Are Crop Circle Pictures Evidence of a Hoax or Something More?

[pixel01]

Dear all,

Crop circle is an old story. I myself think it's just the hoax of mankind, but it seems there are pictures still in mystery. Have they proved that those pics are just products of people?

Thanks

(I hope this quest is suitable in this box)

 

[russ_watters]

People claiming to be the original hoaxters came forward and were able to demonstrate how it is done. Some diehards still believe.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The people who came forward also stated that they got the idea from the real phenomenon. At that point we began to see the complex designs, which had never appeared before. It was common knowledge that farmers sometimes found inexplicable simple circles in their fields.

Back around the late 1940s, meteorologists studied the phenomenon and concluded that the cause was likely wind votices forming along hilltops. This because the circles were often found near the base of a hill.

 

[Phrak]

Dear all,

Crop circle is an old story. I myself think it's just the hoax of mankind, but it seems there are pictures still in mystery. Have they proved that those pics are just products of people?

Thanks

(I hope this quest is suitable in this box)

Try it. It's a wonderful way to spend a restless summer night.

 

[Stratosphere]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7c5x5SCCk8&feature=related

 

[hokie1]

Most of the noise about crop circles went away when the researchers in the field were embarrassed by studying a long winded prank. They did most of the "can't be done by people - we tried to duplicate it" yelling.

I get grass circles all of the time. The deer do it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I get grass circles all of the time. The deer do it.

Funny, we have lots of grass and deer and I've never seen a circle.

Been here 20 years.

 

[turbo]

Funny, we have lots of grass and deer and I've never seen a circle.

Been here 20 years.

I don't get "grass circles" either, but I get plenty of "grass kidneys". In fact, a couple of summers ago, a doe and her twins used to visit about every night and bed down on the front lawn, leaving kidney-shaped depressions.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, I often see where the deer have been bedding down at night, but I have never seen a circle. What's more, the kidney-shaped impressions makes it immediately apparently that this is where deer or some other large animals were lying.

Apparently the "genuine" circles are basically donut-shaped.

 

[hokie1]

The 'pinto beans' or 'kidneys' are more common. The circles are well 'circles."

Got any photos of:

Back around the late 1940s, meteorologists studied the phenomenon and concluded that the cause was likely wind votices forming along hilltops. This because the circles were often found near the base of a hill.

Or are these 'circles' as well?

 

[baransels]

Have they proved that those pics are just products of people?

They already proved that.But there is some many idiot diehard believers who believes what they want more than what is logical.There actually lots of people demonstrated how to make them.And I know a a maker team who do them for fun,(also they do commercial circles for money).I watched about that team at National Geographic.Leader of the team told about their memories.He said that;
last year they was working on a crop circle .When they was working on the west end of the circle they heard some voices coming from east end of circle.They was afraid at first because what they do is a crime.Field owners hate them because they ruin their plants.But because of weird noises they wanted to check out.At the east end of circle there was a group of diehard believers doing some kinda ritual/praying to the great universal knowledge/aliens who build that great circle.When the diehard believers realized just a few human did it they got so angry and started to attack the chop circle team."Diehard believers actually blamed them to cause UFO to lost their ways with their wrong signs.

I personally hate those kinds of diehards.I'm pretty sure somewhere in the space there is an alien race.But also I'm pretty sure if they come here from a far galaxy they won't need some stupid crop circles to find their way.They traveled in space, I bet they already invented the gps or something.And if they want to try to communicate with those circles why those aliens make one in front of the white house?

And there is also very good explanation for grass circles.But I never heard about a explanations about the grass kidneys.But I'm pretty sure there is simple explanation

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is a physicist named Levengood who claims that not all crop circles can be explained in mundane terms.

For example.

