Crop Circles: Skeptics please [Archive]

Ivan Seeking

Oct23-03, 03:20 AM

We begin with a publication in the prestigious journal Nature in 1880. In that summer a description of crop circles was published by a scientist who was a frequent correspondent to scholarly journals of that time. His name is J. Rand Capron, a spectroscopist who lived in the country at Guildown near Guildford, Surrey, in the south of England. The reference is Nature, volume 22, pp 290-291, 29 July 1880.
The content of the article is enough to prove that some of the basic crop circles, of the type that came under scrutiny a century later in the 1970s and 1980s, were similarly non-artificial. The marks which Rand Capron saw he described as having "a few standing stalks as a centre" of what were otherwise flattened circles, all possessing "a circular wall of stalks which had not suffered."
Rand Capron's account has been reprinted in the January 2000 issue of the Journal of Meteorology (ISSN 0307-5966: Volume 25, pp 20-21: "A case of genuine crop circles dating from July 1880 -- as published in Nature in the year 1880"). The rediscovery of this crucial narrative was made by Peter Van Doorn in the course of archival research arising from his ball-lightning interests. Peter Van Doorn heads the Ball Lightning Division of the Tornado and Storm Research Organisation, for which refer to http://www.torro.org.uk

http://www.stonehenge-avebury.net/scienceofcropcircles.htm

zoobyshoe

Oct23-03, 03:20 AM

The info at that link (in your post before last) is pretty much impossible for me to comment on. I know nothing about botany. If you have an unreadable notes by Hoover about this I can translate, though.

Ivan Seeking

Oct23-03, 03:26 AM

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
The info at that last link is pretty much impossible for me to comment on. I know nothing about botany. If you have an unreadable notes by Hoover about this I can translate, though.

There is one famous quote from Hoover in this regard. Since you can't open pdfs I will tranlate for you. When the FBI was asked to stay out of crop circle investigations, Hoover responds:

I would agree to this but first I want access to the mowers recovered.

To my knowledge, the meaning of this comment has never be ascertained.

zoobyshoe

Oct23-03, 03:44 AM

http://www.stonehenge-avebury.net/scienceofcropcircles.htm
Well, this link is super-duper. Did you read it all? Eyewitness reports of a perfectly natural explanation for the "simple" crop circle.

Whirlwinds are weird. I was laying out on a towel sunning myself in a park once and one came along and dipped own right on me, disheveling my hair and towel, then retreated back up and whirled away. Another time I was driving slowly along a shady dirt road on a wickedly hot, dry day, and came upon something like a standing dust devil where another dirt road lead off the one I was on. I stopped and watched it for a while. It danced around quite a bit, got stronger, weaker, stronger, weaker, but never seemed to leave the spot. I got bored and drove on.

Ivan Seeking

Oct23-03, 03:45 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
In your title, you asked for skeptics. As a skeptic, that question has no meaning to me.

Russ, I was hoping for some skeptical feedback towards a credible mechanism. For example, ionic vortices are one favored explanation. Is this possible? Could this be an example of micro-micro bursts? Could this be related to earthlights?

Many explanations have been proposed over the years - many of them could not survive the wrath of Russ.[:D] The denial of the mystery only serves to perpetuate the mystery. Explanations that make sense have a way of getting around.

zoobyshoe

Oct23-03, 04:00 AM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
There is one famous quote from Hoover in this regard. Since you can't open pdfs I will tranlate for you. When the FBI was asked to stay out of crop circle investigations, Hoover responds:

Quote
------------------------------
I would agree to this but first I want access to mowers recovered
-------------------------------

To my knowledge, the meaning of this comment has never be ascertained.
I know this note, actually. The meaning is clear in the context of the next sentence:

Quote
-----------------------------
For instance in the La. case the Army grabbed it and would not let us use it on the lawn at headquarters, here.
-------------------------------

russ_watters

Oct23-03, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Which explanation do you prefer: ET, wheat fairies, or some natural but unknown process? If the latter, then what? No, my point was being a skeptic I think there are no "real" ones.Russ, I was hoping for some skeptical feedback towards a credible mechanism. Fair enough. The mechanism I would suggest is a guy with a stick, a board, and some string.

Ivan Seeking

Oct23-03, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
No, my point was being a skeptic I think there are no "real" ones.

You claim to be a skeptic:
I think there are no "real" ones

This is a belief.

In order to be objective one must consider all evidence about which to be skeptical. You want to stop with the assumption that all are hoaxes. The evidence is to the contrary. As a skeptic, I don't accept your explanation. How do you justify your position?

russ_watters

Oct24-03, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
You claim to be a skeptic:

This is a belief.

In order to be objective one must consider all evidence about which to be skeptical. You want to stop with the assumption that all are hoaxes. The evidence is to the contrary. As a skeptic, I don't accept your explanation. How do you justify your position? Hehe, no. I have seen no compelling evidence that any are anything but artificial. Thats not an assumption, thats a conclusion based on data.

Further, the failure of the secondary goal of finding a non-artificial cause is more evidence that they must all be artificial.

Ivan Seeking

Oct24-03, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
thats a conclusion based on data.

Like I said, you are not a skeptic.

You have not responded to any of the information posted. If you wish to dispute the evidence, could you address each item point by point?

selfAdjoint

Oct24-03, 09:20 AM

So let me respond as a skeptic. Of the three links you gave, only the first is addressable on a reasonable basis. The others are just cute.

The first link is BS. If the people who produced it had been interested in representing reality, they'd have followed every statement - especially those about chemical changes - with a reference to the original paper, which would have been published in a refereed journal, or at least posted online where we could judge its results for ourselves. Instead this essay is the usual in-group babble to the faithful.

That skeptical enough fer ya?

Zero

Oct24-03, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
So let me respond as a skeptic. Of the three links you gave, only the first is addressable on a reasonable basis. The others are just cute.

The first link is BS. If the people who produced it had been interested in representing reality, they'd have followed every statement - especially those about chemical changes - with a reference to the original paper, which would have been published in a refereed journal, or at least posted online where we could judge its results for ourselves. Instead this essay is the usual in-group babble to the faithful.

That skeptical enough fer ya? I agree...the problem is that you are starting from the assumption that some crop circles are real, and others are hoaxes. We KNOW that most of them are, so we put the rest in the 'probably also hoaxes' column until some evidence shows up. A search for a 'mechanism'(besides boards and rope) for this sort of 'event' is nearly meaningless. You can guess all you like, but then you have to come up with experimental or observational proof that your guess is correct. And, has anyone actually shown the existance of the "ionic vortices"?

Darn it, two places in a week that me and Russ agree on something!

Ivan Seeking

Oct24-03, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
So let me respond as a skeptic. Of the three links you gave, only the first is addressable on a reasonable basis. The others are just cute.

This is only an accusation. You don't address the evidence. The photographs are of real effects that are well documented. criticism without homework is just an uniformed opinon.

The first link is BS. If the people who produced it had been interested in representing reality, they'd have followed every statement - especially those about chemical changes - with a reference to the original paper, which would have been published in a refereed journal, or at least posted online where we could judge its results for ourselves. Instead this essay is the usual in-group babble to the faithful.

That skeptical enough fer ya? [/B]

No. This is a newspaper report; not a scientific paper.

Have that you checked all of the scientific reference listed in the third link? You must have since you have already dismissed it as cute.

Rand Capron's account has been reprinted in the January 2000 issue of the Journal of Meteorology (ISSN 0307-5966: Volume 25, pp 20-21: "A case of genuine crop circles dating from July 1880 -- as published in Nature in the year 1880".

Another cute source I suppose.

In my experience, these references usually check out. I am posting these particular links since I have seen much of this information before; from other more credible sources.

Ivan Seeking

Oct24-03, 04:53 PM

russ_watters

Oct24-03, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by Zero
I agree...the problem is that you are starting from the assumption that some crop circles are real, and others are hoaxes. We KNOW that most of them are, so we put the rest in the 'probably also hoaxes' column until some evidence shows up. A search for a 'mechanism'(besides boards and rope) for this sort of 'event' is nearly meaningless. You can guess all you like, but then you have to come up with experimental or observational proof that your guess is correct. And, has anyone actually shown the existance of the "ionic vortices"?

Darn it, two places in a week that me and Russ agree on something! Just a clarification, you quoted selfAdjoint, but that assumption came from Ivan Seeking in the opening poll.

Incidentally, your evalutaion of the invalidity of the assumption is impeccable. (damn, didn't meant to use so many big words, it just kinda happened) Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
You have not responded to any of the information posted. If you wish to dispute the evidence, could you address each item point by point? You asked for an opinion, not an evaluation of evidence. I didn't read the links because they weren't relevant to the question. I HAVE read plenty about the subject - I even have a book about it - and I highly doubt there will be anything compelling in there. You started the thread though, and if you want to change the topic, I guess thats up to you (though that is partly on me since I did challenge the validity of the assumption)....

With the links you provided came the assumption that your opinion was proven fact. Clearly from the other responses, that question is very much still open - though ironically I would consider it more close to closed in the other direction from your stance. I'll look at your links though and tell you what I think.

edit: Ok, I gave those links 30 seconds and thats all they are going to get. I said in a previous thread I'm a stickler for credibility: those sites have none and as a result, any information contained in them is suspect and therefore not worth evaluating.

zoobyshoe

Oct24-03, 05:36 PM

It's not clear to me what Russ, Zero, and selAjoint are objecting to in the information at this link posted by Ivan:

scienceofcropcircles
Address:http://www.stonehenge-avebury.net/scienceofcropcircles.htm
It gives a perfectly natural, non-extrordinary explanation for "simple" crop circles.

Ivan Seeking

Oct24-03, 07:50 PM

First, Self Adjoint, I was confused about the links that you referenced. There are two more down the page that I was referencing.

Originally posted by russ_watters
Just a clarification, you quoted selfAdjoint, but that assumption came from Ivan Seeking in the opening poll.

Incidentally, your evalutaion of the invalidity of the assumption is impeccable. (damn, didn't meant to use so many big words, it just kinda happened) You asked for an opinion, not an evaluation of evidence. I didn't read the links because they weren't relevant to the question. [quote]

Yes they were. This is why I posted them.

[quote]I HAVE read plenty about the subject - I even have a book about it - and I highly doubt there will be anything compelling in there.

You readily admit to lacking objectivity. You also use subjective terms by which to view the evidence. Would kind of compelling be OK; instead of complelling? It is either evidence or not.

You started the thread though, and if you want to change the topic, I guess thats up to you (though that is partly on me since I did challenge the validity of the assumption)....

I made clear a few posts later what my intent was:
I was hoping for some skeptical feedback towards a credible mechanism. For example, ionic vortices are one favored explanation. Is this possible? Could this be an example of micro-micro bursts? Could this be related to earthlights?

With the links you provided came the assumption that your opinion was proven fact. Clearly from the other responses, that question is very much still open - though ironically I would consider it more close to closed in the other direction from your stance. I'll look at your links though and tell you what I think.

I stated up front that this phenomenon is real. I was not interested in defending this point.

edit: Ok, I gave those links 30 seconds and thats all they are going to get. I said in a previous thread I'm a stickler for credibility: those sites have none and as a result, any information contained in them is suspect and therefore not worth evaluating.

Really? 30 seconds. Thanks Russ!

selfAdjoint

Oct24-03, 09:52 PM

Oh for lord's sake, is that supposed to be evidence? Nature in 1880-something, a typically snarky either it's a hoax or it's something else from Hawking (guess which), and mythology? That's more like an editoral in Fate or Astrology Today than sober evidence.

The text I commented on before was not a newspaper report, It was on some believer site as the word of authority.

Ivan Seeking

Oct24-03, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Oh for lord's sake, is that supposed to be evidence? Nature in 1880-something, a typically snarky either it's a hoax or it's something else from Hawking (guess which), and mythology? That's more like an editoral in Fate or Astrology Today than sober evidence.

The text I commented on before was not a newspaper report, It was on some believer site as the word of authority.

First, sorry; I did get your references mixed up. I was thinking only one link was made in the first post.

Crop circles are found; this is a fact.. I am glad to concede that some if not most are made by people; I insist that others are not. In order to establish that this phenomenon predates the modern hoaxes, I posted historic references that support this fact. This is not scientific evidence, it is historic evidence. From this we may or may not be able to infer or deduce anything scientific, but at least we can use these as a baseline for further examination. Obviously we can't do much else to obtain 800 year old or even 70 year old evidence.

Next, I was hoping to get some feedback on the evidence and the other explanations offered. As I said, these sites list evidence [at least some of it] that can be substantiated otherwise.

In my opening post I stated my intent. I had hoped to get beyond this never happened business for a change. This phenomenon requires no great leaps of faith to accept that something at least not fully understood takes place. I was not prepared at this time to debate this fundamental point. This is why I clearly presented the context of this discussion in the opening post. When objections were made, I listed information that points to the sources for credible information.

This stuff takes a great deal to time to sort out - references are often obscure, or they require expensive subscriptions in order to obtain the information. Then, by law, and also by the limitations of posting documents, I can't post the pertinent information. If you wish to engage in useful debate on this, you either have to accept my word for some of these claims, or you have to do your own homework. There is only so much I can do on the internet.

Just saying boloney only gives the true fringe promoters more ammunition. I am fully convinced that this phenomenon is unrecognized but meteorological. In this light, I was hoping for some help in finding a rational explanation.

