HN Books @HNBooksMonth

Anybody who has looked into this subject for more that 20 seconds knows that two drunken old men named "Doug" and "Dave" could not account for the hundreds upon hundreds of radically complex and often astronomically precise formations that have appeared (and continue to appear) over the years. Doug and Dave appeared precisely at the serious "WTF is going on moment" in the UK just when hysteria was about to strike, and presto, the question was put to rest. This NYT story is ridiculous.

This is _not_ to say that people don't create these by hand -- including some extremely complex formations -- but certainly not Doug and Dave, and overnight (and often times in just a few hours), and in great volume, with a depth of symbol and reference written in, day after day after day.

There is real mystery here, and I would recommend that anyone who would like to look into it deeper (if only to debunk!) read 'Secrets In The Fields: The Science And Mysticism Of Crop Circles' (https://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Fields-Mysticism-Circles-anni...)

⬐ comboy

Wow, that's a fresh book. I'm not deep enough into this to order paperback to hear the full story, but since you disagree with the article can you provide your explanation and how you see it?

If you think it was made by aliens, then how do you think it happens (e.g. the force needs to be not too high), why would nothing be recorded, why only on planted fields and not elsewhere?

Just to be clear, I don't think any of them were made by aliens, but my questions are sincere, I hope you have some coherent structure built upon different axioms and would love to explore it.

⬐ sibeliuss

I honestly don't know what it is and am completely agnostic to whether it was created by man or supernatural being or alien or whatever. But there's a lot of evidence that many of them were created near-instantly, and they always leave a unique radiation signature. I'm not aware of a technology that can do that, but perhaps it's out there.

⬐ TheOtherHobbes

I don't believe there was ever a "unique radiation signature."

But there were some very interesting circles. Like this one, which appeared overnight next to the A303, which is one of the busiest roads in the area.

https://www.science.org/content/article/jaw-dropper-crop-cir...

The Doug and Dave story is obviously ridiculous. IMO there's no way two fat old dudes could do something like this.

It would be challenging to draw a design like this by hand on paper with drawing tools, never mind across nearly half a kilometre in a wheat field at night.

At the very least it's clear it was planned, measured out, and laid with unusual competence.

You'd need a team of a good few people and very possibly some surveying equipment - not impossible, but not at all a trivial project.

Compare with a more recent attempt which shows what a crude circle looks like.

https://nextnature.net/magazine/story/2007/crop-circles/065_...

⬐ comboy

> https://www.science.org/content/article/jaw-dropper-crop-cir...

All parts are based on a circle ("arms" are just incomplete circles). That's a stick in the ground and some string.

Start with the big circle in the middle. Why 6 arms? Because then distance between biggest arm circles is the same as the distance from them to the center circle. Easy to put them evenly around.

I'm sure it still takes some time to make them, but the figure is neither complex nor accurately done. I don't see why a few bored students couldn't do it overnight.

⬐ hunter-gatherer

> But there's a lot of evidence that many of them were created near-instantly, and they always leave a unique radiation signature

Since there is a lot, can you point us lazy people to a few legitimate references for these claims? I can't find any.

⬐ whatshisface

I do not really believe in the radiation signature, but because photosynthesis preferentially fixes the unstable isotope of carbon, the smell of freshly cut grass would technically have a newer carbon date than plain air.

⬐ lupire

More directly, you could make a crop circle and measure it and compare to a discovered crop circle.

⬐ ben_w

> But there's a lot of evidence that many of them were created near-instantly, and they always leave a unique radiation signature.

I’m not aware of any such evidence.

My mum loved all things supernatural, occult, and so on — she took it all very seriously, but all her sources were either anecdotal or literally conspiracy theorists, never, for example, a CCTV camera or a Geiger counter.

What even is a “unique radiation signature” in this context? Is this in the same sense that DHMO is “a deadly industrial solvent”?

⬐ whatshisface

The aliens made it the same way the pranksters did, by walking around with a piece of wood underfoot. If you recall the basic principles of extraterrestrial contact with pre-warp civilizations, it is against the prime directive to reveal yourself or imply that your advanced technology is possible. In this legal context, the prank crop circles were a loophole - that allowed aliens to land and write messages that we will all have a good laugh about once you are admitted to the local group federation.

⬐ swatcoder

That book is probably fascinating and maybe even accurate, but it’s worth noting that it was self-published by a writer trying to make a living off of “ancient mysteries and alternative history” [1]

That doesn’t rule out its veracity, but does suggest it could be more motivated by making sales through sensationalism than contributing to the record of knowledge through scholarship.

https://invisibletemple.com/about.html

⬐ tbihl

> it could be more motivated by making sales through sensationalism than contributing to the record of knowledge through scholarship.

