Remember this, from a few days ago?
I followed that post two days later with this —
a company logo, perhaps implying that the crop circle might be a commercial marketing ploy, like the one in California two years ago.
But the symbols around the edge of this new crop circle in England are completely different — and frankly, much more interesting — than those of the logo. Plus, how could humans quickly achieve such complexity and precision in an enormous 350 feet diameter crop circle?
Well, guess what? The strangeness is just getting started. Check it out:
BTW: In this first portion of an audio from Whitley Strieber’s show, I was surprised to hear that Linda Moulton Howe slams crop circle researcher Colin Andrews, someone whom I respect. I’m puzzled by her animosity, especially since I imagine that Andrews also wonders, like she does, if some crop circles can be best understood as mysterious intersections between the gross materiality of our 3D reality and more rarified frequencies of higher dimensions. In his 2013 book, On the Edge of Reality, I recall that, after much study, Andrews now assumes that all or most crop circles are “hoaxed”, i.e., human-made artistic productions — and, that the consciousness of those who make them can be inspired by, telepathic with, or somehow otherwise interfacing with ET. In other words that crop circles may be, in some way, joint productions between human and non-human intelligence. Which, to me, makes crop circles even more interesting!
Oh but wait! I just googled “LInda Moulton Howe and Colin Andrews,” and it appears that the bad blood between these two researchers is somewhat longstanding and mutual. See:
There’s no question that, in the subculture of ufology, it’s very hard to know what’s really going on, not to mention who’s “right” and who’s “wrong.” At least within the “regular” 3D world; for though individuals may be lying or pretending or in denial or unconscious, or superficial, or trivial, or distracted, or, of course, only seeing “reality” through their unique individual lenses, at least we can all agree that it’s the 3D world we’re talking about! Because both “logic” and “empirical rules of evidence” are part and parcel of that 3D world! When we imagine adding more dimensions, of increasing invisibility and subtlety, what kind of “logic,” what “rules of evidence” would apply? Presumably the rules of discourse there may or would be completely “alien” to what we understand, are used to, what our so-called, sacrosanct “scientific method” has enshrined.
No wonder we’re confused. Of course we’re confused. The only alternative is pretending not to be confused.
Let’s face it: “the world” may be whatever YOU project into the quantum field!
In other words, it’s all real! And not!
As my dear dead husband Jeff used to remind me: “Remember, Ann, we’re making it all up!”
That, I realized only after his death in January 2003, was a profound remark.
Profound, but not serious. Jeff was a trickster.
And it appears that the universe, or if you prefer, the “multiverse,” or “omniverse,” is too. That it is essentially playful, making fun of us, having fun with us, laughing merrily at us, every time we take ourselves — or what we think we “know” — too seriously.