Does anyone remember when this argument was called Ball Lightning? Earthquake lights?

zoobyshoe

Oct25-03, 02:32 AM

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Oh for lord's sake, is that supposed to be evidence?
I brought your attention to that link because it contains two eyewitness accounts I find to be satisfying as perfectly natural explanations for "simple" crop circles.
Nature in 1880-something
You say this as if implying this is a disreputable publication. If it is you'll have to fill me in. I'd never heard of it before.
a typically snarky either it's a hoax or it's something else from Hawking (guess which), and mythology? That's more like an editoral in Fate or Astrology Today than sober evidence.
The bad writing surrounding the interesting quotes is pretty much irrelevant.
from the link:
Rand Capron's account has been reprinted_ in the January 2000 issue of the Journal of Meteorology_ (ISSN 0307-5966: Volume 25, pp 20-21:_ "A case of genuine crop circles dating from July 1880 -- as published in Nature in the year 1880")._
Here is Capron's report:
"The storms about this part of_ Surrey have been lately local and violent, and the effects produced in some instances curious. Visiting a neighbour's farm on Wednesday evening (21st), we found a field of_ standing_ wheat considerably knocked about, not as an entirety,_ but in_ patches forming, as viewed from a distance, circular_ spots.
______ Examined more closely, these all presented much the same character, viz., a few standing stalks as a_ centre,_ some prostrate stalks with their heads arranged pretty evenly in a direction forming a circle round the centre, and outside these a circular wall of_ stalks which had not suffered.
____ I send a sketch made on the spot, giving an idea of the most perfect of these patches._ The soil is a sandy loam upon the greensand, and the crop is vigorous, with strong stems, and I could not trace locally any circumstances accounting for the peculiar forms of the patches in the field, nor indicating whether it was wind or rain, or both combined, which had caused them, beyond the general evidence everywhere of heavy rainfall._ They were to me suggestive of some cyclonic wind action, and may perhaps have been noticed elsewhere by some of your readers."
__
This person says he saw one being made by a comon whirwind:_
Mr William Cyril Williams wrote: "With reference to the corn circles mystery I actually witnessed one being made._ I was standing in a cornfield one morning and saw a whirlwind touching the ground and forming a circle in the corn._ It was just the strength of the wind in the whirlwind that formed the circle".
_ The event happened in the late 1940's when he worked on his father's farm, Penfedw Farm at Cilycwm._ He was then in his twenties._ The area is surrounded by hills on all sides, and circles had been seen there "frequently"._ On this occasion, a weekday in August, at about 10.30 to 11 in the morning [or circa 0930-10 GMT] Mr Williams had gone into the wheat field on harvesting day in advance of the cutting and binding machinery, and was crossing the middle of the field when he heard the buzzing noise of a whirlwind starting up only a few metres away._ He then saw a spinning mass of air with dust in it, and, as he watched, in a matter of_ "only a couple of seconds or so the wheat fell down producing a shard-edged circle 3 to 4 metres in diameter"._ It looked just like the other crop circles he had seen before except that this one was completely flat-bottomed whereas some of the earlier ones had stalks standing at their centres like a conical pyramid._ The vortex then died out rapidly, but during its brief lifetime (under 4 or 5 seconds) it remained at the same place.
This sums up CERES' position:
It is the scientific viewpoint of_ the Circles Effect Research Organisation (CERES) that crop circles which are more complicated than simple round ones are either hoaxes (deliberate pranks) or 'experimental hoax-like creations' for whatever purpose (e.g. advertising, film-making)._
Yes the whole site is badly written but it is arguing that the "simple" crop circles are just the product of conventional whirlwinds, and that all the rest are hoaxed. I don't get the "Oh, Lordy, is that supposed to be evidence?" attitude.

Ivan Seeking

Oct25-03, 03:00 AM

From there, the swollen nodes and burst cells found in the stalks, an indication of exposure to microwave radiation, also appears to be true. Given high winds and charged particles, perhaps this is not so difficult to explain. I have considered that we might get significant static charge accumulation which could use pollen as a vehicle. The heads of the stalks are very prickly with many fine hairs pertruding that could act as a charge source. Wheat dust is famous for its static properties and for starting grain chute fires.

This is just speculation, but some reasonable hypothesis could be concieved and then tested, perhaps we could put the pre-hoax history to rest. Personally, I would find this kind of explanation preferable to LASER beams from the great mother ship. [:D]

zoobyshoe

Oct25-03, 03:28 AM

I think it was Phobos who sneered at the microwave theory in a crop circle thread a while back and pointed out that bending any stalk over exposing it broadside to the sun is going to cause it to heat up and burst cells and get its nodes swollen. That made perfect sence to me.

I saw a whole special on whirlwinds about a year and a half ago. They are so charged that some scientists wonder if this is what causes them, rather than temperature differentials.

Ivan Seeking

Oct25-03, 04:46 AM

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
I think it was Phobos who sneered at the microwave theory in a crop circle thread a while back and pointed out that bending any stalk over exposing it broadside to the sun is going to cause it to heat up and burst cells and get its nodes swollen. That made perfect sence to me.

No way. This is one means of telling the real ones from the fakes. Faked circles don't exhibit this feature...at least they didn't in the early days. By now hoaxers may be getting more sophisticated. A group of physics grads tried to duplicate this effect with mobile microwave transmitters. Of course, most hoaxers don't have generators handy.

Note: by the foregoing explanation, all complex crop designs are faked. This did [and I think still does] agree with with the node test.

zoobyshoe

Oct25-03, 05:02 AM

Well, I suppose I could put some tall grass in the microwave tomorrow, as well as bend some stalks over in the sun. Any idea how long the setting should be for crop circle microwave effects?

Ivan Seeking

Oct25-03, 05:14 AM

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Well, I suppose I could put some tall grass in the microwave tomorrow, as well as bend some stalks over in the sun. Any idea how long the setting should be for crop circle microwave effects?

It is difficult to know how long some of these circles may have been present before they were noticed. Often they are found in obscure locations and may have been there for weeks. Other times, the person is quite sure that nothing was there the day before. I think I have seen these from what are known to be newly formed circles but I can't be sure.

Oh, as to the setting: I would try the thawed grain setting; Or set the time for the typical period of an ionic votex. [:D]

russ_watters

Oct25-03, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
It's not clear to me what Russ, Zero, and selAjoint are objecting to in the information at this link posted by Ivan: A tour guide site for Stonehenge doesn't pass my credibility test as being a reliable source of scientific information. Therefore I refused to even read the link. However... I'll try now.

Ok, first sentence: This page summarises the fundamental state of scientific knowledge regarding authentic crop circles. So, this "article" makes the same assumption that Ivan does. It ignores step 1 of the process:

Step 1: Prove that not all crop circles are man made.
Step 2: Find a mechanism for how they might be made.

By jumping to step two, they trick people into accepting the conclusion of Step 1. Its a trap and you (and Ivan) fell into it.

I will not engage in a discussion of step 2 as step 1 has not been adequately established. Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
You readily admit to lacking objectivity. You also use subjective terms by which to view the evidence. Would kind of compelling be OK; instead of complelling? It is either evidence or not. Certainly, Ivan, you must acknowledge that what looks like evidence to one person may not look like evidence to another. Everyone has their own particular bias. You have yours, I (and the general scientific community for that matter) have mine. Flat out, Ivan, your standards are not up to the standards of science. I'm sorry, but thats the way it is.I stated up front that this phenomenon is real. I was not interested in defending this point. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. In any case, this confuses me: if you aren't interested in arguing that point, why were you looking for skeptics? Skeptics of WHAT?

Zero

Oct25-03, 02:20 PM

Hey, Russ, don't read any of the other links, either...on eof them 'comfirms' crop circles by using dowsing. That's like confirming the existance of UFOs by talking to an astrologer.

russ_watters

Oct25-03, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Hey, Russ, don't read any of the other links, either...on eof them 'comfirms' crop circles by using dowsing. That's like confirming the existance of UFOs by talking to an astrologer. Too late, but it was good for a laugh.

selfAdjoint

Oct25-03, 05:43 PM

Well, the thread has moved on since I posted. Sorry for being so dilatory.

I can certainly accept whirlwinds or dust devils occasionally making a circular pattern in standing grain. I'll even give you another possibility, seiches. Usually a seiche is a lake phenomenon, where the water suddenly rises around the shore. It's caused by a hunk of cold dense air falling down through the warmer atmosphere and going ker-plunk. It has been established that they happen on land too. A garage was destroyed by one in my old neighborhood a few years ago. There was a professor at the U. of Chicago who was an expert on them.

I too find the microwave explanation unbelievable. In fact I doubt the effect it was brought in to explain. Who says these plant tissues are swollen? How were they treated in bringing them to the lab? Is there anywhere where we can look at the original tissues, not just labelled photos? But then displays can be faked too.

The reason my default opinion is "fake" is that crop circles are a famous new-age phenomenon, and lots of people have interests in keeping the story going.

Ivan Seeking

Oct25-03, 06:33 PM

Russ, Zero,
OK. Lets turn this around.

Where are the arrest records, photographs, soil compaction studies, debris sweeps, and admissions of guilt to prove that people are making more than 0.1% of crop circles.

This ain't like UFOs: That crop circles happen is beyond doubt. Where is the evidence to support your explanation? I don't consider 0.1% convincing. I can probably find a greater percentage of honest used car salesmen. When you can back up your hypothesis with evidence, please post the informatioin. Until then I consider your explanation debunked.

zoobyshoe

Oct25-03, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
A tour guide site for Stonehenge doesn't pass my credibility test as being a reliable source of scientific information.
It wouldn't pass mine either. Where is this tour guide site to stonehenge you speak of? The link has the word "stonehenge" in it and you have invented the "tour guide site" part from thin air. You are distorting the facts, then criticizing the facts for the distortions you added yourself. This is completely unacceptable.

Here is the link again:
scienceofcropcircles
Address:http://www.stonehenge-avebury.net/scienceofcropcircles.htm
Where is the "tour guide site"?

Therefore I refused to even read the link.
You refused to even read the link based on a distortion you invented in your own mind. This is completely unacceptable by all standards of academia and science. If you read the site then your criticisms have the potential of being dead on. As it is, everything you say about it is completely worthless.

Ok, first sentence: So, this "article" makes the same assumption that Ivan does. It ignores step 1 of the process:

Step 1: Prove that not all crop circles are man made.The article presents evidence upon which a convincing argument can start to be built. It presents two eyewitness accounts, the first by a spectroscopist who finds roughly circular formations in a field after a storm, and which he believes were the direct result of the storm, the second by a farmer who actually sees a whirlwind make this kind of formation in a field of crops.
I have copied these two accounts into this thread in my post addressed to selfAdjoint above. (10-25-2003 12:32 A.M.)

Whirlwinds and dust devils are exceptionally common phenomena. Crop fields are exceptionally common. It would be nice to have a video of a whirlwind touching down and swirling some crops into a flat rough circle, but, since it is already so well known that they do touch down briefly in one spot and then retreat back into the sky, it is pretty much obvious what kind of pattern they would leave in a crop field, if they did it there.

The two guys with the board and a rope who admitted to hoaxing them for years said they were inspired by reports of people finding circles in their crops. I strongly suspect all the pre-hoax reports of crop circles arose from ones made by whirlwinds.

Now, by your reasoning, it is OK to dismiss a whole article based on the first sentence. Let's apply this to another article. Here's the first sentence:

"In your schooldays most of you who read this book made acquaintance with the noble building of Euclid's geometry, and you remember - perhaps with more respect than love - the magnificent structure on the lofty staircase of which you were chased about for uncounted hours by conscientious teachers."

What kind of pseudo-scientific nutcase starts off a supposedly scientific paper with a sentence full of lame poetic cr*p like this? "...the lofty staircase of which you were chased for uncounted hours by conscientious teachers." Sounds like a veiled reference to pederasty to me. By Russ-Watter's, reakoning, therefore, we can dismiss everything that follows. I think, though, there are alot of people a PF who are glad this paper wasn't dismissed based on this bad first sentence.

Ivan Seeking

Oct25-03, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Well, the thread has moved on since I posted. Sorry for being so dilatory.

I can certainly accept whirlwinds or dust devils occasionally making a circular pattern in standing grain. I'll even give you another possibility, seiches. Usually a seiche is a lake phenomenon, where the water suddenly rises around the shore. It's caused by a hunk of cold dense air falling down through the warmer atmosphere and going ker-plunk. It has been established that they happen on land too. A garage was destroyed by one in my old neighborhood a few years ago. There was a professor at the U. of Chicago who was an expert on them.

I too find the microwave explanation unbelievable. In fact I doubt the effect it was brought in to explain. Who says these plant tissues are swollen? How were they treated in bringing them to the lab? Is there anywhere where we can look at the original tissues, not just labelled photos? But then displays can be faked too.

The reason my default opinion is "fake" is that crop circles are a famous new-age phenomenon, and lots of people have interests in keeping the story going.
Thanks selfAdjoint.

As with many such claimed phenomenon, the hustlers swarm like flies. This makes it very difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff. [:D]

The original work that produced the microwave hypothesis was done at the University of Michigan. By all appearances, this was handled in a professional manner. I was not able to find the original work yet [again] - I have been too busy with my own work - but I will try to find this information in the next couple of days. I think the work is properly credited in one of the links, but other people have followed up on this work. I know nothing about the people producing the more recent reports so I am being cautious here.