Unfortunately, you've also just described all* modern media/journalism outfits, too.

*All is not literal, but a close approximation when weighted by readership/viewership. I don't discount that real scholarship exists, but it only exists in small lagoons of the internet, and widespread attention seems to purge the serious scholarship away from previously good outlets.

⬐ ALittleLight

I take no position on crop circles, but, to be fair, discounting someone because they make their living studying something is not a reasonable thing to do. For example "Remember, this climate scientist gets lots of funding because people think there is a climate problem coming."

⬐ swatcoder

It’s not only reasonable, but responsible, to understand where information is coming from and use that to modulate what trust you put into that information.

In the case of self-publishing by an author with no familiar affiliations, one would probably want to treat the information you receive as a single attestation that may need further validation (if its truth is important to you).

Once you’re more familiar with the author or recognize other trusted parties who have invested their own trust in them, you may treat it differently.

It’s no different than a random podcast or blog. You don’t just blindly trust someone because they talk about the same thing all the time, do you?

I should hope you look at a variety of trust signals and validate what you hear in proportion to the strength of those signals.

⬐ ALittleLight

This is not responding to the point. It's fine to know where your information is coming from and what biases might motivate that information. It's not fine to imply that because someone studies a topic they are necessarily untrustworthy on that topic - which is how I read your earlier comment.

If you use the "I can't trust X because he studies on this" line of thinking then anything outside of the mainstream will be hard to take seriously. Amateurs advocating weird idea X won't be taken seriously because their advocacy will be amateur. Experts will be dismissed because they have a career interest in X.

⬐ swatcoder

Huh. That’s interesting that you standing by that reading of my original comment. I assumed you just misread it and so tried to respond constructively regardless.

It’s certainly not the intent of what I wrote, nor something that I would even take credit for saying generally.

I don’t really even see it there now, but I guess that’s the nature of reading one’s own writing. It’s easy to read it the way you meant, and can be hard to see all the different angles others might take on it.

⬐ ALittleLight

You wrote that the author is "trying to make a living" off of things like crop circles and that this fact suggests the author "could be more motivated by making sales" than honest inquiry. I'm surprised you had another meaning in mind apart from trying to discredit the author for the subject of his study.

⬐ swatcoder

You seem to be completely ignoring the words “self-published”, and the followup comment re-emphasizing how that’s critically relevant in case you missed it.

You also seem to be ignoring where I’m very careful not to discredit the author or the work, saying that neither his source of income or mode of publication speaks authoritatively against the actual veracity or quality of the work, and that they are simply things to be aware of as one personally interpret the work.

Since I agree with you, I’m happy to hack at the strawman with you (“expertise comes in many forms and shouldn’t be rejected simply because there are other incentives involved!”), but it really just doesn’t feel like you’ve been engaging with what’s actually in the text as written.

⬐ ehsankia

There's a difference between thousands of climate scientists collecting, analyzing and sharing data, vs one author writing a "fact" that is hard to verify. The post above claims some of these appeared overnight or even within hours. That's a cool claim that adds a lot of credibility to this being supernatural, but how can we verify such a fact? Do we have to take the word of this one person as a fact? A book written by an author is not science. The comparison to climate scientist is ridiculous.

⬐ interstice

Quite often in the news with these stories someone is quoted in the article, would it be that hard to track them down and ask a question or two?

⬐ ALittleLight

I don't think I did compare crop circles to climate science. I pointed out that the pattern of reasoning "Because X has an interest in Y we cannot trust X" applies equally well if X and Y are "fringe weirdo" and "crop circles" or if X and Y are "scientist" and "climate change". The fact that X studies Y, and has financial interests in it, does not mean that it is reasonable to discount X.

⬐ ehsankia

Right, but my point is, financial interest for thousands of scientists is different from financial interest of a book author. A book and a peer-reviewed research paper are not the same. While not perfect, there are far more safeguards around money corrupting science than for a book.

⬐ timeon

> for more that 20 seconds

On the other hand, it is common with various mysteries, that there are people, who are heavily invested studying them. It is hard for them to admit that there could be just simple explanation.

⬐ NaN1352

Yeah, good ol’ Doug and Dave, tirelessly creating all those circles all those years.

What’s funny to me is how we completely miss the point: how is this a prank? How are these circles "fake"?

The circles themselves are real, and amazing art and fascinating as an experiment , whatever it is. Yet somehow soon as someone supposedly "debunks" circles as being man made, somehow the circles stop being interesting?

If anything i think circles highlight that big flaw in human thinking. The6 highlight just how desperate we are for normality.

