"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Eric Hocking wrote:
[note sci.geo.meteorology dropped from followups as requested]
We can go back there and report the results later.
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Eric Hocking wrote:
Fine - put forward another explanation for the correlation between
lifting footpath bans and the late 2001 appearance of circles in
British crops.
You were saying late 2001, then more recently, see below you are
saying it was happening as they cam open in May.
Not late 2001, but appeared late in 2001 (as compared to other years).
Perhaps poorly written, but my contention, from my very first post was that
the late(r) appearance in 2001 of the first circles coincided with
county-by-county reopening of access to the countryside.
(b) to check the data.
Ah, let's just do that shall we?
(a) About 90% of the walkways were open in September 1991 in
Britain.
Since I specifically stated 2001, what has this to do with my post?
I meant 2001. It was in an offical PDF file which I cannot find again,
with
the history of F&MD.
OK - so *most* of the rights of way were open by Sept 2001, this still
has
nothing to do with my statement that there is a correlation between lack
of
circle building while the blanket bans were in effect, does it? Further
I
pointed out ath there is a correlation between the staged openings of
rights
of way, county by county, and the appearance of the first circles in
2001 in
those counties corresponding with those openings.
Where is the data?
In the crop circle database sightings and the announcements of countryside
access/restriction notices for each of the counties, as well as one of my
first posts giving the Hampshire and Wiltshire examples.
But I am pointing out it could be world wide.
A point that is quite irrelevant to the discussion though. Blanket bans
on
countryside rights of way were only in place in Britain due to FMD in
2001.
What influence would these bans have on walking in a field in Canada or
New
Zealand?
Exactly my point.
?? I ask what influence would UK bans have on the rest of the world and you
answere "Exactly my point"? Care to elaborate on what exactly your point is
wrt to the above?
Though NZ is southern hemisphere, the circles
What has NZ being in the SHemisphere got to do with circles appearing in the
NH?
start appearing across nothern hemisphere in May in it was pretty
much the same in 2001 as 2000 or 2002.
Again - I was specifically talking about England and the effect FMD had on
circles built there. Introducing NZ or other countries to the discussion is
irrelevant to the point as countryside closures due to FMD were not in place
anywhere but the UK. Since you keep introducing this data - can you see any
difference in timing and distribution in the UK that differs in 2001 from
the patterns of other countries?
The fact remains that the first cropcircles to appear in BRITAIN,
were
found and probably created (as per the cropcircle database site) in
late/end of May. Just as the FMD footpath restrictions were being
eased.
It had been a wet season and crops got started late, so so did
circles.
Make up your mind. In your sentence above you state "across nothern
hemisphere in May in it was pretty much the same in 2001 as 2000 or 2002.".
So. Was it pretty much the same? Or was there a late "season"?
Search your database for any country April 2001, there is only one
result,
and that is an acknowledged art work.
And this has what to do with my statement about the timing of crop
circles
appearing in May in areas where blanket bans on access to rights of way
were
being eased?
Some might have been arranged by farmers for extra income after the
F&M trouble.
Pure speculation. Do you have a cite for farmers receiving extra income
received in this manner?
They started appearing world over in May.
As they do each year - but in Britain and specifically England (ie as
per my
initial point) they did not appear in fields that had blanket bans on
access. They only started to appear after these bans were lifted. At
least
address the point I am making rather than going off on irrelevant
tangents.
Data please.
Hampshire and Wiltshire examples have been provided, complete with URL to
government sources.
That is correlation not proven causation.
Give reasonable alternatives to my point then. What caused the
different
timing and distribution of circle building in 2001?
Wet season.
So you *do* agree that there is a difference in the timing and distribution
of circle building in 2001 in England?
The correlation between
the appearance of circles, county by county, and the lifting of blanket
bans
in those counties, while quite a coincidence, is certainly a compelling
coincidence. Have you compared the timing and distribution of circles
in
2001 when the bans were in place and those in 2000 and 2002 when no
countryside movement bans were in place?
Here are the data of circles, with the 13 May Hampshire one still in
F&M territory. You give the F&M clearance dates for the UK places
Hampshire never had any cases of FMD and only certain areas were restricted.
You actually cite the circle that I first noted to appear as restrictions
were being lifted in a FMD controlled area. It was noted that the people
from CropCircleResearch were given permission to enter the field. The
restriction in the area was on fields with stock, not crops.
Hampshire was one of the first counties to open up it's footpaths and
started the reassessment in early April.
http://www.hants.gov.uk/cxpuxn/c1659.html
Lastly, the Old Winchester Hill Fort is English Nature land and access from
the road is on paths from that are not on grazed land, but on the nature
reserve. http://www.hants.gov.uk/maps/paths/su86.html. While English
Nature closed their reserves, they reviewed their options from early April
as well. While the following list does not include Old Windmill Hill, you
can see that they were reassessing access from that date.
http://www.english-nature.org.uk/news/story.asp?ID=263
As you can see the property is also serviced by bridleways that did not have
the same restrictions as footpaths that crosed pasture or grazing land.