It may be as simple as whirlwinds; but this does seem to contradict the evidence. I know the ionic vortex stuff is pretty far out - I am still grasping for straws in this respect. I am interested in the potential for static charge accumulation. It seems to me that a wheat field might function as a fairly effective static generator. Perhaps some other kind of high voltage discharge takes place. Also, multicolored lights are often reported - interpreted as UFO lights - that could be due to some kind of electric/plasma event. The reports are reminiscent of swamp gas lights and earthlights reports.

Ivan Seeking

Oct25-03, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Whirlwinds and dust devils are exceptionally common phenomena. Crop fields are exceptionally common. It would be nice to have a video of a whirlwind touching down and swirling some crops into a flat rough circle, but, since it is already so well known that they do touch down briefly in one spot and then retreat back into the sky, it is pretty much obvious what kind of pattern they would leave in a crop field, if they did it there.

Even more to support this point: It appears that the genuine formations are really anti-donuts - the center of the circle is relatively undisturbed. This is surrounded by the flattened circle, and then a fairly abrupt edge along the perimeter.

Zero

Oct26-03, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Even more to support this point: It appears that the genuine formations are really anti-donuts - the center of the circle is relatively undisturbed. This is surrounded by the flattened circle, and then a fairly abrupt edge along the perimeter. That actually sounds like evidence that it is faked... [g)] Seems like it would be hardest to flatten that patch in the middle!

zoobyshoe

Oct26-03, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by Zero
That actually sounds like evidence that it is faked... [g)] Seems like it would be hardest to flatten that patch in the middle!
I'm pretty sure Ivan is refering to what you'd expect to find left behind by a whirlwind touchdown: the center, the low pressure "eye" would leave the crops unflattened.

The elaborate, neat and geomtric hoaxed ones always have the center nicely flattened down. This would be easy to do by having a spike in one end of the board: stick the spike in the ground and pivot the board around it in increments, stepping on it each time to flatten the crops.

Ivan Seeking

Oct26-03, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
I'm pretty sure Ivan is refering to what you'd expect to find left behind by a whirlwind touchdown: the center, the low pressure "eye" would leave the crops unflattened.

The elaborate, neat and geomtric hoaxed ones always have the center nicely flattened down. This would be easy to do by having a spike in one end of the board: stick the spike in the ground and pivot the board around it in increments, stepping on it each time to flatten the crops.

Yes. As I remember, the scientist who first did this work said that one could almost be sure that this feature wouild be absent on faked circles; where the swollen nodes and such were also absent.

Zero

Oct26-03, 01:12 AM

Ummmm...ok. Now, what's this about microwaves? I don't get it, it doesn't seem logical that there would be random bursts of radiation...can someone explain that mechanism to me, or at least point me to a spcific link?

Ivan Seeking

Oct26-03, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Ummmm...ok. Now, what's this about microwaves? I don't get it, it doesn't seem logical that there would be random bursts of radiation...can someone explain that mechanism to me, or at least point me to a spcific link?

We are guessing at a mechanism. We only know that it appears to be true that something causes damage to the stalks that is consistent with exposture to microwaves.

There is so much cr*p about crop circles out there, I haven't found the original work on this yet. However, the pictures in the link given are what I have seen in the past. There are also some interesting microscopic pictures that I will get when I find them.

http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/blt1.htm

Here is the list of consultants for this particular information.
http://www.bltresearch.com/proffcons.html

OK this is the guy. He started the organization linked above. He did the orignal work that I saw years ago. I don't know what to make of this web site though. It looks like they make claims he never did.

LEVENGOOD, W.C .................................................. ......... Biophysicist
M.S. in Biophysics, University of Michigan--1970
M.A. in Bioscience, Ball State University--1961
Research physicist at the Institute of Science and Technology and the Department of Natural Resources, University of Michigan, 1961-1970; Director of Biophysical Research for private-sector companies, 1970-1983. Has published 50+ papers, in professional scientific journals, including Nature and Science. Three papers (1994; 1995; 1999) present results of laboratory work on crop circle plants and soils.
Currently: pursuing multiple research interests at Pinelandia Biophysical Laboratory, Grass Lakes, MI

Ivan Seeking

Oct26-03, 03:29 AM

Here are some skeptical links and some additional information. I am still trying to find the original work. Levengood is who impressed me.

Investigative Files
Levengood's Crop-Circle Plant Research
http://www.csicop.org/sb/9606/crop_circle.html

Special Report
Circular Reasoning: The 'Mystery' of Crop Circles and Their 'Orbs' of Light
http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-09/crop-circles.html

Skeptics Dictionary:
http://skepdic.com/cropcirc.html

Text © Freddy Silva 1998 & 2000. Extracts from the book Secrets In The Fields.
http://www.lovely.clara.net/biophysical.html

Theories on the Formation of
Crop Circles
http://www.paradigmshift.com/theories.html

selfAdjoint

Oct26-03, 03:48 PM

Taking away from the CSICOP criticism of Leavergood two sensible points:

1) The research needs to be replicated,
2) Experimental protocols need to be in place to reduce the appearance, if not the actuallity, of experimenter bias.

Until this is done, given the rather believer-centric attitude they seem to find in Leavergood's work, I think we have to treat the cellular modifications as Not Proven.

BTW, the tone of this CSICOP essay reminds me why I stopped reading Skeptic. They behave all too much just like the people they criticise. True believers every one.

russ_watters

Oct26-03, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Russ, Zero,
OK. Lets turn this around.

Where are the arrest records, photographs, soil compaction studies, debris sweeps, and admissions of guilt to prove that people are making more than 0.1% of crop circles.

This ain't like UFOs: That crop circles happen is beyond doubt. Where is the evidence to support your explanation? I don't consider 0.1% convincing. I can probably find a greater percentage of honest used car salesmen. When you can back up your hypothesis with evidence, please post the informatioin. Until then I consider your explanation debunked. That line of reasoning works for graffiti too, Ivan. Its flawed. And you can't burden-of-proof-shift this. Its you who are making an extrordinary claim and its you who must supply the extrordinary evidence. Here are some skeptical links and some additional information. I am still trying to find the original work. Levengood is who impressed me. The first link really blasts Levengood. And he impressed you? Does he still impress you? Now I'm confused. In any case, doesn't this vindicate my credibility test criteria? If the "research" itself is BS, arguing about the validity of the theories - as you got Zero to do - is utterly pointless. Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Where is this tour guide site to stonehenge you speak of? The link has the word "stonehenge" in it and you have invented the "tour guide site" part from thin air. You are distorting the facts, then criticizing the facts for the distortions you added yourself. This is completely unacceptable. Easy there. You could have stopped at the first sentence and I would explain: When given a site I've never seen before, the first thing I do is look at the home page. If there is no link to the home page, just delete everything after the domain name in your address bar and hit enter. Doing so for this link takes you to the homepage which has this subtitle: Avebury and Stonehenge Guides and Tours So: tours.

I do this credibility check every time. Sometimes you can tell from the domain name what it is before even reading it. Anything on geocities.com for example is a personal website.

Ivan Seeking

Oct26-03, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
That line of reasoning works for graffiti too, Ivan. Its flawed. And you can't burden-of-proof-shift this. Its you who are making an extrordinary claim and its you who must supply the extrordinary evidence.

Not true. First, this is not an extraordinary claim. There is nothing about this that requires any fantastic leaps of faith - like how ET would get here. As Zooby has argued, this may be due to nothing more than some unusual brand of whirlwinds. There are observations of formations that go back decades or centuries. You propose an explanation for this. In the 1970's, a couple of people started replicating these phenomena - one of the two famous British hoaxers indicated this. As a farm boy, he knew about crop circles. This claim is just as credible as the claim that they made the circles. So, in no way does this account for the evidence. The burden of proof for your theory lies with you. Where is the evidence? Next, even your two hoaxers are suspect. Perhaps they were lying for the publicity. Prove that they made all those circles.

Why don't more people EVER get caught? Why would they bother going to all that work when often nobody may even notice their efforts? You are proposing a solution that has virtually no evidence to support it. Also, people get arrested or caught, or at least are seen making graffiti all the time. I used to see this in LA myself.

The first link really blasts Levengood. And he impressed you?

Ten years ago; and yes, he did. One link hardly constitutes a balance perspective. Why is this link any more credible than any other; because you like it? It appears that the author is not even a scientist.
• Joe Nickell,* senior researh fellow, CSICOP
I’m not about to jump on this guys word. A community college teacher reviewed the paper.

Does he still impress you? Now I'm confused. In any case, doesn't this vindicate my credibility test criteria? If the "research" itself is BS, arguing about the validity of the theories - as you got Zero to do - is utterly pointless.

Since I followed his work the skeptics have attacked. IMO, it remains to be seen if the criticism is valid or not. I admit that objections are made that are worthy of review. First though, this does not mean that all or any of the accusations are true. Next, it does not mean that the information or all data is bogus. I pretty much agree with selfAdjoint on this. Finally, I posted skeptical links because I am interested in the truth. I often try to post differing points of view on controversial issues that I debate; especially in cases like this. When have you ever done this?

zoobyshoe

Oct26-03, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters Easy there. You could have stopped at the first sentence and I would explain: When given a site I've never seen before, the first thing I do is look at the home page. If there is no link to the home page, just delete everything after the domain name in your address bar and hit enter. Doing so for this link takes you to the homepage which has this subtitle:

So: tours.

I do this credibility check every time.
I must concede, then, that you did not invent the "tour guide site" aspect out of thin air. This looked to be the case since there is nothing at the page Ivan linked to to suggest it is anything but a site unto itself.

So, my other two questions remain: what do you object to in the two quotes I extracted from the site and posted here, and do you still maintain it is possible to dismiss, with confidence, a piece of writing based exclusively on a reading of the first sentence?

Zero

Oct26-03, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
If the "research" itself is BS, arguing about the validity of the theories - as you got Zero to do - is utterly pointless. Not exactly...he lost me at "We are guessing at a mechanism."[g)]

zoobyshoe

Oct26-03, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Not exactly...he lost me at "We are guessing at a mechanism."[g)]
Russ-Watters lost me when he asserted he could judge a piece of writing by its first sentence alone.

He really isn't a skeptic: one who approaches with an attitude of doubt, he is, in fact, one who judges without knowing what he is judging. Prejudiced.

Ivan Seeking

Oct27-03, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Not exactly...he lost me at "We are guessing at a mechanism."[g)]

You guys seem to think I am pushing one particular explanation. I'm not.

Ivan Seeking

Oct27-03, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
So: tours.

I do this credibility check every time. Sometimes you can tell from the domain name what it is before even reading it. Anything on geocities.com for example is a personal website.

Yes, here is their secret agenda:
These pages are maintained in the international public interest by the Megalithic Society for the benefit of visitors, enthusiasts and scholars who require the most recent, reliable information on these major prehistoric sites. They have been prepared for the Society by Prof. / Dr. Terence Meaden. Local tourist information is provided for people wanting to visit megalithicWiltshire to see the stones for themselves. As with all scholastic scientific endeavours the Society makes the best informed interpretations based on the material evidence in accordance with the latest findings from the disciplines of archaeology, anthropology and comparative ancient religion.

You also completely ignore that the pages are chocked full of scientific citations.

russ_watters

Oct27-03, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Yes, here is their secret agenda..... Ivan, I implied nothing sinister about their motives. I simply stated that a tourist website is not one that you can attach scientific credibility to. Originally posted by zoobyshoe
do you still maintain it is possible to dismiss, with confidence, a piece of writing based exclusively on a reading of the first sentence? Yes. So, my other two questions remain: what do you object to in the two quotes I extracted from the site and posted here, I'm not sure to which you are referring. If you are talking about that article from Nature from 1880, I will redily agree that wind might do some weird things to a wheat field. To call that a crop circle would loosten the definition beyond usefulness and in any case, I have never seen such a thing characterized as a crop circle. I suspect such a characterization is made in an effort to prove that not all crop circles are man-made, allowing for other explanations (ET) as well.He really isn't a skeptic: one who approaches with an attitude of doubt, he is, in fact, one who judges without knowing what he is judging. Prejudiced. I prefer "biased." I consider myself to be biased in favor of the scientific method/process.

zoobyshoe

Oct27-03, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters I'm not sure to which you are referring. If you are talking about that article from Nature from 1880, I will redily agree that wind might do some weird things to a wheat field. To call that a crop circle would loosten the definition beyond usefulness and in any case, I have never seen such a thing characterized as a crop circle.
I'm not sure why you aren't sure what I'm talking about. First, since you, zero, and selfAjoint wouldn't read the article, I went to the trouble of extracting the quotes for you. Then since it appeared you still hadn't read them I refered you back to the specific post (date and time) in which I had quoted them.
To call any "roughly circular" patch of flattened crops a "crop circle" does not loosen the definition. The word "circle" when applied to crops has been loose all along. The shapes described in the 1880 report were of interest to the man who reported them because they seemed more orderly than what you'd expect from wind phenomena.
I suspect such a characterization is made in an effort to prove that not all crop circles are man-made, allowing for other explanations (ET) as well.
This, as far as I'm concerned, is the most important thing you've said. I think it reveals the true cause of your side-stepping and refusal to even consider a non-hoaxed cause for crop circles. You are suspicious that it is a bait to get you into some position where you have to admit there is some vague possibility of causes you now find unacceptable to consider.

