'Basic Requirements' (Reviewed): Part 2
Basic Requirements needed for Accurate Construction of a Pattern in any Standing Crop.
This is an upgraded version from a technical point of view. It will show that the man-made hypothesis is simply not credible. (Document to follow soon.)
Reference Ansty CC in particular. Each of these symbols alone would take ages to construct accurately and would need to be always first-time perfect. A sense of continuity would need to exist between each character.
The Ansty CC of August 2016 is merely being used here as an example. The rules and principles herein described apply to pretty much all CCs to a greater or lesser degree. Any landscape garden pattern, recreational maze, layout for whatever reason on firm ground or terrestrial geometry intended to be 100% accurate from either a ground perspective or when viewed from above would need to comply. In the case of a CC holding bio-physical anomalies this would increase the 'mysterious probability factor' by an incalculable degree since such is not replicable. Anyone who tells you different is either up to no good or not up to speed/incompetent regards the subject or... is telling outright lies.
Bottom line: If the surveying industry did not abide by the described modus operandi there would be no sophisticated civic engineering/construction industry ,...just basic mud/concrete huts placed in an urban, disorganised and non precise way relative to each other. The construction of crop circles would simply be no different in principle and practice to any other form of construction. The only difference is they are just surrounded by myth, uncertainty and dis-information which clouds judgement. This is the bit dis-informers exploit. There is no myth, uncertainty and disinformation surrounding a new property development in urban Manchester for example. That is because the techniques used in building are wholly accepted, so then let it be when applied to CCs.
All accurate mapping is wholly dependant on high end surveying techniques. What you see below is NOT that. You will commonly see guys posing in photos with boards,rope and tape measure, but NEVER using a TST, prism+EDM.
These chaps are allegedly the best in the business would you believe! In truth they are con-artists out to deceive you.The guy in the green T-shirt literally told me so, believe it or not. He seemed quite aggressive with it too!
“Could you really, sensibly and fairly consider a large and complex geometric design incorporating possible 3D perspective and off centre but accurate freehand elements maybe, being constructed accurately within the time restraints and parameters mentioned, using this rediculously primitive and time consuming method. It’s a joke! Seriously... IT'S SIMPLY AND UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE”! If you still actually believe in this method you probably still believe the world is flat!
“In order to embark on a task such as Ansty one would need one qualified land surveyor, one who is well practiced in the use of trigonometry, triangulation and TST technology plus maybe an assistant, but not initially. The impression gained from the recent Earthfiles.com report on this CC is that no less than x8 personnel were involved from the start for x3 nights. That's wrong! This would be like having seven unnecessary dentists on standby whilst one would be sufficient actually doing the job. Maybe this is correct, but very, very doubtful I would say. These people have cars and expensive and heavy equipment and there would be a need to park nearby, either openly or not. The Ansty site is very close to farm shop buildings and its personnel so this may be an issue if clandestine. Good and easy access to the site would be required as work would take many days of going back and forth.
The area in question would first need to be assessed by means of accurate reconnaissance to take account of scaling and datum issues etc and factors such as topographic variation (T/V) that may well bias the end result from an aerial perspective. The ground is unlikely to be perfectly level. Where T/V was present another site would need to be chosen as theoretical calculations needed to correct these errors would be far beyond any realistic CC task brief. (Fact is many CCs occur perfectly symmetrical and true on T/V land and show absolutely no signs of distortion when filmed from above.) If this were a building development the first thing you would do would be to create a scrapped true and level surface.These guys would not need support workers for marker placement, distancing etc.as TST used with remote. There would be no need for a live-feed aerial monitoring unit with the operator well coordinated with ground crew, and capable of giving real-time surveillance of work being carried out on the non -predictable, non geometric/artistic (symbols) components of the design. This is a 'red-herring' as is laser and quite unnecessary as TST used throughout. All aspects/features of this work would need to be relatively positioned, well distanced and centred but as ALL the design would be plotted beforehand on TST software this would not be an issue.The symbols would not need to be plotted free-hand as would be first time perfect as TST managed but the resultant ground-lay in and outside of design would show signs of wear due to 'worker traffic'... well away from a smooth, machine-like and consistent sweep that is quite evident in the Ansty CC.
