The following message and subsequent replies occurred on email. While many offhandedly dismiss the crop circle phenomena as a hoax, they have nonetheless provided the atmosphere for a larger discussion involving many aspects of human existence. I want to place the message in context with my perspective concerning the application of "Threes" research, so that one or another reader might better comprehend how divergent such a research project is. As with the identified limitations exposed in a numerical analysis of cognitive behavior, the designs of Crop Circles are limited as well. This fact of limitation is a tell-tale sign of an IMPOSED limitation we are being forced to abide with like a redacted piece of information. Crop circle patterns are image maps that are redacted by our limited biological processes, cognitive orientations and imaginations— constrained by an environment that is heading along a course of incremental deterioration... which forces us to adopt a system of "rationalized adjustments" in mind, body and socialization for the purposes of maintaining some semblance of equilibrium... like a group of survivors on a deteriorating raft in the middle of an ocean who are wasting available resources and will not advance realistic birth control, development and individualized training skills relegated towards removing themselves from the raft in order to seek a better existence elsewhere.

Even if you consider Crop Circles a hoax... something that has been made up, it is little different than the made up games of chess, checkers, poker, billiards, horse racing, etc. Each of these have merit in the development of gaming theory and understanding human cognition subjected to constraints (frequently involving contracted time events), and even though they are typically restricted to the duality of proponent/opponent, the triplicity of dimensional tracings (horizontal, diagonal, vertical/ win-place-show), or unrecognized geometric counterparts (linear, circular, triangular). While we most often view Crop Circles as being individualized, they may nonetheless constitute a larger whole but our diminutive brains can't visualize the puzzle because we lack the appropriate initiative to do so, such as involving Crop Circles as a money making scheme to dupe the public with a Ponzi-like Social Security system or rendering an additional tax on the poor while calling it a National Lottery System which helps various public functions, but whose redistributed funds are not equal to what is taken in and other-than-defined program assistance gets a share of the gains as well (like money from the lottery being used to fund police expenditures in Colorado without public approval. (And shortly after public condemnation there appeared a million dollar lottery winner which was a statistical anomaly since large lottery winners in Colorado were almost non-existent.)

Here is a youtube illustration of a radio conversation between Suzanne Taylor and "The Truth Denied" talk show host Roxy Lopez:

As people send me reports of the latest crop circles, I've been trying to sort out my thoughts in order to respond. Truth be told, I've stopped paying attention. However, that doesn't mean I've joined the disbeliever camp.

Suzanne,

That was a nice summation of the Crop Circle adventure many of us shared in. It is unfortunate that no explicit and workable theory has been developed to make further usage of the Phenomena. I rarely if ever hear of Crop Circles being mentioned, though a short interest may be spurred on the occasion of encountering someone who is not particularly aware of the Crop Circle reality as it developed over the years.

While many have good ideas that at first glace appear to be fortuitous about assisting humanity, they are most often relegated to an index system called theory... as different conversation pieces heard at social gatherings and never take root. It is difficult to find comfort in views that strike a cord of "other-worldliness" when so many requests for applicable practicalities forcibly constrain us such as the reality of having a political system quite at odds with a desire for purposive progress. It is so very difficult to explore alternative ideas when confronted by so much madness such as the idiotic governing system we have and must be ever vigilant of. Ignoring so many disagreeable situations only builds a false sanctuary, like so many religious delusions.

My view is that what humanity is experiencing amounts to "adjustable rationalizations" as a method of maintain some semblance of adaptive equilibrium in an environment undergoing incremental deteriorations. While we can slow down some aspects of environmental degradation such as human made pollution, we can do nothing about the eventual loss of the Sun's energy, the Earth's slowing rotation and the Moon moving away from the Earth.

The slowing, and eventual absence of the Sun's energy, Earth's rotation and pull of the Moon, affects biology in both tiny and large ways that we can only attempt to adapt to. And when we couple this to the fact that the human species as we know it was born during a time when the rate of the Earth's rotation entered into a 23 hour day, there may be cause for concern that humanity may be rotation rate specific... that it does not have the biological ability to adapt to longer rates of rotation. (The "Cambrian Explosion" occurred prior to a 23 hour length of day, when humanity was not around.

While most people think of "rationalization" in terms of mental phenomena, it no doubt can be applied to physiological processes as well, in terms of adaptive constraints. All our belief systems are likewise subject to the same constraints and are modified according to the environmental reality we are subjected to. As it changes, so do our ideas... many of which harbor a non-sensical attachment to "mother" Earth, that acts like a person who would rather their offspring stay and die with them instead of kicking them out of the den, troop or nest and find their own way in the Universe.

Hence, there is a need to develop a philosophy which directs us to apply all resources towards removing humanity from Earth, this solar system, and eventually the galaxy. We can not permit ourselves to develop another idea which is part of the survival mechanism of rationalization that refuses to abandon a sinking ship. For all the good ideas and intentions labeled as long term proposals, many of them are little more than short term rationalizations meant to assist in adapting to changes in a deteriorating environment. In other words, they are mass efforts of practicing suicidal ideation that assist the livelihoods of a few instead of the survival of the many in terms of the species as a whole.