I have been looking at stuff posted by Ivan for months now, accepting it where it makes sence and picking it apart where it doesn't. The notion that someone might have to shield their eyes from something he posted is pretty comical. The first time I responded to one of his crop circle threads I flat out said I thought they were either hoaxes or some completely natural process, and had nothing to do with any flying saucers. He agreed, and we started speculating about what might be making the non-hoaxed ones. He has never once raised the possibility it could be flying saucers. You, and Zero, and selfAjoint would have found out the same thing if you hadn't jumped to the rigid conclusion that he must be up to something.

So, here's that sentence again:

"In your schooldays most of you who read this book made acquaintaince with the noble building of Euclid's geometry, and you remember - perhaps with more respect than love - the magnificent structure, on the lofty staircase of which you were chased about for uncounted hours by conscientious teachers."

This is the first sentence of a thing that is supposed to be a scientific paper. By your criteria, we can pretty much dismiss the rest of it based on how bad this first sentence is, right?

Ivan Seeking

Oct28-03, 03:25 AM

Russ wont participate in my remote viewing test because if he wins he might be labeled a psychic. [:D]

zoobyshoe

Oct28-03, 04:18 AM

Same here. There's the remote chance I'll guess right and unintentinally vindicate you. Can't have that.

russ_watters

Oct28-03, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
I have been looking at stuff posted by Ivan for months now, accepting it where it makes sence and picking it apart where it doesn't. The notion that someone might have to shield their eyes from something he posted is pretty comical. The first time I responded to one of his crop circle threads I flat out said I thought they were either hoaxes or some completely natural process, and had nothing to do with any flying saucers. He agreed, and we started speculating about what might be making the non-hoaxed ones. He has never once raised the possibility it could be flying saucers. You, and Zero, and selfAjoint would have found out the same thing if you hadn't jumped to the rigid conclusion that he must be up to something. Just a clarification - I never said that Ivan was hiding an adjenda here. Indeed, I often have no clue as to what his real position is. He sometimes takes the devil's advocate position or the no position position. I personally consider that to usually be a cop out (not to mention annoying), but then, I have an opinion about EVERYTHING, I'm always up front about it, and have a lot of trouble arguing anything else.

In any case, its the conspiracy theory websites that try all sorts of trickery to advance their position. Ivan has cited several, but I certainly don't expect that he believes everything he sees on them. So, here's that sentence again:... This is the first sentence of a thing that is supposed to be a scientific paper. By your criteria, we can pretty much dismiss the rest of it based on how bad this first sentence is, right? Well, I guess you misunderstand my criteria. That sentence doesn't really say anything at all. Its not so much bad as it is just plain useless. But a useless first sentence isn't something I'd dismiss the rest of a paper for.

The sentence I had a problem with was far different. It made an affirmative statement about its own validity.

zoobyshoe

Oct28-03, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters Just a clarification - I never said that Ivan was hiding an adjenda here.
Not by name but you can't be refering to anyone else when you said the following:
To call that a crop circle would loosten the definition beyond usefulness and in any case, I have never seen such a thing characterized as a crop circle. I suspect such a characterization is made in an effort to prove that not all crop circles are man-made, allowing for other explanations (ET) as well.

Well, I guess you misunderstand my criteria. That sentence doesn't really say anything at all. Its not so much bad as it is just plain useless. But a useless first sentence isn't something I'd dismiss the rest of a paper for.
It is actually not the least bit useless. The author builds on it directly in the next sentence, and by the sentence after that the premise of his discussion is laid down. It is however, unnecessarily peppered with the irritating, lame "poetification" that makes the whole thing much harder to read than it needs to be.
The sentence I had a problem with was far different. It made an affirmative statement about its own validity. This is true, and I am aware of the difference. If you read the rest of the article,(the crop circle article) though, you realize this is the result of the author being a poorly organized writer. The assumptions inherent in the first sentence are supported by the eyewitness accounts he presents later. My point is that it turns out to be true, sometimes, that people who express themselves badly have valid things to say. As far as I'm concerned, aside from the service of presenting those two quotes, the article hasn't got much at all to reccomend it. I have, throughout this thread, simply been trying to bring people's attention to those two quotes. Instead of just reading them and commenting, you throw up a Byzantine system of "credibility checks",first sentence policies, overly suspicious comments on what other people's motives appear to be, and veiled pressure on the other participants in the thread not to get drawn in.

Ivan Seeking

Oct29-03, 02:39 AM

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Same here. There's the remote chance I'll guess right and unintentinally vindicate you. Can't have that.

Did you vibe my motives through ESP?

Vindicate? [o)]

Ivan Seeking

Oct29-03, 03:03 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
Indeed, I often have no clue as to what his real position is. He sometimes takes the devil's advocate position or the no position position. I personally consider that to usually be a cop out (not to mention annoying),

[:D]

Russ, you've got the wrong idea. First, Socrates convinced me that now and forevermore, I [and everyone else] know[s] nothing. I am trying to explore subjects, not [for the most part anyway] prove a point. Sometimes [often] I argue the difficult position simply because someone should. I can see points that should be made. This does not necessarily mean that I "believe" the implications of these arguments. Consider the John Edwards thread: The guy turns my stomach to watch anymore. Still, I don't consider my personal reaction the end all of objectivity. If he actually does good as many claim, then perhaps this is worth examining. Nothing more should be inferred. This line of reasoning applies most of what I do. This is not so say that have managed to purge my system of all opinions...as my wife will testify I have not.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle.

Ivan Seeking

Oct29-03, 03:39 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
Ivan, I implied nothing sinister about their motives. I simply stated that a tourist website is not one that you can attach scientific credibility to.

This is an example of how you fail to characterize a source in the proper context.
Simple Circles of the Late 1970s and the 1980s.
During the period of intense crop-circle studies undertaken over a hundred years later, many single circles and some groups of crop circles were discovered which had identical characteristics to those mentioned by Rand Capron, namely
(1) "prostrate stalks with their heads arranged pretty evenly in a direction forming a circle round the centre, and outside these (2) a circular wall of stalks which had not suffered". In addition, several crop circles of the 1980s were found which also had
(3) "a few standing stalks as a centre".
As a 20th-century example, a splendid set of six small circles with these characteristics was sighted from the air on 5 August 1989 in North Wiltshire, and investigated soon afterwards by Drs. Tokio Kikuchi (Kochi University, Japan) and Terence Meaden (Physics Professor, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada). Photographs are given as Figures 5 and 6 (page 16) and Figure 2 (page 60) in the book Circles from the Sky (Proc. First International Conference on the Circles Effect at Oxford 1990, published by Souvenir Press, London, 1991). Besides these, four similar circles with a twist of central standing stalks were found at other sites that summer. [However, note that since 1991, due to a change in research priorities, no additional airborne searches have been undertaken by CERES, the Circles Effect Research Organisation].
From quite another source comes another example of a small tuft of standing stems at the centre of flattened circular corn. This is given in the second edition of Crop Circles, A Mystery Solved (page 224, J. Randles and P. Fuller; published by Robert Hale).
...Journal of Meteorology (ISSN 0307-5966: Volume 25, pp 20-21: "...Such observations are what would be expected of a descending ring-vortex of air, as proposed theoretically by Professor John Snow (Purdue University) and Dr Tokio Kikuchi (Kochi University): (Circles from the Sky, pp 54-67); see also J. Meteorology, UK, volume 17, 109-117, 1992). This refers to the development of instability in an eddy vortex leading to breakdown of the core and the production of a well-defined ring vortex, followed by its sudden descent to ground level. Under ideal conditions a small cone of stalks remain in the middle, but often slight oscillations or drift of the swirling agent can knock the pyramid over. ...G.D. Freier: The electric field of a large dust devil. J.Geophys.Research, vol.65, 3504 (1960).
W.D. Crozier: Electric field of a New Mexico dust devil, ibid. vol. 69, 5427-5429 (1964) and vol.75, 4583-4585 (1970)....It was the celebrated physicist Professor Stephen Hawking of Cambridge University who declared in 1991 that "Corn circles are either hoaxes or formed by vortex movement of air". Cambridgeshire Evening News, 30. 9.1991

This is written by Prof Terence Meaden. The citations look to be good and plentiful. This agrees with much of what I have seen in the past...I say this site is credible. Prove its not. Otherwise, you have no right to dismiss the work of someone more qualified than you.

Yes. I'm not sure to which you are referring. If you are talking about that article from Nature from 1880, I will redily agree that wind might do some weird things to a wheat field. To call that a crop circle would loosten the definition beyond usefulness and in any case, I have never seen such a thing characterized as a crop circle. I suspect such a characterization is made in an effort to prove that not all crop circles are man-made, allowing for other explanations (ET) as well.

Russ, don't you see that it is you, not me who has the ulterior motive? You aren't aware of the proper information related to this subject because assume that everything crop circle is nonsense. I think this clearly is what caused the evolution of the hoaxes. Also, I can even imagine that slightly more sophisticated formations [more than a simple donut] could be possible by some of these proposed, very earthly explanations.

I prefer "biased." I consider myself to be biased in favor of the scientific method/process.

One classic cop out used in pseudoskepticism is to simply deny any evidence that you don't like. This is what I think you do. If you can show that the citations for the "tourists" are bogus, I will agree to do more research before posting such sites for as a reference.

Note that when I started this thread I fully expected to find the original work that I saw. It is rare that I can't find any direct links. When I have more time I will still look for this; but I think the Stonehenge link lists many of the related studies and work.

zoobyshoe

Oct29-03, 01:47 PM

Ivan,

I notice one citation of a man named Freier: "The Electric Field of a Large Dust Devil". This may be the man I saw a show about who proposed the notion that dust devils may be primarily electric phenomena; i.e. the "ionic vortex" you suggest once in a while. As I recall the man in the show wasn't able to get any evidence that the electric field came first and entrained the air and dust second.

Temperature differences seem to be the only thing that will generate a dust devil or whirlwind, and the electric field arises from the collision of air or dust particles.

Ivan Seeking

Oct29-03, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Ivan,

I notice one citation of a man named Freier: "The Electric Field of a Large Dust Devil". This may be the man I saw a show about who proposed the notion that dust devils may be primarily electric phenomena; i.e. the "ionic vortex" you suggest once in a while. As I recall the man in the show wasn't able to get any evidence that the electric field came first and entrained the air and dust second.

Temperature differences seem to be the only thing that will generate a dust devil or whirlwind, and the electric field arises from the collision of air or dust particles.

There is on the average about a 100 volts per meter vertical potential all around us. Dust particles at different elevations should aquire different potentials accordingly. Perhaps he was playing to this idea. If he was wrong, this does not imply bad science. In fact, if he proved himself wrong, or if he made his work available for scrutiny and to later be disproven, this is likely an example of good science. Remember, a well considered explanation that is proven wrong is good. This is science at its core. Also, this by no means automatically discredits other data and information available through his work. Science builds upon failures. This is also good science. The key is to recognize the difference between efforts that are wrong, and bad science.

I think this is pretty well understood - the formations of small vorticies - but there may still be some unresolved issues. It sounds like it was an idea worth checking; assuming of course that he had a reasonable model for this. Also, I'm not really pushing the ionic votex idea; I don't know if this idea is really feasible or not. It is often mentioned and there are certain elements of this business that make the idea tempting, but there are many other ways that we might explain the evidence. I have also wondered about things like earthlights [not the seismic stress type] and ball lightning. Perhaps there is some related or similar mechanism at work.

zoobyshoe

Oct29-03, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
There is on the average about a 100 volts per meter vertical potential all around us. Are you saying that there is an average 100 volt difference between a point one meter off the ground and a point two meters off the ground? That seems like way too much.

If he was wrong, this does not imply bad science.
Course not. I didn't say anything to the effect it did. He had an idea, looked for evidence to support it, but didn't find any. That's all. It dosn't mean he proved himself wrong, either. It just means he didn't find any evidence to support his idea.
It sounds like it was an idea worth checking; assuming of course that he had a reasonable model for this. Also, I'm not really pushing the ionic votex idea; I don't know if this idea is really feasible or not.
I agree that it was worth checking. What occured to me, though, is that if an ionic vortex were to begin for purely electrical reasons it would instantaneously entrain air. I don't see how anyone could seperate the chicken from the egg in natural situations.

Ivan Seeking

Oct29-03, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
[B]Are you saying that there is an average 100 volt difference between a point one meter off the ground and a point two meters off the ground? That seems like way too much.

I know. Surprising isn't it. Yes, near the surface of the earth, the average is between 90 and 120 volts per meter on a clear day. See the Feynman Lectures on Physics; vol II, p9-3. The average current in the air on a clear day is about 10-12 amps per meter2

Course not. I didn't say anything to the effect it did. He had an idea, looked for evidence to support it, but didn't find any. That's all. It dosn't mean he proved himself wrong, either. It just means he didn't find any evidence to support his idea.

Considering the rope I just gave Russ, I wanted to be sure.

I agree that it was worth checking. What occured to me, though, is that if an ionic vortex were to begin for purely electrical reasons it would instantaneously entrain air. I don't see how anyone could seperate the chicken from the egg in natural situations.