Anatomical anomalies in crop formation plants

ABSTRACT
Crop formations consist of geometrically organized regions ranging from 2 to 80 m diameter, in which the plants (primarily grain crops) are flattened in a horizontal position. Plants from crop formations display anatomical alterations which cannot be accounted for by assuming the formations are hoaxes. Near the soil surface the curved stems often form complex swirls with 'vortex' type patterns. In the present paper, evidence is presented which indicates that structural and cellular alterations take place in plants exposed within the confines of the 'circle' type formations, differences which were determined to be statistically significant when compared with control plants taken outside the formations. These transformations were manifested at the macroscopic-level as abnormal nodal swelling, gross malformations during embryogenesis. and charred epidermal tissue. Significant changes in seed germination and development were found, and at the microscopic level differences were observed in cell wall pit structures. Affected plants also have characteristics suggesting the involvement of transient high temperatures.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119267484/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

 

[baransels]

I heard about that claims about alterations before.But I never seen any solid proof they existed.I also know lots of so-called altered chop samples which looks exordinary.But when chop expert examinated it they found it mundane.
Thats is a common reason of all so-called supernatural phenomens, human race haven't understanded the nature enought to decide what is natural and what is paranormal.There is lots of exordinary things in nature.For experts they are miracles of nature, for believers they are paranormal...

 

[hokie1]

Here is a link that works:
http://www.bltresearch.com/published/anatomical.html"

I did a little extra research here because Levengood misspells the name of the journal (Hard to believe isn't it). I wanted to be sure he was actually published there and not in a fake look-alike journal.

Here is a response to Levengood.
http://www.cropfiles.it/docs/Questionable_Science.html"

We conclude that the claims about the involvement of some kind of electromagnetic radiation in the creation of crop circles are not supported by the available evidence. In particular, the 1/r2 symmetry exists only as a consequence of the unjustified exclusion of unwanted data; even in this favourable condition, the suggested model does not fit the data as well as a simple ‘‘best fit’’ straight line. Even if a 1/r2 trend were found, it should not, anyway, be related to a point source radiating the exposed crop field, because this implies a complete transparency of the plants to the striking radiation, so avoiding the absorption of energy. Moreover, the BOL model was selectively applied only to circular imprints, while all other geometric crop formations with rectangular or more complex patterns were deliberately ignored because they cannot fit the BOL hypothesis. The total evidence discussed in this critical review demonstrates nothing but a mere difference in the stem elongation between the flattened plants lying inside the circles and those standing outside it, as we should expect when whatever kind of mechanical force flattens the plants, rope and wood plank included.

 

[russ_watters]

There is a physicist named Levengood who claims that not all crop circles can be explained in mundane terms.

I wonder if he's ever written a paper about a hoax, thinking it was real. I wonder if he'd pass a blind "taste test". Given the embarrassment that the movement faced a decade ago when the hoaxsters came out of the woodwork, I'd say guys like him have a pretty heavy burden of proof ahead of them if they are to continue with that sort of research.
[edit]
In hoakie's link, he examines a large number of circles in 1990-91 and makes only one reference to the possibility that they are hoaxes:

Plants from crop formations display anatomical alterations which cannot be accounted for by assuming the formations are hoaxes.

He seems to be arguing that none of them are hoaxes, which is a wildly unreasonable thing to believe based on the "coming out" of the hoaxsters in the same season. IMO, that makes him a pure crackpot.

 

[russ_watters]

I heard about that claims about alterations before.But I never seen any solid proof they existed.I also know lots of so-called altered chop samples which looks exordinary.But when chop expert examinated it they found it mundane.
Thats is a common reason of all so-called supernatural phenomens, human race haven't understanded the nature enought to decide what is natural and what is paranormal.There is lots of exordinary things in nature.For experts they are miracles of nature, for believers they are paranormal...

That is essentially the argument made by Carl Sagan in "The Demon Haunted World". Some people see unusual things and their brains create a belief that what they are seeing is supernatural. The birth and establishment of the scientific method mostly did away with that, but not completely.

 

[russ_watters]

The people who came forward also stated that they got the idea from the real phenomenon.

That's not quite what it says in the wiki:

In 1991, two men from Southampton, England, announced that they had conceived the idea as a prank at a pub near Winchester, Hampshire, during an evening in 1976. Inspired by the 1966 Tully Saucer Nests...

In 1966, one of the most famous accounts of UFO traces happened in the small town of Tully, Queensland, Australia. A sugarcane farmer said he witnessed a saucer-shaped craft rise 30 or 40 feet (12 m) up from a swamp and then fly away, and when he went to investigate the location where he thought the saucer had landed, he found the reeds intricately weaved in a clockwise fashion on top of the water.[citation needed] The woven reeds could hold the weight of 10 men. [quote order reversed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_circle

So the motivation of the claimed original crop circle hoaxters was not to imitate a known natural phenomena like you suggest, but was a flying saucer hoax from the start.

