit much for me.

 

[Stillborn]

I think Gaia is a nice metaphor, but not to be taken literally. I think the Earth is alive in a similar way that I think electrons are. Not sure I would call it sentient or consider it an organism, but I don't consider it dead/inert.

Even the guy who came up with Gaia doesn't actually view the Earth as an actual organism I hear. Anymore at least.

 

[fahrusha]

That sounds good. "Organism" would have to be defined. Having organs? No, probably not.
Sentient, yes, I think in a different way.

 

[Blacknight]

That sounds good. "Organism" would have to be defined. Having organs? No, probably not.
Sentient, yes, I think in a different way.

The point of distinction, I think, rests entirely with the belief that the planet is sentient, that it is or is not an intelligent thing. To be frank, I have never even considered that as a possibility. But I am interested in how one would come to that conclusion and what the ramifications of such a belief are. Hoping not to appear sarcastic, would such a belief preclude, for example, your digging a hole or removing minerals? I certainly recognize that some of my beliefs--especially those related to religion--require a leap of faith when examined in the cold hard light of rationality, so I am, simply, interested in understanding; I promise you I will not engage you in a point-counterpoint debate.

 

[jpw.in.wi]

This guy has internalized crop circles so that it’s not all about crop circles; it’s all about him. They even follow him around across continents and give him personalized answers to his ruminations, which he alone can interpret ....

You hit the nail on the head. I was with him for a while as he discussed the distinction between man-made and non-man made circles, and as he described some of the evidence they've come across over the years. But it was at the point you highlighted above that I just wanted to take my iPod and skip to my next Paracast download.

It reminds me of the growth of the early Christian church (and probably others). At first it was about individuals’ personal experiences, but it turned into a hierarchical institution where only the priests could interpret the Bible and symbols of the church.

Since you brought it up, the history of the Church is not at all analogous to what Mr. Sherwood is doing. He has taken the appearances of patterns in wheat fields and he just seems to make up things pleasing to his sensibilities as he goes along from there.

The Church was hierarchical from the very beginning. With Christianity, you have one man who claimed to be God's only Son, the Way, the Truth itself, and the founder of Life itself. It was he who then chose 12 imperfect, weak men--with the renamed Peter as first among equals--to be the foundation of his Church, which he promised he would remain with always, and to which he promised to send the Paraclete as a guide. He gave the "keys of the Kingdom" to his Church to pronounce what is truthful and what is false teaching in matters of faith and morals only. And that teaching authority was then passed down over 2,000 years through the successors of those first 12 (the bishops of the Church), and of course Catholics hold to the Pope as the direct successor to Peter.

And when controversies arose over questions of truth within Christian teachings, they naturally had to respect where it was that teaching authority lay.

Christianity was never about individual, personal experiencing. It was and is about individuals dying to self, so that "It's no longer I who live, but Christ who lives within me." The one baptized becomes a member of the Body of Christ, which is the Church, and the rest of his or her life becomes a daily struggle to put self last, to put everyone else first, to empty and humble oneself so as to serve others and help them bare their burdens. Not an easy, soft and fluffy path at all. Probably why countless Christians have shown themselves to be such conspicuous failures at this task throughout the ages and right on into our own times.

As G.K. Chesterton famously said, "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried."

It's definitely not an easy path to walk. Think about it: a teacher tells you to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the sick, visit the imprisoned, forgive "70 times 7" times when others wrong you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you ...

Then, the world hears that teacher's message, and this is how it responds to the teacher ... nice!

 

[Loose Leaf Tea]

Oh, Christ. What a thing to wake up to on Sunday morning. Thanks for the charming fairytale pics, jpw. You know, I just love the way you God botherer's think you have the monopoly on good, moral behaviour. (BTW, you are a God botherer aren't you, or have I missed some hidden sarcastic point you were trying to make? If so, I apologise in advance.)
Every one, and I mean every one, of my acquaintances who claim to have "faith" in a God, who insist that they keep their nonsense private and "to themselves", always let it trickle out in some way or other, making certain that you get their point of course. Message boards and forums included, it seems.
Grow up, FFS.

Amen