I guess we would have to show that we can stop the votex from forming by somehow shorting out the field. I would want to check first though and see if any mystery remains about how these form. His work and the questions addressed could simply be out of date. I think a lot of progress has been made in the study of tornadoes and the like in recent years.

zoobyshoe

Oct29-03, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I know. Surprising isn't it. Yes, near the surface of the earth, the average is between 90 and 120 volts per meter on a clear day. See the Feynman Lectures on Physics; vol II, p9-3. The average current in the air on a clear day is about 10-12 amps per meter2
I was really into elecrostatic motors for a while. I know that people had no trouble powering them by putting something sharp up on top of a 30 foot pole to collect the charges. The trouble was that the amount of voltage was so erratic from one minute to the next the motors wouldn't operate smoothly. I guess I never heard a figure given for the average potential difference. That's pretty amazing.

Site on Dust Devil formation:

Dust Devils, Alaska Science Forum
Address:http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF2/227.html

Ths site, strangely, gives a very different mechanism:

What are dust devils?
Address:http://www.videoweather.com/weatherquestions/What_are_dust_devils.htm

This one is pretty comprehensive:

Inside Britannica
Address:http://newsletters.britannica.com/august_articles/whirlwind.htm

Ivan Seeking

Oct29-03, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
I was really into elecrostatic motors for a while. I know that people had no trouble powering them by putting something sharp up on top of a 30 foot pole to collect the charges. The trouble was that the amount of voltage was so erratic from one minute to the next the motors wouldn't operate smoothly. I guess I never heard a figure given for the average potential difference. That's pretty amazing.

Site on Dust Devil formation:

Dust Devils, Alaska Science Forum
Address:http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF2/227.html

The first thought that hit me after reading the link was that any disturbance could conceivably include electrostatic effects.

As for the voltage, one can see this effect by hanging a metal water bucket - full of water - from the limb of a tree using a good insulator. Poke a small hole in the bottom of the bucket that allows drops to form and then fall off. The excess charge on the bucket accumulates around the sharp radius of the water drops which then carry away the charge. Eventually the water bucket will approach the 100 volt per meter value; depending on the height of the bucket.

THIS CAN BE DANGEROUS. DO NOT TOUCH THE BUCKET; USE A HIGH QUALITY VOLTMETER WITH SAFE PROBES TO MEASURE THE VOLTAGE.

zoobyshoe

Oct30-03, 12:01 AM

I posted two more dust devil links while you were writing in big red letters.

I wonder how long that bucket would stay charged like that. I'f I'd have known about this when I lived in New England I could have played some interesting tricks on people during maple syrup season.

selfAdjoint

Oct30-03, 04:32 PM

Ivan, I don't see how your bucket experiment has anything to do with potential difference with height. Rather I would say the drops are being ionized by the friction as they pass through the hole, while the height just serves to insulate this process from the ground.

Ivan Seeking

Oct31-03, 03:32 AM

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Ivan, I don't see how your bucket experiment has anything to do with potential difference with height. Rather I would say the drops are being ionized by the friction as they pass through the hole, while the height just serves to insulate this process from the ground.

Being a conductor, the bucket will seek the local potential. The water carries charge away until this is acheived. This is considered one way to measure this potential. I learned all of this from Feynman. Unless it's out of date...I just checked and this is the explanation given.

Ivan Seeking

Nov1-03, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
I posted two more dust devil links while you were writing in big red letters.

I wonder how long that bucket would stay charged like that. I'f I'd have known about this when I lived in New England I could have played some interesting tricks on people during maple syrup season.

It's people like you [and me] that cause me to use big red letters. [:D]

jwilson

Feb23-04, 11:42 AM

I am new to this forum and thread, but I would first like to commend Ivan for tackling such a contoversial subject. It would seem though, that Ivan, and many of you responding to Ivan's posts are having difficulty establishing with any certainty that not all 'crop circles' are mechanically-made by people (i.e. hoaxes). Ivan's attempts at providing historical examples and context dating back to a time before anyone has claimed making crop circle hoaxes are a sound and reasonable basis for establishing that not all crop circles have had a human origin.

Let me add to Ivan's previously reported 1880 "Nature" citation with a few additional historical references:
The Natural History of Stafford-Shire
By Robert Plot, LLD
Keeper of the Ashmolean Museum
And Professor of Chemistry in the University of Oxford
M.DC.LXXXVI [1686]

1686 - Robert Plot, a chemistry professor from Oxford University, in his words 'excavated' over 50 crop circle sites from southern England, and uncovered about 50 more historical reports from other observers and farmers (the earliest dating to 1590). He noted simple circles, circle rings, circle spirals, circles with SQUARES, and arrangements of flattened lines in both cereal crops and field grasses. Plot did the first soil sample testing where he compared soil from the center of circles to soil from the inside edges to soil from outside of the circles (as a control). Plot noted that soil from inside the circles was much more dehydrated, and found 'white, sulfurous residues'. Plot noted that crop yields increased by about 30% in the successive season in the areas where crop circles were found. He made several diagrams of examples of the crop circles he visited, and were included in this book. Plot suggested that perhaps 'hollow thunderbolts' were responsible for the crop circles - indicating he believed there may have been an electrical component involved in the physical mechanism for flattening the crop circles. Plot spent about 20 years collecting information about crop circles until his death in the 1690's.

1790-1793 Gentlemen's Magazine

The 'Time Magazine' of its day, "Gentleman's Magazine" reported on current events worldwide. Over a three-year period, "Gentlemen's Magazine" published several articles and readers' letters discussing the origin of 'fairy rings' [now called crop circles]. Diagrams of several crop circle formations were included. One of the letters references a Royal Society paper which discusses the mechanism for the creation of crop circles (also electrical in nature). The discussion is dominated by two camps: one which is clearly discussing crop circles as being flattened, swirled circles of wheat and grasses; and the second is a group which discusses modern-day 'fairy rings'as being caused by a fungus, or the fungus rings which we all know are now well-understood.

1847 - "The Magic Circle In The Prairie" by Henry Schoolcraft

Henry Schoolcraft [of which Schoolcraft College was later named for], produced a report for the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs on Indian Ethnography work he was doing in the U.S. Midwest. Included in his report was a section titled "The Magic Circle In The Prairie" which was a description of a flattened circle of prairie grass, and one Indian's experience surrounding his visiting this site.

These other historical reports (especially Plot's, a respected scientist of his day), when added to J.Rand Capron's (another respected scientist of his day) descriptions in "Nature" in 1880, would seem to establish that crop circles have been at least noted and observed with various levels of detail at least once every hundred years for the past few centuries.

At the risk of including one more reference which may or may not be dubious, Ted Phillips’ PHYSICAL TRACES ASSOCIATED WITH UFO SIGHTINGS (Center for UFO Studies, Evanston, IL, 1975), appeared several years before the earliest date for any crop circle hoax claim. Phillips, of course, was cataloguing what he believed to be physical evidence associated with UFO reports. In his catalogue, he documented dozens of examples of what we would know today as being modern-day crop circles without referring to them as such. Phillips' catalogue included several photographs dating back into the 1960's of these sites. Although one may not agree with Phillip's conclusion as to the origin of these examples, nonetheless, these sites were well-documented in the pre-hoax era, and 8 of the sites were systematically surveyed with soil sample analysis performed in both academic and private laboratories.

Of course, Dr. Terence Meaden's work in the 1980's documenting hundreds of examples of crop circles, and which included many eyewitness examples - is well known. And, "The Journal of Meterology", of which he was the editor of - was (and still is) a very respectable scientific journal. Out of Meaden's research came the first (and only) science conference on crop circles in 1991. There is a record of the conference which collected all the science papers presented there:

Circles from the Sky: Proceedings of the First International Conference On The Circles Effect At Oxford edited by Dr. George Terence Meaden.
Published 1991 by Souvenir Press (Educational & Academic) Ltd., London ISBN 0 285 63036 9

The 1991 conference was sponsored by two organizations: the Tornado and Storm Research Organization (TORRO), and the Circles Effect Research Group (CERES).

Since that time, the science community has mostly shied away from serious academic research, primarily because of the widespread media publication of hoaxing examples and hoaxing claims. However, Ivan has also noted the plant research performed by W.C.Levengood from Pinelandia Labs. Levengood has published 3 papers in the peer-reviewed science journal "Physiologia Plantarum" on the subject of crop circles, but Levengood has also published around 50 other science papers on a variety of topics in peer-reviewed journals such as "Nature" and others dating back to the 1950's.

A 4th paper on crop circles published in "Physiologia Plantarum" was written by a physicist from the Netherlands, Dr. Eltjo Hasselhoff, in 2001.

Those references should help bring everyone up to speed on the historical and current state of crop circle science/research, and help settle some of the questions surrounding "Step 1".

If anyone would like the actual reprints of the above historical reports, feel free to email me.

Keep the dialogue going, it is an interesting discussion!

zoobyshoe

Feb23-04, 12:56 PM

jwilson,

That was a really excellent, well researched post! If pre-hoax circles are ever in doubt in a discussion I'm involved with again I know where to link people to. Extremely well done.

Any chance of an equally comprehensive history of reports of whirlwinds being spotted making circles? I was quite persuaded by the two reports at the site Ivan found.

-Zooby

Ivan Seeking

Feb23-04, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
jwilson,

That was a really excellent, well researched post! If pre-hoax circles are ever in doubt in a discussion I'm involved with again I know where to link people to. Extremely well done.

I completely agree!

Norval

Feb25-04, 12:53 PM

Crop circles can easily be seen from space with moderate optics. It would seem that they are some form of communication. Communication from somebody on earth trying to get a message to someone off earth. This would seem plausible if there were ET’s on earth that are limited in their technological apparatus or are being prevented from open communications.

Just a thought.

Yes that was a great post jwilson.

jwilson

Feb25-04, 12:54 PM

Well, you would think that finding eyewitnesses of crop circle formation (regardless of what the eyewitness reported) would seem to be the answer to 'just exactly how are crop circles formed?', but for a variety of reasons, the roughly 50 or so eyewitness accounts of crop circle formation from around the world have usually been summarily discounted.

It may be, perhaps, that because no collection of these reports has been undertaken systematically, that the weight of these people's observations have not been taken seriously. But more than likely, for those objectively evaluating the eyewitnesses claims of seeing a crop circle form, it may have more to do with the lack of an identifiable, consistently-observed process amongst the witnesses. There seems to be a variety of descriptions as to the circumstances of how the crops (or grasses) become flattened, but several clear patterns emerge when comparing the statements.

Dr. Terence Meaden, in his book, The Circles Effect and Its Mysteries [June 1989, Aretech Publishing Co., ISBN 0 9510590 3 3] has contributed the largest and most detailed collection of eyewitness reports. In Meaden's book, several eyewitnesses clearly report all the characteristics of whirlwinds being involved with circle formation, but several others clearly report light effects being involved, and others report hearing only strange acoustical effects. This, of course, led to Meaden's 'synthesis' approach to try and develop a hypothesis which could explain the wide variety of circumstances involved with crop circle formation that the eyewitnesses were reporting - hence, the 'plasma vortex' idea. Interestingly, the majority of the eyewitness reports that have been collected are daytime observations, in contrast with the often-used (by both supporters and critics) myth that ‘crop circles form only at night’.

[As an aside, Meaden also cites G.D. Freier’s work in 1960 on the electric fields of dust devils, which zoobyshoe has mentioned previously in this thread, but Meaden also cites W.E. Bradley and R.G. Semonin for their 1963 work on electrical measurements of dust whirls, and D. Crozier’s 1964 and 1970 work on electric fields of dust devils, as well as many others for helping to form the basis for the plasma vortex hypothesis. Meaden has more than 50 scientific citations listed of related science papers in this book to support his ideas.]

Additional eyewitness reports can be found in a wide variety of literature and media. For instance, Arthur C. Clarke’s “Mysterious Universe” TV show did a half-hour documentary on crop circles in 1995 (which has recently been re-released on DVD as part of a wider collection of shorts from the TV series). In the crop circle segment, three eyewitnesses are interviewed – one from the 1940’s, is clearly of the whirlwind variety of sightings, a second from the 1960’s is associated with luminous phenomenon, and a third contemporary sighting had both luminous and acoustic characteristics. Several other books and periodicals of a wide and diverse array of credibility exist which list eyewitness accounts of crop circle formation.

I should mention that one notable purported eyewitness claim has been discredited. A video tape surfaced in 1996 which seemed to show a crop circle formation forming underneath several 'balls of light' flying in circles above a field at a place called Oliver's Castle in southern England. The video was analyzed and the filmographer scrutinized, and both turned out to be frauds. The video had been doctored on a computer, and the filmographer confessed to fabricating it. It is still being lauded as genuine by some groups, so steer away from that account. However, there does exist at least a dozen filmed examples of these flying 'balls of light' that have been witnessed at crop circle locations - after the crop circles have already formed - that have stood up to scrutiny. There have been dozens more that have been eyewitnessed but not filmed. What the 'balls of light' relationship is to the circles, or what their composition or nature is, at this point is unknown.

I, myself, have interviewed a couple of witnesses to crop circle formations here in the USA in the past year, and both reports consist of completely different observations. The first report – again, a daytime observation – saw no whirlwind action, but described the three-circle complex formation as being flattened in 12-15 seconds. No unusual lights, no unusual sounds, no lightning, no whirlwinds – just the plants wavering back and forth like ‘waves on a lake’, then being flattened, each circle one at a time. For a more detailed report on this incident visit:

http://www.cropcirclenews.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=128

A second report from last summer has come to me just recently, and I have yet to compile a report of the incident, but it was a nighttime observation which involved luminous phenomenon. The reported 'balls of light' seen after the crops had been flattened were photographed in this case.