Wow. That’s a big box to adapt to. First thought is that these things are so slow in developing that it isn’t about hustling to do anything but about introducing an idea that needs to be in play to be considered over time. Then again, if the harsh environmental situation we are looking at this year and that keeps escalating is a function of degradation from what already is going on, there may not be that very slow time frame to get a different act together. I got involved with the circles because I saw the chance of something so startling to all human beings that we would be one humanity in relation to "the other." Once we are in one peaceful conversation we can get real about what might be done. Would that we had such a rallying point or issue that wouldn’t be the destruction of so much of the earth that we wouldn’t be able to regroup. The Conversation As If Our Lives Depended On It is a forum looking for anything that might be done to get us united where we then would stand the best chance of developing what would be life-giving. If you have ideas along those lines, plug them in!

Hello Suzanne:

The "slow in developing" expression is the usual response I receive... even from those with several advanced degrees... because we have all adopted our own personal and shared values of rationalization. However, we should not assume that the degradations will maintain the same pace or intensity, since there are discernible fluctuations within individual lifetimes. Nor must we overlook that the scale of "human time events" can not necessarily be tied on a one-to-one basis with geological or planetary scales of change. There is no guarantee that time is an arrow or that it proceeds in a singular direction or at the same rate.

And though I whole-heartedly agree that it would be nice for all of us to sit around a campfire and sing kumbaya while roasting marshmallows, the fact remains there is no common definition of peace... or love, or beauty, etc...

I'm not trying to burst any bubbles, but point out that the balloons of day dreamers are sometimes expanded to such proportions that the constraints produced by nearby thorns are frequently overlooked. It's just another version of someone looking at the world through rose tinted glasses while eating mushrooms and making dandelion chains while running naked through a public park.

I do not have any suggestions of how to increase the chances of human survival other than to offer the opinion we truly need to sever the umbilical cord from "Mother" Earth.  Such ideas must be part of the algorithm in our overall discussions of pursuing some progressive enlightenment.

In addition, there is the old expression about not shooting the messenger... in that I am not the one who created the box, I am merely providing an incite to it. For example, we are stuck on the 3rd planet with a triplet coded DNA and RNA. These are constraints we have been forced to adapt to. No less, the there are three families of fundamental particles (stable, unstable, highly unstable) and the basic structure is made up of protons, neutrons, electrons, not to mention three quarks and three anti-quarks.

And if we discuss the three important elements of life (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen), we find that they have three isotopes each. And did I mention that most people appear to hold a pen or pencil with three fingers or end a sentence with a period, question mark or exclamation?

These recurring patterns-of-three, amongst a few other patterns (doubles, quadruples, etc...), describe a limitation being exercised by nature... or at least our interpretations thereof. This suggests that we are limited in our thinking and imaginative capabilities because we are subjected to an environment that is incrementally deteriorating and forces us to abide by its restrictive mandates.

It's not that we are necessarily incapable of thinking in expansive considerations, it's just that we are forcing ourselves to abide by the dictates of a restrictive environment because our egos do not want to consider we are limited. Why in the world would anyone want to think that their earthly home environment is best suited to bring out the best qualities humanity is capable of achieving?

(And let me add that the latter remark references the mindset of those who think that a prison environment is best for criminals or that youth "corrections" facilities are what's best for those kids who are involved with age-related status offenses. No less, it reeks of the same mentality used by those who thought that the cure for poverty was to create a debtors prison, or let the Iris people starve during the potato famine though there was food aplenty.)

Here is Suzzane's last reply to both my query for permission to post her views and my last comments:

Our prison system is a topic I’ve also been dealing with. See this blog post for the eminently more intelligent system that Norway employs. It is mind-bogglingly opposite to how we think, where we are committed to an eye for an eye despite the fact that rehabilitation of criminals serves the society in radically better ways than our harsh treatment of them does. This is demonstrable thanks to Norway, yet still cuts no mustard here, so there’s food for thought in selling a radical idea that isn’t so clearly demonstrable.

And, I want to take issue with your evaluation of being "one humanity" in relation to "the other." It would hardly involve the extreme where "it would be nice for all of us to sit around a campfire and sing kumbaya while roasting marshmallows." I was pointing to the fact that we don’t have anything that captures the imagination of all of humanity that would draw us into conversation. From conversation that everyone is paying attention to, where we are awed and humbled, who know what we would arrive at in the way of a different perspective or worldview?

These comments were added to this page (30-Sept-2017, 1:57 AM) for those who are particularly expansive in the considerations of crop circle designs (In other words, they are creative thinkers):

With respect to "threes" and crop circle designs, the recent comment about three observatories claiming detection of two colliding black holes provides us with pictures that can be viewed as crop circles (from an alien perspective). The architectural layout of the shown observatory as well as the illustration of two black holes give me the impression of different types of crop circle designs. I wonder what the hidden message is? Who made such crazy designs and why did they do it? Do they have a superior knowledge that would help humanity with all its problems? Surely there is more in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in most philosophies. One must ask whether the collision of two black holes is commonplace and if three or more is rare. Or is this a trend of development following on the heels of a singular black hole collapse... both of which will eventually followed by more occurrences of three black hole collisions as a (to be) common event, but that there will be an expressed limitation of how many black holes can collide, just as there is a limitation to the quantity of enumerated patterns used by humans? Then again, any view of the Earth (or other planet) from a distance can provide images which can be labeled as crop circles, as long as we use the words "crop" and "circle" in a metaphorical way.

This is a man-made crop circle: Three observatories detect 2 black holes colliding

Rendition of two black holes with a 3rd? undetected because our instrumentation and overall cognitive considerations are too primitive... in that we as a species do not think sequentially about "Big Data" sets being illustrated by a "Threesological" model of investigation? Binary Stars, Binary Black holes: Like an early counting system, where a primitive mind is stuck in a "two" framework?