It was common knowledge that farmers sometimes found inexplicable simple circles in their fields.

Back around the late 1940s, meteorologists studied the phenomenon and concluded that the cause was likely wind votices forming along hilltops. This because the circles were often found near the base of a hill.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if a dust-devil type cyclone could knock down crops. That's a pretty mundane explanation and quite reasonable. Such a thing would be unlikely to cause a perfect circle, though. And certainly anything more intricate than a circle could not reasonably be assumed to be natural. Here's an example of it:

Eye-witness Observation of Circle Formation in the late 1940's
An eye-witness case from South Wales was brought to the attention of researchers in 1991 following a letter to the Sunday Mirror. This was on farmland at Cilycwm, 6 km from Llandovery, Dyfed.
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.

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

At the same time, it can't be assumed that there was no hoaxing being done prior to the 1970s when the phenomena exploded.

So perhaps we could easily separate them into two categories:
1. Small circles, imperfect: some may be natural, likely caused by "dust devils". But the possibility of hoaxing smaller ones and pre-1970s ones can't be dismissed.
2. Near perfect circles, circles larger than a few meters, and anything more intricate than a single small circle: Almost certainly all hoaxes.

 

[russ_watters]

The dust devil wiki:

On Earth, most dust devils are very small and weak, often less than 3 feet (0.9 m) in diameter with maximum winds averaging about 45 miles per hour (70 km/h), and they often dissipate less than a minute after forming. On rare occasions, a dust devil can grow very large and intense, sometimes reaching a diameter of up to 300 feet (90 m) with winds in excess of 60 mph (100 km/h) and can last for upwards of 20 minutes before dissipating.[5] One such dust devil struck the Coconino County Fairgrounds in Flagstaff, Arizona on September 14, 2000. Extensive damage occurred to several temporary tents, stands and booths, as well as some permanent fairgrounds structures. In addition, several injuries were reported, but there were no fatalities. Based on the degree of damage left behind, it is estimated that the dust devil produced winds as high as 75 mph (120 km/h), which is equivalent to a moderate-strength EF0 tornado...

Dust devils, even small ones (on Earth), can produce radio noise and electrical fields greater than 10,000 volts per meter.[10] A dust devil picks up small dirt and dust particles. As the particles whirl around, they bump and scrape into each other and become electrically charged. The whirling charged particles also create a magnetic field that fluctuates between 3 and 30 times each second.[11]

These electrical fields assist the vortices in lifting materials off the ground and into the atmosphere. Field experiments indicate that a dust devil can lift 1 gram of dust per second from each square meter (10 lb/s from each acre) of ground it passes over. A large dust devil measuring about 100 meters (330 ft) across at its base can lift about 15 metric tonnes (17 short tons) of dust into the air in 30 minutes. Giant dust storms that sweep across the world's deserts contribute 8% of the mineral dust in the atmosphere each year during the handful of storms that occur. In comparison, the significantly smaller dust devils that twist across the deserts during the summer lift about three times as much dust, thus having a greater combined impact on the dust content of the atmosphere. When this occurs, they are often called sand pillars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_devil

 

[baransels]

That is essentially the argument made by Carl Sagan in "The Demon Haunted World". Some people see unusual things and their brains create a belief that what they are seeing is supernatural. The birth and establishment of the scientific method mostly did away with that, but not completely.

Thank you for the book name.I read some parts of it online and I really loved it.I'm going to buy it soon.

 

[hokie1]

There were only 3 peer reviewed papers on the subject and all 3 are old and subsequently discredited.
Well stated Russ.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's not quite what it says in the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_circle

So the motivation of the claimed original crop circle hoaxters was not to imitate a known natural phenomena like you suggest, but was a flying saucer hoax from the start.

Hmmmm, that is not what they said in an interview when this all first came out, but I've never been able to find it on the internet. I tried but finally gave up, so I will have to concede the point.

Somewhere there is a paper discussing the study done back in the late 40s or early 50s, but I've never been able to find it either; presumably because it is so old. I know it was once referenced and discussed by a meteorologist, but that is all that I know.