[Incidently, I am part of a loose 'team' of independent researchers trying to document the crop circles here in the USA using a scientific framework as the basis for discerning which crop circles are hoaxes mechanically-made by people, and which ones are not. Last year, our team field-investigated 14 reported crop circle sites in 12 weeks in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Indiana. Several of those were clear hoax attempts, and we categorized and reported on them as such, whereas others we determined to not have been mechanically-made. We determined this through a variety of field tests. I certainly am interested in feedback on our methodology if anyone would like to comment. For additional details on all of these sites, feel free to read our reports at www.cropcirclenews.com]

Ivan Seeking

Feb25-04, 07:13 PM

jwilson, I want to thank you again. Your contributions here are greatly appreciated. [:)]

You may also be interested in the Marfa Mystery Lights thread in the Earth Sciences forum.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7371

zoobyshoe

Feb26-04, 03:36 AM

Yes, jwilson, I could not possibly have recieved a better answer to my question. Your research is extremely impressive, and I very much appreciate you taking the time to post here. I don't know what to make of the luminous phenomena, but it was satisfying to find there were alot more eyewitness reports of whirlwind-created circles.

Thanks,

Zooby

Norval

Feb26-04, 08:29 AM

Yes whirlwinds can flatten crops and make patterns. They have not ever made any intricate geometric patterns.

jwilson

Feb26-04, 09:58 AM

To Norval, Dr. Charles Lietzau, who is also a member of the 'team' of researchers I'm working with, summarized a framework of how we think and operate regarding understanding crop circles. It's worth posting an edited version (in 2 parts) here so people might have a clearer perspective of how ideas about crop circles might be discussed in a scientific forum:

I) DEGREES OF AUTHORITY:
A)"CONCLUSIVE PROOF"
This degree of authority is reserved for the statistically significant results of a properly designed and executed controlled experiment. So long as the experiment is replicable with consistent results, the weight of authority of such results supercedes all other sources.
This highest level has been achieved for the statistical correlation of the presence of verifiable diagnostic criteria in numerous formations that have not been claimed by hoaxers and their complete absence in those that are known to be man made. Even though this specific level is unavailable to direct cause and effect crop circle research, since the source is currently unknown, it has been approached to a level which still demonstrates greater authority than all opposing sources. This has been accomplished by the controlled experiments which conclusively prove that no known hoaxing techniques are able to replicate specific diagnostic phenomena such as elongated node collars, expulsion cavities or fissures, short-term node bending, or accelerated seed germination and vigor, in the field. While our best data, as outlined above, is largely on the secondary rung of this level of proof, no evidence presented by our critics ranks at even this level of authority.

B)"THEORY," (in its most restricted scientific sense).
Being a generalized statement of a successfully tested hypothesis, it is a "fact" that the concept has been proven to be consistent with known cases and predictive when applied to similar cases. A true scientific theory is recognized as having the currently most authoritative experimental foundation, although it still remains open to modification, or rarely, replacement.
In the field of crop formation investigation, the theory has been established through statistical correlation that the diagnostic criteria referred to earlier are only characteristic of authentic formations and not those known to be hoaxed by human techniques. Critics will argue that, in the absence of cause and effect experimentation, this is an example of circular reasoning as the presence of these anomalies is also the criterion by which the circle is judged to be authentic when its actual formation was not determined by known cause and effect mechanisms under experimental conditions. However, such "Natural Experiments" are traditionally accepted in science as a close second when proper precautions have been taken. Until recently, it was not possible to duplicate meteoritic phenomena, yet their existence has long been considered conclusively proven. The same problem confronts the physicists who postulate the existence of the neutrino and black holes. Yet, these phenomena, which not only present the same investigative problems, but are based on far less tangible evidence than the crop circle anomalies, are not only accepted, but taught as essentially fact in most science textbooks.

C) "SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS"
The foremost criterion of a scientific hypothesis is that it must be falsifiable. That means that it can be tested and proven wrong should that be the case. The chief means by which this is accomplished is by the experimental verification of predictions which follow from the hypothesis. A correct hypothesis is a scientific theory in the making. An incorrect hypothesis is a valuable guide away from a fruitless path of inquiry. The value of a path of inquiry based on specific criteria can only be established by controlled experimentation. Regardless of the current consensus of "experts," the hypothesis cannot be dismissed, "a priori." However, similarly, regardless of the reputation or consensus agreement of the source, one untested hypothesis also cannot be asserted to carry any greater authority than another, in the absence of conclusive experimental evidence.
The chief manner in which our critics misapply the purpose of this step of scientific protocol is to assert that it is only necessary to propose an alternative hypothesis and the proven hypothesis being expressed, actually a theory in the making, is somehow cast into doubt until you make the effort to disprove the challenge. Actually, the challenger has the responsibility to provide evidence for their proposal and to demonstrate how it contradicts the evidence already provided by the first hypothesis. Thus, there has never been a valid scientific challenge to the "theory" that the recognized diagnostic anomalies are characteristic of authentic crop formations. The assertion that this evidence need not be evaluated because "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," is an artificially imposed barrier invented by the critics to avoid confronting the conclusive nature of our evidence. The highest scientific protocols make the same demands upon everyone. The establishment of verifiable criteria, a cause and effect relationship, or at least a significant and exclusive correlation, and conclusive experimental evidence are the only valid requirements. If the research provides these requirements, academic honesty compels competent critics to either accept the conclusions on a provisional basis, or experimentally prove them wrong.

D)"SPECULATION"
Any explanation or criticism of one that does not meet the requirements of having been experimentally verified to establish it as a valid hypothesis has the same lack of authority as pure, unfounded, speculation. This is true regardless of the reputation of the source, or the degree of consensus.
Contrary to precepts expressed by our critics, each piece of research must stand on its own grounds. The reputation or affiliations of the proponent may predispose others to look into it seriously; however they do not have any weight in validating the authority of the statement. According to the highest scientific protocols, the accuracy of the data is the only conclusive authority, and any credible critic has the obligation to address only the facts, or any criticism is unfounded.

jwilson

Feb26-04, 10:04 AM

II) LEVELS OF ANALYSIS: LEVEL/SUBJECT OF EXPERIMENTATION-INVESTIGATION
A) FIRST LEVEL; EVIDENCE OF EXISTENCE OF THE PHENOMENON
This also refers to the formation of, and testing of hypotheses as well as statistical correlation.
This level involves the discovery and documentation of replicable, quantitatively measurable criteria. The primary criteria that have already been established include elongation of node collars, expulsion cavities or fissures, short-term node bending, and germination anomalies. This also includes the presence of first order mathematical correspondences. Examples of such include diatonic ratios, Beer-Lambert distributions, and correlations of measurements with known specific examples. Second order correlations such as Euclidian theorems should be considered as hypotheses which have the capacity to become true theories through rigorous testing. One of our primary goals should be to increase the number of such dependable, diagnostic criteria. A case in point being the current research into the possibility that leaf base necrosis in soybeans may prove to be a dependable diagnostic criterion. Current investigations have strengthened its likelihood, however; further field evidence and investigation are needed to verify its scientific dependability.

B) SECOND LEVEL; IMMEDIATE CAUSE OR MECHANISM
This level builds on the diagnostic criteria discovered in level one and involves testing hypotheses to determine if they are capable of replicating this verifiable data.
Crop circle research has just scratched the surface of this level. The only valid data we actually have involves the replication of elongated node collars and possibly expulsion cavities in the laboratory by exposure to microwave radiation. Other valid avenues of research might involve electrostatic forces, and infra or ultrasound, as well as leaving open the possibility of an as yet unidentified force. More than one mechanism may be at work as well. Good working hypotheses such as the "Plasma Vortex Hypothesis," are currently being developed in an attempt to explain the presumed forces necessary to produce the observed requirements of authentic circles. However, no conclusive field studies or laboratory investigations have been carried out to date to verify whether such forces 1, actually exist; 2, have the organizational capacity; and 3, are capable of affecting plants in the required manner. While this is a crucial step in scientific protocols, all hypotheses at this level of causation still remain to be experimentally verified. Clearly this is a vital area of ongoing effort, however, the unverified nature of such research must be acknowledged and relevant experimentation must be developed. Since conjecture may direct the course of experimentation, everyone who wishes to is encouraged to develop and share ideas for research. However, it must be pointed out that existing patterns and evidence on level one do not allow selecting among competing hypotheses on level two. They must be verified by further experiments with new predictions as appropriate.
WE DO NOT ENDORSE LEVEL TWO EXPLANATIONS BEYOND THE EXTENT OF VERIFIED EXPERIMENTAL DATA.

C) THIRD LEVEL; SOURCE OF CAUSE
Experimentally verifiable, conclusive evidence on level three is not currently available. Conclusively determined criteria from level one are not appropriate for supporting speculation on this level. Remember, that an effective hypothesis is required to predict beyond what is already known, and to produce verifiable experimental data under replicable conditions.
Even with these admonitions, speculation is still acceptable as it may lead to specific avenues of experimental research.

D) FOURTH LEVEL; SIGNIFICANCE
Experimentally verifiable, conclusive evidence on level four is not currently available. Conclusively determined criteria from levels one and two are not appropriate for supporting speculation on this level. An effective hypothesis is required to predict beyond what is already known, and to produce verifiable experimental data under replicable conditions.

As you can see from these two posts (quoting Dr. Charles Lietzau), it is essential to critically review 'the rules of the game' so-to-speak when evaluating what can be said with any certainty about the crop circle phenomenon.

Thanks Ivan Seeking and zoobyshoe for your compliments regarding the information I posted. If anyone has any additonal questions regarding specific information about crop circles, I will try and answer you with the details as best I know them, and as staightforwardly as possible.

suzannet

Feb28-04, 05:29 PM

I'm new here, and am another person involved with crop circles. I appreciate the excellent posts Jeffrey Wilson has been making! It would be great if some intelligent group picked up on what's really going on, so let me add some things.

I've just put together a booklet, showing why crop circles can't be hoaxed, which is online at http://theconversation.org/booklet2.html. (Free Flash player: www.macromedia.com/flash.) The genuineness of the phenomenon just can't be denied!

And, on my blog, I intersperse progressive political thought with what's happening with the circles, urging attention be paid to them: http://TheConversation.org. Here's the intro to the last post -- of an L.A. Times report about an international conference of scientists that dealt with the possibility of Earth being struck by an asteroid:

"If humanity had its wits about it, the asteroid inquiry is an example of what it would do. There is so much danger on this living planet that we are a primitive species until we turn our collective attention to protecting ourselves from things beyond our control. A shift of mind-set is what it will take to get us to seriously change our ways, and, most logically, this would come from an event that made the possibility of species annihilation real to everyone who was left. All good minds should be turned to how to bring about this shift in another way. My offering is crop circles -- evidence that we're not alone would bring us all together in a vastly different juxtaposition to the universe, plus it would conceivably enroll a greater intelligence than ours in coming to our aid. The pattern so far has been that the incidence and complexity of the crop formations have increased in response to interest that has been shown, and anything that can put crop circles in our landscape conceivably could put an asteroid shield around the earth."

I went on to ask, "Does anyone have another idea for how to bring about a radical change in the way humanity thinks, or are there responses to this one?" I'm posing that question here!

For my idiosyncratic page about my involvement with the phenomenon, with links to my favorite sites: http://mightycompanions.org/cropcircles

Suzanne Taylor
Los Angeles

Norval

Feb28-04, 09:07 PM

Yes, it’s fine for those that follow to stop and smell the roses as they work out all the steps the trailblazers and trackers left for them to follow. If I had heard that what I have accomplished in my life thus far was “impossible”, would I have actually have accomplished the impossible? I did, and have, and continue to do so. What I state is the obvious to any human with the normal cognitive abilities we have.

Crop circles that are not hoaxes can be seen from space easily.
I doubt humans are making the real ones.
What’s the message about?
Why a message?

That there are real non-human made geometrical patterns forming all over the planet is a fact. Get through it, get over it, but hell, at least GET ON WITH IT! Investigate in what ever and however way we can, but keep looking for the CAUSE and REASON of WHY.

But, it’s just a suggestion.
[:)]

SanguineHorizon

May9-04, 08:06 PM

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/sep/m18-015.shtml

perhaps not a create link, but the source material is sound, I just can't find the site I originally discovered the info.

It would seem that sound has a great deal to do with the circles, unless anyone knows of another way for a geometrical shape to manifest within seconds??

And by the way, it has been PROVEN that not all circles are 'fakes'. The info from the link above demonstrates changes to the cell structure of the soil and plants in the affected areas that are incapable of being reproduced outside of a laboratory... Except of course, by whatever is creating them.

Incidentally, the infamous 'hoaxers' were once in a Television Interveiw, and when asked by the host how they constructed some of the more complex circles, they were at a loss to explain - some years later, one of them renieged on his confession.

I'm tellin ya, its all in how they sound.......

motai

May10-04, 07:23 PM

But how does sound propagate to such an extent that it creates geometrical patterns? Maybe under high energy and through a "filter"? I dont really know very much about this subject but I know sound follows the traditional inverse square law (spherical).

