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:
That source is also anecdotal and not acceptable as a scientific reference.
Last edited by a moderator: