"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Eric Hocking wrote:
Brian Sandle wrote in message
...
Eric Hocking wrote:
[...]
The red line is 2001.
http://uk.f2.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/...lbum?.dir=/31c
a
The is the step in the graph about 25 -31 May 2001.
No. 25th May is the first circle listed in the database for 2001
Yes May 25 is the first. Then there are several but groups of several can
occur at any time.
OK, so we at least agree when the first circle in 2001 was recorded.
All the graphs have steps
in them from time to time.
What you need now to do is understand what the graph is telling you.
Look at it again, this is what it tells you.
FIRST circles appear:
1999 - 12/4
2000 - 26/4
2002 - 6/5
2001 - 25/5
6 weeks later than 1999, 4 weeks later than 2000 and 3 weeks later
than 2002
This is exactly the correlation that I have been talking about and you
have been refusing to admit. The first circles in 2001 were LATE.
before then 2002 had 1 circle, 2000 3, 1999 5 or 6. The beginning dates
for
the years is a fairly evenly spread distribution. Some year has to be
first
and some last.
The "average" date for the first circle to appear in those 4 years is
2nd May. 2002 and 2001 are the only years to be later than this, by 4
days and 23 days respectively. Not my idea of an even spread.
Going back to 1992, the average date is 25th April - 2001 is *27* days
later that this. The only other years later than this average is 1993
(3 days) and 1996 (17 days). With a standard deviation of 13 over the
10 years, only 2 years stand out. 1996 and 2001.
An aside, it's pure coincidence that in March 1996 the BSE epidemic
came to a head and that mass slaughters took place in the UK
So to say that there is a "fairly evenly spread distribution" is to
ignore the evidence.
Dates of first appearance in Wiltshire according to database, undetermined
dates omitted.
80 Aug 15, 82 Aug 1, 88 Jul 15,
Trying a bit hard here aren't you? There was only 1 circle recorded for
1980, 4 for 82 and only 8 in 88. Hell, in the 10 years from 1980 there is a
TOTAL of only 64 circles recorded. Hardly a comprehensive data set to derive
much of a trend for anything from.
89 Jul4, 87 Jul 1, 91 Jun 9, 96 Jun 1,
01 May 25, 93 May 14, 92 May 10, 95 May 8, 02 May 6, 98 May 4, 90 May 2,
00 & 03 Apr 26, 94 Apr 23, 97 Apr 20, 99 Apr 12
So they have only been appearing in April since 2000.
The crop circle researchers' database wasn't begun until 1993 - so the
sources for these are pretty tenuous as well as the data being practically
non-existent before then. Oh, and if you read the database correctly,
you'll see that there are circles recorded for April in 94, 97, 98 and 99.
So I don't know where you get the 2000 statement from
Let's compare data 3 or 4 years either side of 2001, at least we might have
a degree of confidence in the data as well as having a quantity that we
might be able to derive a trend from?
See /my_photos
for updated charts.
Since 1997, average date (including the 2001 date) for the first circle to
be recorded is 27th April. Out of those years only for 2001 and 2002 have
recorded circles later than this date. 2002 was only 8 days late, but 2001
is 4 WEEKS later than all the rest. If you average the years NOT including
2001, the average first date is 22nd April. All the years first dates fall
within 14 days of this date. 2001 is nearly FIVE WEEKS later.
How can you not see this as a significant difference?
Could be hoaxes with
the more complex patterns more recently.
Instead of wild conjecturing why don't you check out the data? All the data
above, as I indicated earlier and you acknowledged, do not include those
deemed by the database owners to be caused by wind damage or "hoaxes". I
have only categorised the data as the collectors of the data have.
I have not yet got through to the
FMD dates, but if there are more hoaxes now they could be interrupting
those.
One, I have no idea what you mean, interrupting what, exactly.
Two, of the 335 circles recorded since 1997 for Wiltshire, 29 of them were
"hoaxes". That's an average of 9% every year. In 2001, there were 4
"hoaxes" out of a total of 44 circles recorded. I'll let you work out the
maths on that bit, but you'll find that there's not much deviation in
pattern there. If anything, the number of hoaxes per year is on the decline
in that data set.
Taking the range of reported ones in Wiltshire back to 77 (unknown date)
teh
1981 May 25 has 11 before and 7 after - It is pretty much to the middle.
Let's see, what are the total number of circles recorded for those years?
Year Wiltshire / UK
76 0 / 2
77 0 / 16
78 0 / 9
79 0 / 1
80 1 / 1
81 0 / 1
83 0 / 2
84 0 / 4
85 0 / 3
86 0 / 8
So in 10 years, 1 circle was recorded and only 47 for the whole of the UK.
Not a terribly useful data set there and you're deriving trends from this?
In 5 year periods, here's the average number recorded.
1980-84 3
1985-89 11
1990-94 111
1995-99 110
2000-03 105
Split it anyway you wish, but really, the records before the database was
started up really can't be relied upon for determining trends.
What has been said about fairy rings on people lawns?
You tell me. What has been said about fairy rings beyond them being a
perfectly well understood botanic phenomenon? ie,
http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/p...ions/fairyring
s.html
Can the same thing
happen in a crop? Even on people's skin a fungal infection will sread out
in
a circular fashion.
And this has what to do with the discussion? How about trying to stick to
the subject instead of going off on fanciful and unrelated misdirections?
It's not a day or two - see the initial chart.
Even srpead from year to year for start.
Not chronologically they are not. 2001 is later than all previous TEN
years as well as later than 2002.
Not for date of first occurence.
You want to check the numbers again?
See the numbers above. Check them
yourself - you have a table of the dates, since you quoted them at me
before snipping my entire reply.
I still have it in mind to go back to that.
Do that. Especially in light of you accusing ME of avoiding answering your
questions. At least I don't snip entire posts - the usenet equivalent of
sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating I'm not listening, I'm not
listening...
snip
In the example I gave, the "psychic" kept a continual banter of "I'm
doing this with my mind" - even while the video clearly showed him
performing the "feat" with his hands.
I think this is sort of meant to build the energy so that real things can
start to happen?
What, bogus psychic repeats "I'm doing this with my mind", video shows him
at that point in time doing the trick with his hands, this is building up
energy so "real things can start to happen"? Real things DID start to
happen, he was caught out cheating.
This is the same one who a judge decide that the cost of a ticket (and
court costs?) to one of his shows should be reimbursed to a punter who
charged that "he had failed to perform the supernormal feats of
telepathy, parapsychology, and telekinesis he advertised. Instead...
[his] act consisted merely of sleight-of-hand and stage tricks.
When USA was broadcasting its space feats on radio into USSR in the
Russian
language it didn't prove anything to the Russian people because the energy
was jammed.
What on EARTH has that got to do with things? I give you two examples (that
I can back with cites) of a psychic cheating (yet another obfuscation you've
introduced to the discussion) and you answer some with lame conjecture on
"building energy "and then some non sequitur about Russian radio.
I won't even ask for a cite for the "energy jamming". One, it has nothing
to do with with crop circles and two, Russian ham radio operators, as well
as others around the world were able to monitor the moonshot communications
throughout this period.
Forget about moon shots, fairy rings and fake psychics, how about addressing
the data and arguments put forth without deleting the bits you don't want to
answer or acknowledge and without flying of on weird unrelated tangents.
--
Eric Hocking
www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Attempting spam blocking - remove upper case to reply.