Im not ruling out sound but im just curious in how sound might be able to do this.

sol2

May10-04, 11:18 PM

Cymatics (http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@28.pNvDb73d0fC.0@.1dde8565/15)

Enjoy

You might also enjoy the mandala on the main page :smile:

zoobyshoe

May11-04, 01:18 AM

I don't believe any of the highly geometric, "artistic" circles are of non-human origin.

sol2

May11-04, 08:24 AM

I believe there is a process here that is very human, in terms of geometrical patterns.

If you can contain information in a pulse, why not a geometrical pattern selective to that pulse? If you could contain information in paradigmal models, then why not information that is structured purely geometrically. What would arise from elemetal considerations on crystaline objects.

Put aside the skepticism for a minute and think about the geometical designs . What is its mathematical basis for consideration.

In that same source of Cymatics, look and do a search on "sonoluminence."

If we were to find a basis of language here and sound was of value, what is sound capable of in terms of its science and applications?

What ever its causes, the circles are interesting from a artistic perspective :smile:

In Cubist Art and the Monte Carlo Effect there is this real desire to explain the nature of gravity.

If you could connect to the very source of energy in the onslaught of fractorial design, what patterns would emerge that would look artistically appealing when seen from a larger perspective?

Such ideas in terms of "first principals" speak to the realization of what math might emerge from a whole sea of energy, and low and behold, we find this sphere is expelled, and sent? :smile:

zoobyshoe

May11-04, 04:00 PM

Every year two, three or four new programs on TV discuss crop circles. They have interviews with second and third generation hoaxers who demonstrate how they make these elaborate designs in the crops, generally getting their ideas from books of geometric designs. There's no meaning, they just pick the ones that appeal to them. There is usually a time lapse video showing them creating a whole crop formation in a few hours or less.

Before I saw these demonstrations I saw interviews with "believers" who pointed to the elaborate formations and declared it was obvious that two people couldn't create such a perfect design overnight: it was too elaborate and would take days. They were wrong.

So, I expect that the assertion that nothing but microwave radiation can cause the exploding nodes, and all the other assertions of things being not humanly possible, are equally mistaken.

sol2

May11-04, 11:40 PM

Imagine bubbles, (http://feynman.physics.lsa.umich.edu/~mduff/talks/1998%20-%20The%20Theory%20Formerly%20Known%20as%20Strings. pdf) what next :smile:

zoobyshoe

May12-04, 01:40 AM

Bubbles are appealing. They remind me of breasts.

Tsu

May12-04, 04:07 AM

Bubbles are appealing. They remind me of breasts.
Why would that be? Bubbles aren't hairy like zooby boobs... :rofl:

zoobyshoe

May12-04, 06:54 AM

Why would that be? Bubbles aren't hairy like zooby boobs... :rofl:
It's all in the way they undulate.

Nommos Prime (Dogon)

May23-04, 10:11 PM

I know I can't make anybody believe, nor can I prove it. But there ARE CERTAINLY GENUINE Crop Circles. No doubt.

However, I bet anybody can't prove how to make SOME of these Crop Circle formations, EITHER. It just like the classic pyramid argument. We say, "Oh yeah, we could build them today." However, the FACTS ARE, that we can't even come close.

How any "hoaxter" could come up with diatonic ratio clues, built in, or interdimensional physics, is beyond me...

zoobyshoe

May23-04, 10:27 PM

I know I can't make anybody believe, nor can I prove it. But there ARE CERTAINLY GENUINE Crop Circles. No doubt.
Genuine meaning made by extra terrestrials? There is doubt.
However, I bet anybody can't prove how to make SOME of these Crop Circle formations, EITHER. It just like the classic pyramid argument. We say, "Oh yeah, we could build them today." However, the FACTS ARE, that we can't even come close.
Why do you think this when a crop circle is such a rudimentary copying of a pattern into smashed down crops?

How any "hoaxter" could come up with diatonic ratio clues, built in, or interdimensional physics, is beyond me...
In the show I saw, the hoaxers showed the interviewer a book of patterns they used as models for their work. They don't design them from scratch, themselves. They copy things that have been worked out by mathemeticians according to various ratios and other interesting exercizes in pure math and patterns. The hoaxers just chose ones that appealed to them visually.

Nowadays it would be no problem for any computer/math savvy person to get a PC to generate these sorts of patterns all day long, each and every one of them having some fascinating mathematical ratios to them.

Nommos Prime (Dogon)

May24-04, 01:04 AM

Yeh mate, but you CAN'T press such patterns so accurately into a crop field/grass! You can't.

Do you know of some special type of lawnmower accurate to fractions of a mm?

zoobyshoe

May24-04, 01:47 AM

Yeh mate, but you CAN'T press such patterns so accurately into a crop field/grass! You can't.
Sure you can. The hoaxers on the show I saw demonstrated it for the camera.
Do you know of some special type of lawnmower accurate to fractions of a mm?
ROFL! Where are you getting the notion that anything can be measured in a crop circle to "fractions of a mm"? Crops don't grow that neatly spaced that you could say anything was accurate to fractions of a mm. Or a mm for that matter. You'd be risking it claiming accuracies of a centimeter.

Overdose

May24-04, 02:39 AM

has anyone mentioned the theory that crop circles are scalaar weapons tests, which can aparently manipulate gravity from a distance?

Overdose

May24-04, 02:55 AM

Nature just does doesnt create shapes of such perfect symmetry
on a macro scale. I find it assuming that people think its reasonable that some
kind of rouge-wind could create incredible intricate crop circles.
The fact that crop circles have the hand of a sentient creature behind
them is self evident imo. The real questions are who is doing it, how
are they doing it and why? the only evidence ive seen atall that gos anyway towards answering these these questions points towards the military, but its purely circumstatial none has caught them in the act as such.
I'll try and find some links shortly....

zoobyshoe

May24-04, 04:08 AM

has anyone mentioned the theory that crop circles are scalaar weapons tests, which can aparently manipulate gravity from a distance?
I don't think you mean "theory". I think you mean speculation. Anyway, this is the first I've heard of it. What is a "scalar" weapon?

zoobyshoe

May24-04, 04:16 AM

Nature just does doesnt create shapes of such perfect symmetry
on a macro scale. I find it assuming that people think its reasonable that some
kind of rouge-wind could create incredible intricate crop circles.
Who thinks this? I havent read anyone make this assertion, or express such a belief.
The fact that crop circles have the hand of a sentient creature behind
them is self evident imo. The real questions are who is doing it, how
are they doing it and why? the only evidence ive seen atall that gos anyway towards answering these these questions points towards the military, but its purely circumstatial none has caught them in the act as such.
I'll try and find some links shortly....
There is, in fact, no evidence pointing toward the military, and a huge amount of evidence pointing at hoaxers.
It strikes me as very backward that you entertain the notion that the military has the technology to create these patterns by manipulating gravity while denying that hoaxers have the technology to copy patterns out of a book with a board and rope, and a measuring tape. Think about it.

quddusaliquddus

May24-04, 06:14 AM

zoobyshoe: "It strikes me as very backward that you entertain the notion that the military has the technology to create these patterns by manipulating gravity while denying that hoaxers have the technology to copy patterns out of a book with a board and rope, and a measuring tape. Think about it."

lol ... True that

Whats intersting is how long have crop circles been around. Where they seem to occur with high frequency, and the interpretations that people come up with. I bet they're connected. There are still people here in the uk who have formed groups around the belief that the earth is flat, or pentagonal, or hollow, or anything other than a filled sphere-ish shape.

An intersting excercise for the crop-circle-ers [sorry, i don't know the name for people believing in extraordinary origins of the flattenning of plants in patterns esp. circles],
would be to try and debunk UFO guys, hollow/flat earth guys, and other such people.
No, it would not b intersting, but therepeutic in the sense that they will be faced with a mirror 2 look at themselves with.

quddusaliquddus

May24-04, 06:22 AM

[QUOTE=Ivan Seeking]
The Mowing Devil:
http://www.rense.com/general39/mow.htmQUOTE]

I think this is giving them too much leeway. There are hundreds of crazy reports of supernatural natural folk lore and I don't think it's right to correlate this with crop circles. You could come up with any type of crazy pseudo scientific idea and would' find some folk story that has some reference to it. Angels are nowadays UFOs, gods are aliens, atlantis was a modern scientifc and industrial society, etc... etc... I think this happens too much and it's due to us interpreting those stories from our persepectives. If you start using these stories as some sort of evidence - on what criteria do you reject the other stories ... or atleast explain them? Matter of pick-n-mix.

Overdose

May24-04, 07:12 AM

Who thinks this? I havent read anyone make this assertion, or express such a belief.

There is, in fact, no evidence pointing toward the military, and a huge amount of evidence pointing at hoaxers.
It strikes me as very backward that you entertain the notion that the military has the technology to create these patterns by manipulating gravity while denying that hoaxers have the technology to copy patterns out of a book with a board and rope, and a measuring tape. Think about it.

I thought we were all working on the asumption that that hoaxers only account for a small no. of crop circles, or at the very least cant count for them all.
Isnt that what we're talking about here? the no. of circles that we find impossible to re-create via any methods that we know of.... never mind bits of wood with rope attached to them.

As for the military you'll notice i said circumstancial, they're always
seen in and around crop circle areas and take a very keen interest.
Although i accept that just because someone's seen at the scene of
a 'crime' doesnt necessarily make them the perpatrator.
But it certainly leads me too believe there's something far more serious going on that bored students arsing around in fields.

quddusaliquddus

May24-04, 07:15 AM

I think crop-circle believers simply jump to conclusion too quickly. Do they also believe in every other unexplained phenemonon that has some strange explanation to them? ... like millions of 'miracles' that occur in every part of the world everyday? ... how many religions do you guys hold to then? ...

zoobyshoe

May24-04, 03:28 PM

I thought we were all working on the asumption that that hoaxers only account for a small no. of crop circles, or at the very least cant count for them all.
Isnt that what we're talking about here? the no. of circles that we find impossible to re-create via any methods that we know of.... never mind bits of wood with rope attached to them.
No, we are not all working on that assumption. Everyone in the thread had a different take on it. There is no general agreement on the subject across the board.

The notion of any circle being "impossible to recreate" doesn't hold water because you have to take into consideration who is trying to recreate them. Do the people testing the "recreatability" really want them to be recreatable? Or do they hope to prove it can't be done?

I, personally, was really quite surprised when I first found out how simple it as to make one of the very neat, plain circles with a board and a rope. Before the hoaxers came forward and demonstrated this, to was common to hear believers claim these plain circles were too neat and perfect to have been created by humans.
As for the military you'll notice i said circumstancial, they're always
seen in and around crop circle areas and take a very keen interest.
Who says they're "always" seen in and around crop circles? I've never heard any reports of a military presence near crop circles. If it has ever happened it is not common and it is erroneous to say they're "always" seen around crop circles.

Overdose

May25-04, 03:40 AM

No, we are not all working on that assumption. Everyone in the thread had a different take on it. There is no general agreement on the subject across the board.

The notion of any circle being "impossible to recreate" doesn't hold water because you have to take into consideration who is trying to recreate them. Do the people testing the "recreatability" really want them to be recreatable? Or do they hope to prove it can't be done?

I, personally, was really quite surprised when I first found out how simple it as to make one of the very neat, plain circles with a board and a rope. Before the hoaxers came forward and demonstrated this, to was common to hear believers claim these plain circles were too neat and perfect to have been created by humans..

How can stalks of crops exploded from the inside be recreated? as far as im aware noone has any idea how this is and could be achieved. Its common knowledge to anyone whos looked into crop circles even in passing that pretty much every researcher out there is baffled as to how crop stalks could be distorted in this way. It is these circles that have been impossible to recreate. If you know otherwise please tell me... :tongue2:

Who says they're "always" seen in and around crop circles? I've never heard any reports of a military presence near crop circles. If it has ever happened it is not common and it is erroneous to say they're "always" seen around crop circles.
Youve never heard any reports of a military presence near crop circle? try actually reading some of the links that are being posted in this thread in that case... The military are occasionally seen in and around crop circles in the US. And in the UK (where i live) they are frequency seen in and around crop circles, thats why i said 'always' because from a local prespective they are. Although i was probably a bit hasty in saying that as it implys that the same is true for every country in which they appear.

zoobyshoe

May25-04, 05:36 AM

How can stalks of crops exploded from the inside be recreated? as far as im aware noone has any idea how this is and could be achieved. Its common knowledge to anyone whos looked into crop circles even in passing that pretty much every researcher out there is baffled as to how crop stalks could be distorted in this way. It is these circles that have been impossible to recreate. If you know otherwise please tell me... :tongue2:
What is probably happening is that when the hoaxers bend the stalks over at night the stems are pinched shut, trapping whatever gasses and moisture are inside so they can't flow as they normally would. Then when the sun hits the crops next morning they are laying broadside to its hot rays and the gasses heat up and explode the stalks.
Youve never heard any reports of a military presence near crop circle? try actually reading some of the links that are being posted in this thread in that case... If you had read this thread you'd see that I've been posting in it from the start and would have known everyone isn't in agreement that some circles are inexplicable.
The military are occasionally seen in and around crop circles in the US. And in the UK (where i live) they are frequency seen in and around crop circles, thats why i said 'always' because from a local prespective they are. Although i was probably a bit hasty in saying that as it implys that the same is true for every country in which they appear.
Link me to some of these reports or tell me what number post such links are in. I really haven't run across this information before. I have read many crop circle reports posted by Ivan and don't recall any mention of military in any of them.

