You say "My job is not to prove" but really that's how things work in the scientific world of moving knowledge along, isn't it, if you want people to take your idea seriously? If you've made a claim, you have to stack up the evidence for it. Then other people can weigh that against the evidence against it. Also it would be more convincing if you can show the figures aren't just an artefact of using image enhancing software in a particular way - I mean have you tried doing exactly the same thing at a decidedly non-prehistoric spot (like on the pitch at Manchester United or something). If you can find figures in the grass there, there might be something wrong with your method.
I don't think that's unfair is it?

"Pete, I can't prove it to you, can I?"

then there is no point taking this any further.
Photoshop cannot do what you claim it can and geophysics doesn't back up your claims.
Your latest image posted is of an old crop circle that is showing through new crop.

I've not even touched on how these so called images would be seen before flight was invented.
PeteG