Are Crop Circles a Natural Phenomenon or Elaborate Hoaxes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Circles
AI Thread Summary
The discussion on crop circles highlights the complexity of the phenomenon, with participants acknowledging that while many circles are hoaxes, historical accounts suggest that some may be genuine. Reports of crop circles date back to 800 AD, with notable references from the 1680s and eyewitness accounts from the 1920s and 1940s. Various explanations for the real ones are proposed, including natural processes like whirlwinds and electrostatic phenomena, although skepticism remains strong regarding their authenticity. Participants debate the credibility of sources and the need for scientific evidence, with some arguing that the existence of unexplained crop circles requires further investigation. The conversation reflects a divide between those who believe in the possibility of genuine crop circles and those who assert that all can be attributed to human activity. The discussion emphasizes the need for a rational explanation and the importance of examining historical evidence while navigating the challenges posed by hoaxes and sensationalism.
  • #51
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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
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."
 
  • #53
Originally posted by Zero
Not exactly...he lost me at "We are guessing at a mechanism."
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.
 
  • #54
Originally posted by Zero
Not exactly...he lost me at "We are guessing at a mechanism."

You guys seem to think I am pushing one particular explanation. I'm not.
 
  • #55
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #56
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #57
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 referred 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 sense 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?
 
  • #58
Russ won't participate in my remote viewing test because if he wins he might be labeled a psychic.
 
  • #59
Same here. There's the remote chance I'll guess right and unintentinally vindicate you. Can't have that.
 
  • #60
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
I have been looking at stuff posted by Ivan for months now, accepting it where it makes sense 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.
 
Last edited:
  • #61
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 referring 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.
 
Last edited:
  • #62
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?
 
  • #63
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),



Russ, you've got the wrong idea. First, Socrates convinced me that now and forevermore, I [and everyone else] know 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.
 
Last edited:
  • #64
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #65
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.
 
  • #66
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 acquire 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.
 
Last edited:
  • #67
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 occurred 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 separate the chicken from the egg in natural situations.
 
  • #68
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
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 occurred 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 separate 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.
 
  • #69
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.htmlThs site, strangely, gives a very different mechanism:

What are dust devils?
Address:http://www.videoweather.com/weatherquestions/What_are_dust_devils.htmThis one is pretty comprehensive:

Inside Britannica
Address:http://newsletters.britannica.com/august_articles/whirlwind.htm
 
Last edited:
  • #70
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.
 
  • #71
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.
 
  • #72
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.
 
  • #73
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.
 
  • #74
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.
 
  • #75
Historical references citing crop circles

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!
 
  • #76
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
 
  • #77
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!
 
  • #78
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.
 
  • #79
Request for information on eyewitness sightings of crop circle formation

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]
 
Last edited:
  • #81
Yes, jwilson, I could not possibly have received 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 a lot more eyewitness reports of whirlwind-created circles.

Thanks,

Zooby
 
  • #82
Yes whirlwinds can flatten crops and make patterns. They have not ever made any intricate geometric patterns.
 
  • #83
Let's establish some critical thinking rules?

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.
 
  • #84
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.
 
  • #85
more info about crop circles

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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #86
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.
:smile:
 
  • #87
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...
 
  • #88
But how does sound propagate to such an extent that it creates geometrical patterns? Maybe under high energy and through a "filter"? I don't really know very much about this subject but I know sound follows the traditional inverse square law (spherical).

Im not ruling out sound but I am just curious in how sound might be able to do this.
 
  • #89
http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@28.pNvDb73d0fC.0@.1dde8565/15

Enjoy

You might also enjoy the mandala on the main page :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #90
I don't believe any of the highly geometric, "artistic" circles are of non-human origin.
 
  • #91
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:
 
Last edited:
  • #92
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.
 
  • #93
Imagine http://feynman.physics.lsa.umich.edu/~mduff/talks/1998%20-%20The%20Theory%20Formerly%20Known%20as%20Strings.pdf what next :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #94
Bubbles are appealing. They remind me of breasts.
 
  • #95
zoobyshoe said:
Bubbles are appealing. They remind me of breasts.
Why would that be? Bubbles aren't hairy like zooby boobs... :smile:
 
  • #96
Tsunami said:
Why would that be? Bubbles aren't hairy like zooby boobs... :smile:
It's all in the way they undulate.
 
  • #97
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...
 
  • #98
Nommos Prime (Dogon) said:
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.
 
  • #99
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?
 
  • #100
Nommos Prime (Dogon) said:
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.
 
Back
Top