cropcircles.photos

A family of 2 diagrams f72e1120be

2diagrams
2formations
4widest pair, bits
4joined within, bits

1982–1990 shape hash: a hash of the ink alone, cropped to its own bounds: a fingerprint of the design show this family in the grid

These are similarities between drawings, not between crop formations. Three sites drew them, to three conventions: cropcirclecenter.com redraws every formation in one editor's house style at one size, and the other two publish scans and photographs of many hands. Two diagrams that hash together may be one design published twice, one editor's habit, or the same drawing reused — the archive cannot tell you which, and a family here is never evidence that two formations are related.

The biggest families are the simplest designs. Two circles, three circles in a triangle, a ring inside a ring: a plain design has few ways of being drawn and every editor draws it much the same, so it gathers a large family. Size here measures how ordinary a shape is, not how surprising the repeat is — a family of two rare designs is the more interesting find, and it sits at the bottom of the list.

The shape numbers are experimental. M3-6b graded the element count right to within one on 97.5 % of a hand-labelled sample and the rotational order right on 88.8 % against a gate of 90 %, which the extractor did not meet; the ring count agrees with a reader on 35.9 % and is not calibrated at all. Read any number here beside the picture, not instead of it.

The diagrams

diagram of Wortham Wortham30 July 1990 · Wortham

cropcirclecenter.com 2 element(s)≈ none foundsimilar shapes

diagram of Litchfield Litchfield1 July 1982 · Litchfield

cropcirclecenter.com 2 element(s)≈ none foundsimilar shapes

Member by member

formationdateplacecountycropsite elementsringsrotationalmirrorstored size
Wortham UK19900730_D 30 July 1990 Wortham Suffolk cc 2 1 none found 0.97 575×415
Litchfield UK19820701_A 1 July 1982 Litchfield Hampshire wheat cc 2 1 none found 0.97 575×415

The element count is right to within one on 97.5 % of a 161-diagram hand-labelled sample; the rotational order right on 88.8 % of a 197-diagram hand-labelled sample, against a gate of 90 %; the ring count agrees with a reader on 35.9 % — it is not a calibrated number.