However, the task would actually be carried out in daylight conditions, and laser-line surveying apparatus would not be needed as 'observed ' by Resident 2 in the Earthfiles report. Poles would have no relevance in this task.Theodolites and optic tools are used routinely on new build and land mapping tasks and the newer models now have infra-red distance calculating capability (but not the old...significant when we reference CCs long past but still perfect.) All would be based on Infer-red (IR) not laser. In the old days tasks took longer. Conversely, we have sound reason to know CCs happen quite quickly in reality. Now, if we consider Ansty has in fact an overall area of around two acres and is 100 metres in diameter we soon can realise that the task in hand is quite massive and without the use of advanced surveying apparatus it would frankly be quite impossible. In short, I think you can now realise that just mapping an area of this size to define and accurately mark and place features and line schematics would indeed take many days, if not weeks. An area of this size would commonly be similar to that of a new small property development whereon the surveying team would be hanging around and doing for weeks sometimes. MRICS are highly skilled professionals.
In practice, there are three ways in all to approach this proposal...either from a concentric or a non-concentric perspective if attempted manually or.... TST.
A. If the design were to be approached from the concentric view point and attempted by manual measurement all 'non symbol' math and geometry would theoretically be predictable; all measurements, values and angles would be recurring and relatively far, far less challenging.
B. If the design was concidered from a non concentric perspective, as could be the case here, this is where the real fun starts if attempted by manual measurement. All the internal measurements and angles will be non recurring, all math and geometry different. It only takes the slightest departure from true centre, to ellipticate this new equation. This could only be accurately defined by computer graphics data linked to EDM and TST. To translate these fine numbers and values to land manually would be ludicrously challenging.
C. If the design were considered concentric or not and created via EDM+TST. In this way one could only achieve the 'setting-out' of this design. However a design map free from foot tread damage like in most other CCs (some get early visitors) would not be possible as this damage would be unavoidable during the process of a man walking around in the crop in undefined territory placing marker flags. In the Ansty case it would be extensive.
I can only here begin to describe with simplicity the scenario of manual measurement since more accurate could only be illustrated by the aforesaid graphics system, which is the only way in any case that this design could in practice be achieved.
From a human perspective the foot-tread resultant from any man standing for a long period and slowly working his way around the 360Deg at centre point would be evident. No such wear and tear markings were evident in this central area on day one...see photo. The manual process would go something like this. Once circumference stage was completed distance from centre (internal rings) markers would need to be established going all way around again (bisecting radial lines thereby establishing primary peg positions if done manually. These would be non recurring values if mitigated by the asymmetric nature if the overall proposed design was in fact slightly elliptical. (Elliptical values increase proportionately in relation to off-centre bias, a bit like orbiting body around the Earth). Then the secondary radials for 'flower of life' feature would need to be defined x3 plus the inner ring. These would effectively be mini events placed accurately all around the design; if one is just a bit 'out' then so will all other geometry likewise be. At some point soon the leaf feature would need to be plotted and pegged, if not before the FOL features. Problem here, as with many curved features in CCs, would be the radii and corresponding arcs which in practice could only be achieved accurately beforehand having been worked theoretically on graphics. Workers would need to be mindful of creating giveaway foot tread damage which is impossible of course! The pin pointed position of radii would all be different if overall design was eccentric, one perhaps being on outside of the main design area, which would be evident in the crop as the man moved about to attempting to establish his final plotting point. No such damaged areas are evident inside or outside the Ansty CC.
This is a very crude and simplified attempt to just describe and sketch some sort of sense of what would be entailed if attempted manually...I may have missed some aspects. This would not be even cover half of it...hugely more complicated. Option C is the only way you're going to do this!
