Cross-referencing and Probability in Assessment.
Indisputable emirical proof is here. This should, in theory, end the mysterious/non mysterious debate, for rationalists at least...and for ever. Ask a qualified botanist about the laws of phototropism. Ask a qualified surveyor (MRICS) about TST and its role in design layout.
'Arise' CF Silbury Hill 2013. Photo CCC with thanks.
By identifying and then referencing recurring features in 'day-one bent node CFs', those that are indisputably mysterious in origin, we can reasonably apply those observations to other events.
So, what do we know as utter, indisputable fact? Well, when we get events like the 'Sharks' on Hackpen Hill 23rd.June 2016 or the 'Arise' event on Silbury Hill 25th.June 2013 we can legitimately cross- reference their other features with considerable confidence. Why? Because both of these events were mysterious in origin as they contained node bending (NB) to precisely defined areas of the design, effectively lowering that area of the crop by approximately 12 inches. ...ON DAY ONE. This anomaly was NOT due to phototropism, rather more, intelligently controlled.
The only prerequisite here would be confidence that we were recording our data actually on day-one of the event's creation. In these two examples here I am very confident that these events were discovered on day-one as these fields are flown routinely on a daily basis at this time of year by more than one flyer.
'Sharks' CF Hackpen Hill 2016. Photo CCC with thanks.
This 'DAY ONE' aspect contains the indisputable empirical proof that should answer the CF debate once and for all (but of course it won't!) I've explained before that in nature node bending occurs as phototropism, a plant's response to trauma, like wind damage; the plant will gradually attempt to regain its optimum position for photosynthesis, which is the perpendicular; this takes several days. So when we get it on day-one it is significant. Factor in such probability anomalies like 'split edging' or 'Energy Leak', first-time perfect geometry, perfectly executed, seamless and consistent ground lay like 'water-flow', sometimes with extra-special features like rosettes, knots, 'wave-form' ground lay or standing tied up bouquets, the overall hypothesis becomes far more solid, even compelling. So, if we observed any/some of these other features in CFs without NB then we have a clue. In my earlier article on crop formation assessment I clearly stated that assessment just cannot be based on one aspect; the exception being day-one node bending. When you read such nonsense like..."It looks messy, broken or kinked stems, not perfectly symmetrical" and so on, one simply cannot take these statements seriously...it means absolutely nothing and demonstrates a lack of understanding on behalf of the reporter. The closest I can get, as example to "looking messy" would be a ground lay designed for texturing whereon the lay is not pushed hard to the ground, but rather more flecked-up intermittently around the CF to give contrast, often used in 3D effect events.
So to extend my point, for example, if we have an event that does not have day-one node bending but has other features also found in day-one bent node events, probability would suggest these events to be mysterious.
People often just quickly right-off a CF as non mysterious without considering the qualifying criteria and simply do not appreciate just how challenging an accurate geometry would be to execute on the ground and at night-time, especially if that ground was uneven and the event itself was of considerable size. Throw-away armchair judgement is 'shaky' in its wisdom at best I would say...and that's being kind! I would never expect to hear other than the aforementioned from any experienced crop-watchers if they are to maintain any credability.
Adding even more weight to the hypothesis would be the subject of TST technology, something that has never been raised or recorded within the CF narrative as being utilised over the years. Without TST, perfect geometry on level and true ground would be practically impossible within the time parameters and with a total absence of collateral damage to unlaid crop. This is something that has been the norm now nearly 40 years. If the event was on uneven or curved land, as it many times is, even TST would not achieve a perfect result when viewed from above. Mysterious events always have a way to compensate for variant topographies, which in mathematical and geometric calculation terms, is totally mind-numbing.
So please, when making a judgement on an event please consider all of the above and know that in truth and practice, humanly instigated patterns are really quite rare and the ones that are done are usually for advertising or debunking reasons, events that take considerable time to complete. This category of pattern WOULD NEVER include biophysical anomalies or even probability anomalies most likely as this would just complicate and add to the burden of work. Know also that anyone assertively and persistently promoting an emphasis on the idea of non mysterious events are simply prone to either cognitive dissonance, lacking in knowledge or of dishonourable intent. This is a position reached by myself with ten years in the field. I've heard and seen it all in that time I think! My next book will be entitled...'Sociology and Cropcircles...Integrating with New Paradigm'. LOL!
N.B The empirical reference in this article is based upon fundamental botanical behaviour since time began. It can in no way be questioned, any more than an expectation that the sun will indeed rise once again in the morning.