⬐ whatshisface

It shows how over-inflated coverage can transform a triumph into a disappointment.

⬐ mlyle

They still look pretty interesting. But, just like a magic performance loses some of the... um... magic when you know how it's done and the mystery is removed, so it is with crop circles.

(Of course, you can have transcendent magical acts that are still awesome even when you know how they're done, as Penn and Teller love to illustrate with their cups and balls trick. But the bar is a little higher.)

⬐ akomtu

Crop circles was a great experiment that showed how immature people still are. Instead of united curiosity, as one might expect, something as benign as pictures on crop fields produced contempt, suspicion, envy and greed. Now imagine we were to find a tiny piece of actual alien tech: that would start a war between believers and non-believers, and the actual research would never happen because it would be a heresy.

⬐ AlexandrB

I don't get it. There was united curiosity; that curiosity was sated (for many) by seeing evidence that these were man-made. Not sure where envy and greed enter the picture.

You shouldn't discount research as not "actual research" just because it shows you something you don't like.

⬐ NaN1352

Interesting how these pranksters somehow all get along in using th3 same language and symbolism, as well as interest in mathematics etc.

You’d think you’d see a bunch of giant dicks, people names, logos…

Nope, our worldwide cabal of pranksters somehow are very inspired by one another’s work.

⬐ cvccvroomvroom

Unless believes in "Ancient Aliens" and Ouija boards, copycats and/or productivity, obviously, to increase tourism.

⬐ gryfft

The NYT story has sources; your unsourced comment does nothing to debunk it. Further, the article does not claim the two are responsible for all crop circles, as you seem to imply, but rather 200 circles which were influential in causing a viral sensation.

⬐ quickthrowman

I fully agree, applying Occam’s Razor implies that it was aliens, not two guys named Doug and Dave who inspired other humans to make similar crop circles.

⬐ teilo

All Occam's Razor actually says in this instance is that the vast majority of them were not done by Doug and Dave. That's it.

⬐ whatshisface

The OP is not saying it was aliens, they're saying that it was more people than just Doug and Dave and that other people put a lot more effort into it. It is a view supported by the article:

>In its heyday there were probably five groups creating crop circles, Mr. Irving said,

⬐ WalterGR

> they're saying that it was more people than just Doug and Dave

As per the article’s title.

⬐ sibeliuss

One of the key points here is that in many regards, these crop circles required no effort at all. One hour there was a blank field, and the next hour there was an enormous, sophisticated, astronomically and symbolically correct imprint.

The book I posted above goes into great detail on how to distinguish between the two kinds.

⬐ lupire

What two kinds?

What is "astronomically and symbolically correct"?

⬐ sibeliuss

Two kinds: rough execution clearly by hand, containing imperfections and created over a period of time; other kind, mysterious origins or extraordinary skill, flawless execution, nearly-instant creation.

To your second question: many of the symbols and data embedded in the more mysterious crop imprints is well thought out and contains a remarkable amount of meaning, and oftentimes includes representations of seemingly-important celestial configurations through time. They're not just like: a circle here, a pattern there. There's clear information being communicated through the art.

⬐ pwinnski

Or--and this would line up with countless other examples over the centuries--people see patterns and project means where it wasn't intended.

⬐ sibeliuss

No, to be absolutely clear, there's unambiguous meaning embedded in the more intricate impressions and you can learn all about it in the many books on the subject. This isn't the case of seeing a handprint on a cave and then using ones imagination to interpret. It is much much more than that, and it is mysterious.

⬐ TedDoesntTalk

The symbols in a crop circle acting like an astronomical calendar with points aligned to certain astronomical events (eclipses, full/new moons, position of sun at an equinox or a solstice, positions of planets at certain times, etc).

⬐ whatshisface

The planets wander around so much that just about any direction is towards a planet at a certain time.

⬐ TedDoesntTalk

And what about my other examples?

⬐ nkrisc

Of every explanation I’ve ever heard, “humans did it” is still the simplest and requires the fewest extraordinary circumstances.

Every crop circle I’ve read about is still well within the realm of human ability. Crop circles would be one of the least complex things created by people.

Imagine devoting your life to studying them and then slowly realizing it was probably just a prank. I’d blame aliens too. Better to double down than admit it was all for nought.

⬐ tmm84

I also believe the "humans did it" explanation. Does it easily cover every single crop circle easily? Maybe not. But I have kept an open mind and for ever single reason someone gives for it being non-human in origin there is someone who explains it away as human/environmental in origin. For me, I don't feel that crop circles are that impressive and for all the fake crop circles that are done it makes it harder to take them seriously.