Laser-line would not be used. TST is now standard. Basically, no surveyor on Earth would dream of being commissioned to undertake on such a task as this at night. If you did need to do this it would be required to provide an elaborate system of lighting which I think might be a bit of a give away. Without this personnel would be walking all over the place causing random damage in any case as the design may not be fully defined. On a building site this does not matter as all ground is in a 'rough' state at this stage. Standing crop in CCs needs to remain pristine. (In fresh CCs there is never any evidence of foot-tread anywhere!) To advertise your presence in this way would alert the farmer/locality and you would be prosecuted no question; a public fiasco no less would ensue considering the controversial nature of making a CC etc and the culprits would be identified and chastised beyond repair. Certainly, no qualified surveyor would risk his RICS membership for such a thing.
So, for such a proposition as this and for a commissioned team to settle down to undertake such a technically demanding task at night with the threat of discovery and restraints mentioned thus far borders on complete madness! If you had permission the task would still be the same but with no 'looking over your shoulder' worries. That's only going to happen very infrequently and in which case you would not need to be working at night-time. Commissioned debunking CC at Salthop took 3 men, 8+ hours in day light approx 70ft simple design. I regard this as my ‘control' sample which I documented… to the team’s annoyance!. See article here. http://www.coregroupinitiative.com/#!Report-on-EyeWitnessed-Event-at-Salthrop-Wiltshire/c218b/5672ddf00cf275ddd6e90995
Then we have the actual task of skilfully and carefully laying down the crop material in an ordered, considered and machine-like manner and along with following a detailed plan to maintain orientation. There would be no room for error as consistency would be lost. Ansty has this overall consistency. Again, lasers would play no part in this or indeed any of the process.
Then there's the cost and motive. In business and life generally there is usually a sensible and sober cost/outcome equation. Here, because of the novel nature of the task no guarantees could possibly be made regards outcome unless a highly sophisticated approach was incorporated as described, which clearly did not happen here. This would call into question the cost effectiveness of such a task to the purchaser. If at some point all went wrong, the crew would need to pack up and do a runner pretty quick and would effectively be fugitives at risk from prosecution related to wilful damage and trespass, likely more! If caught, the magistrate would require details of the commissioning client who would also be discredited for aiding and abetting. Just not worth it.
In my mind the dis-information surrounding the Ansty CC example equates to the rubbish and carnival of nonsense spoken a couple of years ago about the CC at Chualar CA.USA. Again, a massive and perfect CC...completely mysterious in origin. I am utterly perplexed as to the reasoning and MO behind the Earthfiles.com claims. The whole thing makes absolutely NO sense in the real world of construction. Perhaps there maybe some other rationale behind it. The MSG aspect has no bearing on the construction of Ansty and is otherwise a mystery. The Circlemakers have their reasons I'm sure!
So, for those of you that are not able to grasp these fundamental facts of organisation and construction you are, with respect probably not in a good position to give an informed opinion...as you are clearly not up to speed with this subject. Not meant unkindly, just a fact.
This is a very serious subject with immeasurable consequences/implications and should not be treated as a device for petty self-promotion by the mis-guided. To consider this CC as anything other than a miraculous event is unrealistic.
Sorry, but you simply cannot argue with the above.This is not just an opinion, it's just a list of mere facts. Ask any surveyor for his viewpoint. This CC is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE TO CONSTRUCT BY HAND within the restraints mentioned before. People would make mistakes with a design so complex as this and these mistakes would be impossible to cover up once done. My feeling is even if a month was spent on it, it would still have nowhere near the accuracy, finesse and smooth flowing consistency we see here if attempted manually with tape measure and sticks. This is fantasy. In fact you would be lucky to realise a pattern such as this at all! I think we should always consider the real practical 'nuts and bolts' of CC construction and get out of this absurd mind-set of 'hand-made'. People are just not that clever or able to overcome such technical problems outlined in this article without using the technology.
Just watch out for the debunkers references to TST, EDM and IR once this has been published. This is what happens when new information is put out there...they latch onto it and attempt to discredit. They better know their subject well!
"If you or anyone else for that matter do not consider these practical aspects of theoretical crop circle construction, you or they cannot be expected to be taken seriously, sense would dictate, no matter how many years of so called 'experience' you or they may claim to have".
This is an incomplete report with additional material pending.
Thanks for reading.
Please reference:
http://v5.books.elsevier.com/bookscat/samples/9780750669498/9780750669498.PDF