Overdose

May26-04, 06:32 AM

What is probably happening is that when the hoaxers bend the stalks over at night the stems are pinched shut, trapping whatever gasses and moisture are inside so they can't flow as they normally would. Then when the sun hits the crops next morning they are laying broadside to its hot rays and the gasses heat up and explode the stalks.
If you had read this thread you'd see that I've been posting in it from the start and would have known everyone isn't in agreement that some circles are inexplicable.
I'll admit im not an expert on this subject, but my common sense tells me that if the answer to the exploded nodes problem was something as simple as 'trapped gas' then there wouldnt be researchers out there still stuggling to work out the cause.

Link me to some of these reports or tell me what number post such links are in. I really haven't run across this information before. I have read many crop circle reports posted by Ivan and don't recall any mention of military in any of them.
http://www.cropcirclenews.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=128
http://www.dolomite.ndirect.co.uk/weirdwilts/mod/mod.htm
http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/enigma/issue10/military.html
(there's a much better article on this last link with more pics on the earthfiles site although sadly you need to register in order to view this story now)

zoobyshoe

May26-04, 04:34 PM

I'll admit im not an expert on this subject, but my common sense tells me that if the answer to the exploded nodes problem was something as simple as 'trapped gas' then there wouldnt be researchers out there still stuggling to work out the cause.
Without trapped gas, or steam, there would be no explosion under any circumstances. All explosions boil down to expanding gasses. If you contain the gas in a container you can heat it as slowly as you want untill the pressure build up finally exceeds the strength of the container and it suddenly breaks apart. The only question, in the matter of exploding grain stalks in a crop circle, is what heated the gas or moisture up? The assertion by "investigators" has been that the only possible way to create analagous exploding nodes is to heat the grains in a microwave. All that means, really, is that that is the only way they have been able to produce something similar. It doesn't mean this is the only possible way grain nodes can be made to explode. Any potential source of heat should be suspect.

If you go out and mow your lawn and put the clippings in a bag they will start to heat up by themselves pretty quickly just due to fermentation, I believe. This naturally occuring effect is part and parcel of the practise of "composting" by gardeners. Check this out and you will be quite surprised at how warm the bag gets. This effect, coupled with heating by the sun, may be all that is responsible for a percentage of the stalks exploding.

People who dedicate alot of time to field work in investigating crop circles all fall into the category of those who are looking for evidence of extrordinary things that can't be explained by conventional means. In other words, I haven't read about any teams who do this who aren't at heart "believers". They adjusted to the confessions of hoaxers by adopting the stance that just because some circles are hoaxed doesn't mean all are hoaxed. Strictly speaking, that's true, but I get the impression that in looking for things that "can't possibly have been hoaxed" they miss the fact that some of these effects may be occuring naturally to the unintended benefit of the hoaxers.
In other words: when the hoaxers crush the crops down with their boards it may just be setting off other effects they never anticipated. like exploding nodes, that accidently serve to make their hoaxes harder to explain.

Thanks for the links. I spent some time looking the first one over and find that it is very long and covers alot of ground. I will have to read it a few more times to be able to respond.

-Zooby

Overdose

May26-04, 05:27 PM

Without trapped gas, or steam, there would be no explosion under any circumstances. All explosions boil down to expanding gasses. If you contain the gas in a container you can heat it as slowly as you want untill the pressure build up finally exceeds the strength of the container and it suddenly breaks apart. The only question, in the matter of exploding grain stalks in a crop circle, is what heated the gas or moisture up? The assertion by "investigators" has been that the only possible way to create analagous exploding nodes is to heat the grains in a microwave. All that means, really, is that that is the only way they have been able to produce something similar. It doesn't mean this is the only possible way grain nodes can be made to explode. Any potential source of heat should be suspect.

If you go out and mow your lawn and put the clippings in a bag they will start to heat up by themselves pretty quickly just due to fermentation, I believe. This naturally occuring effect is part and parcel of the practise of "composting" by gardeners. Check this out and you will be quite surprised at how warm the bag gets. This effect, coupled with heating by the sun, may be all that is responsible for a percentage of the stalks exploding.

People who dedicate alot of time to field work in investigating crop circles all fall into the category of those who are looking for evidence of extrordinary things that can't be explained by conventional means. In other words, I haven't read about any teams who do this who aren't at heart "believers". They adjusted to the confessions of hoaxers by adopting the stance that just because some circles are hoaxed doesn't mean all are hoaxed. Strictly speaking, that's true, but I get the impression that in looking for things that "can't possibly have been hoaxed" they miss the fact that some of these effects may be occuring naturally to the unintended benefit of the hoaxers.
In other words: when the hoaxers crush the crops down with their boards it may just be setting off other effects they never anticipated. like exploding nodes, that accidently serve to make their hoaxes harder to explain.

Thanks for the links. I spent some time looking the first one over and find that it is very long and covers alot of ground. I will have to read it a few more times to be able to respond.

-Zooby

good post, i might post some more stuff myself if i get time :tongue2:

(Q)

May27-04, 07:15 PM

Suzzane Taylor claims:

I've just put together a booklet, showing why crop circles can't be hoaxed… The genuineness of the phenomenon just can't be denied!

I saw your website. It’s quite funny that you would show pictures of crop circles that have been confirmed hoaxed and claim humans couldn’t possibly make them. You also showed a crop circle based on a photography method and then stated human hands could never have made such a design. Contradict much? Living in a cave?

zoobyshoe

May28-04, 04:02 AM

http://www.cropcirclenews.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=128
http://www.dolomite.ndirect.co.uk/weirdwilts/mod/mod.htm
http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/enigma/issue10/military.html
(there's a much better article on this last link with more pics on the earthfiles site although sadly you need to register in order to view this story now)
Well, Overdose, by itself the American incident strikes me as anomalous. I really think that this was a crop circle enthusiast who happened to also be in the military, and who used the fact he was in uniform to mess with the heads of the crop circle researchers who were there. He claimed to be part of a military crop circle investigation organization, yet the military later denied there was such an organization. If the organizaion exist, but is too secret to admit to, then why would the guy in uniform have mentioned it? To keep this organization secret, all he would have had to tell the crop circle investigators is that he and his buddies were flying medivac training and happened to notice the circle, whereupon he told them to drop him off at his car so he could have a closer look. This is probably what actually happened. Instead, he claimed the military crop circle investigation organization was at work. Sounds like he was just pulling their legs to me.

The British military interest in the crop circles there certainly seems more deliberate and repeated, and official. My thinking is that every report of a crop circle is suspected of being somewhere a helicopter may have landed and flattened down the grain. The military there may just be very anxious to investiate any unauthorized helicopter landings, which could be for any one of a number of reasons, National Security being the foremost. You are much closer to Europe than we are, and they may want to be completely sure no one is making any unauthorized visits via helicopter from the continent. That is my most reasonable guess for why your government would show an interest. Aside from the one, anomalous incident, our government doesn't seem to have any interest in the circles.

Ivan and I had alot of discussions about the fact that there was a point where the FBI was, in fact, investigating UFO sightings. I think I persuaded him that, if you understand the times during which this was occuring, it was much more from fear that UFOs were some kind of Soviet weapons or spy devices, than any suspicion that they were actually from outer space.

Eventually they gave up all these investigations when so many of the reports turned out to be the result of hoaxes. After Sputnik there seems to have been a renewed interest in any reports of things in the sky on the part of our government. We were eager both to recover any of their satellites that might fall on US soil by accident, and also to intercept any spy devices they might send over.

I think that if the government were investigating crop circles here on a continuing basis, no one would ever find out about it. They would go in quietly under the guise of free-lanz, civilian, crop circle investigators, not with attention-grabbing helicopters etc.

Zooby

Overdose

May28-04, 09:55 AM

zoobyshoe

May28-04, 04:10 PM

To speculate that the guy was just an off duty soldier whos into crop
circles as a hobby seems extremely far fetched. Especially as there was a millitary
helicopter in the area at the same time, were these just his fellow
enthusiast buddies that asked to borrow a helicopter for the day?
This isn't as far fetched as you think. The crop circle guy got the helicopter identified as a medivac copter. These, apparently, don't have to be so closely monitored during training excercizes, according to what the military told him.

My specuation is that the guy took time off during one of these training excercizes because he was interested in the circle. He would certainly not be allowed to do this, and would be reprimanded if he were caught. Conversly, he may have seen it while he was on duty flying, and came back right away in his car as soon as he got off duty.

If the military actually formed a crop circle investigation organization, I am really quite sure they would decide right awayif they were going to keep it secret or not. That is why this soldiers forthright announcement that he was with such an organization strikes me as leg-pulling.

As for the military latter dening their involvement, who knows? the military
as with any large organisation is bound to send out mixed messages as
a result of orders getting misinterpreted and distorted thorugh
the chain of command. And if in doubt 'deny' seems to have always been a favourite tactic of the military.
This is true, what you say about the military, but it doesn't add up to mean that some of their denials are not authentic. Denial doesn't automatically = lie.
And seriously if your on millitary training you cant just pop off to have a look
at something that catches your eye, that much i do know.
You certainly aren't supposed to. Breaking the rules would involve some confidence that he could get away with it.
As for the idea that crop circles are suspected landing sites of foriegn
helicopters. That just doest hold up, to start with a helicopter
landing in a field just could not make a crop circle even of the large
and basic circlular kind.
True. My thinking is that they would be alert to any report of "flattened down crops", whatever the shape.
Second of all any unauthorised helicoters comming in from europe (and you really would have to be insane to fly a hellicopter across the british channel) would be buzzed/intercepted before even getting a chance to land in a field somewhere and fly off again.
One would hope, but there is stealth technology. The point would be to closely monitor any possible technological obviation of normal defense monitoring of British airspace.
Im all for level headed assesments but but it sounds like your straining and tying yourself in knots to see what you want to see
No, I'm applying Occam's Razor. I am speculating along realistic lines, using known phenomena, to suggest an explanation. Your notion of scalar weapons and gravity control is what is strained and knotty. It's off the wall.
My speculation may not be proven correct if the actual facts ever emerge, but it has the great advantage over yours of being realistic.

Overdose

May28-04, 07:24 PM

No, I'm applying Occam's Razor. I am speculating along realistic lines, using known phenomena, to suggest an explanation. Your notion of scalar weapons and gravity control is what is strained and knotty. It's off the wall.
My speculation may not be proven correct if the actual facts ever emerge, but it has the great advantage over yours of being realistic.[/QUOTE]

you can use occam's razor to justifiy just about anything as the
the simplest explaination is really nothing but a subjective opinion. What sounds simple to you sounds strained to me and relys apon alot of anomalys, and vice versa no doubt.
Im not saying the military IS conducting scalaar tests, i only mentioned that it was one of the many theorys out there, im not even sure if i believe it myself. All i am saying is that there's more going on here than people mucking about in fields with bits of wood...you can quote me on that. :wink:

However i do believe that our goverments have access to anit-grav technolagy and i have a nagging feeling that this may play a part in the crop circles phenomanon.

zoobyshoe

May29-04, 03:16 AM

you can use occam's razor to justifiy just about anything as the the simplest explaination is really nothing but a subjective opinion.
Some people characterize Occam's Razor as "the simplest explanation is the best." In fact, that isn't quite what Occam's Razor is about. What Occam's Razor guides you to do is to look for explanations of mysteries in terms of known quantities first. If the mystery cannot be first explained by any known quantity, then you are permitted to suggest the existence of something unknown.

All i am saying is that there's more going on here than people mucking about in fields with bits of wood...you can quote me on that.
I don't think so. When the "investigators" claim they have found things like elevated background radiation inside crop circles, believers go "OOOOOO and AHHHHHH" and no one bothers to look for the cause. People jump to the conclusion that there is something inexplicable going on. A person expert in background radiation might be able to look at the situation and say something like "Of course it's elevated. Background radiation is in direct proportion to the temperature of the soil. When you smash crops down, the soil beneath them gets hotter and releases more background radiation." Or something along those lines. It could be that simple, or it could be more complex, but still a normal consequence of smashing crops down. It could be something really stupid: inside the circle the "investigators" hold the geiger counter sensor within two inches of the soil, because they can: the crops are smashed down. Outside the circle where the crops are still standing, they never hold the sensor closer than a foot away from the ground. Sounds silly, but sillier things have happened. My point is that there could well be a completely ordinary explanation for any of these alleged "unhoaxable" effects.
However i do believe that our goverments have access to anit-grav technolagy and i have a nagging feeling that this may play a part in the crop circles phenomanon.
The question becomes, "Why on earth would you come to have such a belief?" There is nothing in physics that suggests there is the slightest possibility of turning gravity on and off. It isn't a matter of not having the technology yet, or anything like that, it is because of the way gravity works.

There may be ways to fly or travel through the air that aren't conventionally used that the government has secretly developed, but they just couldn't be based on "anti-gravity".

If your belief that the government may be responsible for crop circles is only based on the fact that they have been seen several times in England buzzing around crop circles in helicopters, you have jumped to a conclusion. It is safe to say the military is interested in them, but impossible to say why. The notion they are concerned that someone has breached the Island's security network is much more realistic than anti-gravity testing.