May 1 2000 Germany 2002 Germany
May6 2001 Netherlands,
2002 UK-Wiltshire
Well over by April 2002 - you stated yourself that 90% of paths were open by
September 2001, so no restrictions in 2002.
May 11 2000 Canada
May 13 2001 Germany,
UK-Hampshire (still F&M territory)
Discussed above. Access to the field was being granted.
http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/database/reports/uk01ab.html
May 14 2000 Germany Italy Malaysia UK-Kent UK-Wiltshire
May 15 2000 UK-Leicestershire
May 17 2000 Germany 2001 Canada
May 20 2000 Germany UK-Hampshire UK-Avon UK-Wiltshire 2002 Germany
May 22 2000 USA 2001 Italy UK-Dorset USA
May 24 2000 Germany 2001 Germany
May 25 2000 Germany x3 2001 Germany UK-Wiltshire
May 26 2002 Germany
May 27 2000 UK-Hampshire
Of the 26 above, only 9 occur in the UK and of them only 1 appears in 2001?
May 29 2001 UK-Wiltshire UK-Hertsforshire 2002 Canada
May 30 2000 UK-Wiltshire 2001 UK-Wiltshire x2 Yugoslavia 2003 Canada
May 31 2000 UK-Avon UK-Wilthsire 2001 UK-Wiltshire x2
Now - we're late in May (remember my point about the circles appearing late
in 2001 and after FMD restrictions were eased) and a whole plethora of
circles start to burst forward in the UK. Odd that Wiltshire should be one
of the starting points, the fact is it's the epicentre of the "phenomena"
and as I pointed out in my first post, the Hampshire and Wiltshire circles
were the first to appear for 2001 and this coincided with the easing of FMD
restrictions in those areas.
plus in 2000 one in UK-Hampshire on an unknown date.
This as per
the cropcircle database site:
http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/cg...K&l=&k=&m=Apri
l
There was nothing to stop croppies flying over at 1500ft plus
scouring
for circles.
Maybe they misunderstood.
Maybe, regardless, their statement that they were not able to fly over
fields to look for circles is untrue. To imply that this is a
reasonable
explanation for the lateness of sightings in 2001 holds much less water
than
my statement that there were not cirlces being made because the people
on
the *ground* who make the circles were banned from entering fields
during
that time.
I don't think there is much statistical difference between the
If you are to merely take gross number built, no, but if you look closer at
the timing and distribution there is.
years, even now I have mentioned weather.
This only after I provided the crop builders site who mentioned weather in
their 2001 review. In 2002 and 2000 tey point out that April is always a
"sedate start".
What's with these irrelevant tangents? I'm not talking about worldwide,
I'm
talking about the timing and distribution of circle building in England
2001
and what affect the FMD countryside ban had on it.
They seem to occur all around the world on the same days, sometimes.
But not in the UK in 2001. That is the whole point, thank you for
underlining that for me.
May 14, 15 2000 there were 6, then only one till May 20 when another
4 showed world-wide. May 24-25 4
So far you have admitted that:
a. There is a difference in the timing of the appearance of circles in the
UK in 2001 (weather you say)
b. There is no statistical difference between the years.
Which is it?
Somewhere I read it is admitted that some farmers create them as they
get
grants for people to come on to their land.
Then you were misled.
Farmers do not receive grants for people coming onto their land. Who
would
be giving out these grants by the way?
Perhaps it is stewardship grants for farmers farming in national
parks. More visitors more money?
Speculation - please provide a cite. The stewardship scheme is for farmers
to set aside more land NOT to have crops on.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2002/021107b.htm. And certainly the
government would not be coughing up cash to pay for vandalised crops.
Farmers can claim some insurance for vandalism, it does not cover the
cost
of the lost crop. Anecdotally, I have heard that circle builders have
offered some cash compensation at times, but the farmers lose more in
damaged crop than they make up in these nonexistent grants.
About all they can do is ask for an "entry fee" from people who want to
access their fields to view a circle.
Which they would need after F&M,
What would who need after F&M? Entry fees to their fields? This
practically always takes the form of an honour box - it would hardly cover
the crop loss.
Though from 20th May 2000 till end
of May there were 7 or 8 in UK and in 2001 from 22 May till end 8.
It's also important to look at *where* they were, not just the number for a
month.
Then the scientific tests should be different.
What tests are these? Why should they be different? And what has that
got
to do with the farmer anecdote above?
Some look for haematite attracted by magnetic effects. Othe search
for Nitric Oxide formed by extremely short duration electric fields.
Some look for changes in cellular structure.
OK, but that only answered my first question. You said the tests should be
different - why?
--
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.