'

It wouldn't surprise me at all if a dust-devil type cyclone could knock down crops. That's a pretty mundane explanation and quite reasonable. Such a thing would be unlikely to cause a perfect circle, though. And certainly anything more intricate than a circle could not reasonably be assumed to be natural. Here's an example of it: http://www.stonehenge-avebury.net/scienceofcropcircles.htm

No doubt, I have never seen anything suggesting that the complex designs are caused by real phenomena [beyond pranksters].

At the same time, it can't be assumed that there was no hoaxing being done prior to the 1970s when the phenomena exploded.

So perhaps we could easily separate them into two categories:
1. Small circles, imperfect: some may be natural, likely caused by "dust devils". But the possibility of hoaxing smaller ones and pre-1970s ones can't be dismissed.
2. Near perfect circles, circles larger than a few meters, and anything more intricate than a single small circle: Almost certainly all hoaxes.

I agree.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is a response to Levengood.
http://www.cropfiles.it/docs/Questionable_Science.html"

Note that this is not an appropriate source. It appears to have only been published in the JSE, which is not listed as an acceptable journal. See the master journal list linked in the S&D posting guidelines. [Note also that there is tons of stuff at the JSE that would blow the lid off of science were it acceptable as a source - evidence for ghosts, ESP, aliens, etc]. The journal that published Levengood's paper is listed as a respectable biology journal.

So at this point the paper by Levengood stands as legitimate. The evidence against it is anecdotal.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's not quite what it says in the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_circle

So the motivation of the claimed original crop circle hoaxters was not to imitate a known natural phenomena like you suggest, but was a flying saucer hoax from the start

One more point: Is there any evidence that the "flying saucer hoax" was a hoax, or was that just an assumption on your part?

 

[hokie1]

Not sure why it would be called a legitimate paper other than it was published.

1. The paper shows correlations and does not show causation. In other words, are the things he detects caused by the crop circles? Levengood admits in the paper he is unsure.
2. No one else published similar findings.

It's just another case of a bad paper being published.

To learn a little about the nature of the people that did publish here is a link:

http://www.rensselaer.edu/~sofkam/ISUNY/Journal/vol1_6.html"

 

[Math Is Hard]

‘High as a kite’ wallabies blamed for crop circles

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31539546/ns/world_news-weird_news

"We have a problem with wallabies entering poppy fields, getting as high as a kite and going around in circles," The Mercury newspaper quoted Giddings as telling the hearing. "Then they crash. We see crop circles in the poppy industry from wallabies that are high."

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Not sure why it would be called a legitimate paper other than it was published.

That is the measure that we use. The point is not that is stands of proof of the claim, rather that what you posted does not meet the minimum standard.

1. The paper shows correlations and does not show causation. In other words, are the things he detects caused by the crop circles? Levengood admits in the paper he is unsure.

Who made any arguments about causation? The evidence for a claim in no way depends on causation.

2. No one else published similar findings.

How many others have studied it? Why have no papers been published that refute the paper?

It's just another case of a bad paper being published.

Unless you can show evidence to support this in the form of published works, it stands as an unsupported claim. Technically it is a crackpot claim because you make it with no supporting scientific evidence.

To learn a little about the nature of the people that did publish here is a link:

http://www.rensselaer.edu/~sofkam/ISUNY/Journal/vol1_6.html"

That source is also anecdotal and not acceptable as a scientific reference.

 

[Moonbear]

‘High as a kite’ wallabies blamed for crop circles

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31539546/ns/world_news-weird_news

"We have a problem with wallabies entering poppy fields, getting as high as a kite and going around in circles," The Mercury newspaper quoted Giddings as telling the hearing. "Then they crash. We see crop circles in the poppy industry from wallabies that are high."

Darn, you beat me to it! I just saw this story and thought of this thread.

Interesting that walking in circles is such a common stereotypy of opioid use. That's how they measure things like tolerance and sensitization in rats and mice when doing studies on addiction, by counting "rotations."

 

[ideasrule]

There's actually a hobbyist site for crop-circles makers (www.circlemakers.org[/url]), complete with a beginner's guide ([url]http://www.circlemakers.org/guide.html[/URL]). Anybody want to have a go at making a crop circle?

 

[russ_watters]

One more point: Is there any evidence that the "flying saucer hoax" was a hoax, or was that just an assumption on your part?

Either you misread or I was unclear: The second part of the sentence is referring to the first part and nothing else. I did not say anything about the legitimacy of the 1966 event, only that those copying it were flying saucer hoaxsters. It isn't relevant.

