Is that you have an answer for everything, and that loose explanantion of YOURS, is some type of definative answer for everyone.

>"...is that neither actually saw the crop circle being made by the light. And more problematic, their claims cannot be verified."

No, they both saw it, they saw the steaming plants in the dark, and they found the circle in green beans the next morning. Robbert has had these circles in his back yard for years now. Why would anyone go to the trouble of creating this very elaborate hoax for him? I think their claims CAN be verified. Just like a eye witness to a crime scene or a rare bird spotted by a bird watcher, claims can be considered, if not verified. Unless you have the physical evidence, a trial and an agreement by a jury, you generally lack evidence. "There was no murder because there is no body'. everyone can go away now and forget about it because it is all just claims and suspicion.....

>"What makes Talbot's tale suspect is its highly coincidental nature. She, a crop circle advocate, just happens to be there for the "event."

Yes, and i k now a story about it that makes it even MORE co-incedental, but Ai wouldn't waste my breath telling YOU about it, because you would discount it too.

>" And the circle photographed is quite simple - actually its pretty pathetic. "

Really? Have you ever made one at night? Would you like to try and replicate that one without breaking your back? Or drawing attention to yourself?

>"A credible witness would be someone entirely unfamilar with and unbiased about the phenomena. "

Hmmm.....if that is true in YOUR mind, then we would have to discount any policemans' claims at a crime scene because he was a witness, or we'd even has to discount a rare birdwatcher for his find, simply because he's considered a professional.
Hmmm....sorry, your reasoning doesn't make sense to me. It sounds more like a poor attempt to dismiss any and all of it.