But if you are looking for my actual opinion on such incidents as the 1966 event, you already know my default position: extrordinary claims require extrordinary (ie, high quality) evidence and lacking good evidence, only mundane conclusions are appropriate. So, as we have only the eyewitness account to go on, the only reasonable conclusions to consider are:

1. He [the person reporting the incident] misinterpreted what he saw.
1a. He was duped by a hoaxster.
2. He was a hoaxster.

 

[DaveC426913]

Finally, http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5itNr658Uj8eeh0jqs721DL4zGz2gD991ILUO1" .

 

[ibcnunabit]

There is a physicist named Levengood who claims that not all crop circles can be explained in mundane terms.

For example.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119267484/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

I've heard these exact sort of "strange anomolies" reported about crop circles that were later proven (they had video) to be simply-produced hoaxes. If people look at anything long enough and want to find something that looks strange, I'll lay money that they will "find it." But it's all imagination.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I've heard these exact sort of "strange anomolies" reported about crop circles that were later proven (they had video) to be simply-produced hoaxes. If people look at anything long enough and want to find something that looks strange, I'll lay money that they will "find it." But it's all imagination.

That is all fine and dandy, but we have a published paper vs hearsay and what is almost certainly an untrained/amateur opinion... that is unless you have dedicated a good bit of time studying crop circles?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Either you misread or I was unclear: The second part of the sentence is referring to the first part and nothing else. I did not say anything about the legitimacy of the 1966 event, only that those copying it were flying saucer hoaxsters. It isn't relevant.

But if you are looking for my actual opinion on such incidents as the 1966 event, you already know my default position: extrordinary claims require extrordinary (ie, high quality) evidence and lacking good evidence, only mundane conclusions are appropriate. So, as we have only the eyewitness account to go on, the only reasonable conclusions to consider are:

1. He [the person reporting the incident] misinterpreted what he saw.
1a. He was duped by a hoaxster.
2. He was a hoaxster.

Of course it is still an assumption. In fact we can conclude what is most likely based on what we know, but that is hardly definitive.

 

[drezz1]

But there is some many idiot diehard believers who believes what they want more than what is logical.

There are people who still believe in homeopathy and even alchemy (yes, alchemy, I saw a couple alchemy forums and they were serious.) There are just some people who will still blindly cling to their beliefs in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. Don't even try to convince these people otherwise.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think the truth of the matter is that people tend to believe what they want to believe. It doesn't really matter which side of an issue they may prefer. In my experience, the true disbelievers - I define to be those who are predisposed to an authoritarian view of the world and who desperately need to believe that they understand the world completely - are just as bad as the true believers. I think they are two sides of the same coin because they both become irrational or unreasonable when their beliefs are challenged.

True disbelievers prefer to either attack the people making claims, misrepresent their claims, or address only the trivial or obvious cases, rather than addressing the interesting claims in a reaonable manner. The favorite trick is to trivialize the facts. Worst of all, they will deny any evidence that goes against their view, but readily accept any so-called skeptical argument with no proof whatsoever! The true believers cry foul when presented with evidence that contradicts their beliefs. They will deny, obfuscate, and redirect the discussion, rather than facing the facts.

In both cases, when on the losing side of an argument, they will disappear, only to appear later making the same argument in a different thread.

Imo, the sad thing is that interesting claims are often all but lost because they get tagged with a label. Crop circles are a good example. There almost certainly are crop circles that occur due to some natural phenomenon. It may be due to something as mundane as wind vortices, but there is some published physical evidence that there could be something more interesting in some cases [there is a fair amount of anecdotal evidence supporting this notion as well]. However, because the claim was associated the notion of visiting aliens and the fantastic designs that appear from time to time, all crop circle claims get lumped into the same garbage heap.

Ball lightning and earthquake lights were once victims of association as well. Part of the reason for this, I think, is that many people fail to separate the actual claim, from the interpretation of events according to the witness. While a person may in fact have witnessed something unusual, their interpretation of what they saw could be completely wrong. The claim is then rejected based on the interpretation of events, rather than the reported events themselves. Once the skeptic has decided that Bubba didn't see ET [which was decided long before Bubba walked into the room anyway], he or she assumes that the entire report is useless, when it still might be quite intriguing given the proper frame.