Talk:Crop circle/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 source discussion
2 Man Made?
- 2.1 Tommys reply to my comment above
- 2.2 Regarding Tommysun
3 PROOF of "some" is NOT EVIDENCE of ALL.
4 "...and some with evil intent."
5 working article
6 Three revert rule
7 Reverted text archive
8 Requested Quotes from new article
9 NPOV DISPUTE
10 Personal attack
11 Gerald Hawkins summation
12 Inappropriate editing
13 "The mad ravings of a lone POV crusader"
14 In Hawkins own words
15 Science of Crop CIrcles
16 Vandalism
- 16.1 Warnings to user Darkfred
17 Copyright violation in [[:{{{1}}}]]
18 requested aribitration
19 TommySun's Evidence page
20 Latest reversion
21 working insert
22 Hawkins article
23 Principle investigators
24 NPOV dispute
25 Example of POV Pushing by editors
26 Latest changes
27 Comments
28 Time to be honest
29 POV Pushing
30 Mediation
31 "all significant published points of view are to be presented"
32 On the NPOV policy
33 Cerealogy is the science of crop circles

source discussion

How did DARKFRED become the editor of a scientific Wikipedia entry? It is ludicrous. WIKIPEDIA is supposed to be a NEUTRAL POV delivering factual information, not this confused non-sense that ignores science and spends most of the article giving professed liars' personal stories. Come on, get serious. Wikipedia deserves better. Allow a scientific mind to edit this page. 24.168.113.17 03:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

References are not a random list of books you have read. References state the information and where it was aquired. I have never added the line "all cropcircles are manmade" to the article, therefore I don't really have to justify it, do I? Do you have a problem with any of the specific lines I have actually added to the article? You however are championing the inclusion of anonymous eye witness accounts, which is definately not the sort of thing included in an encyclopedia. Eye witness statements require context and a credible source. You have provided NEITHER. You are right that not all evidence must come from peer reviewed journals. That requirement only applies to scientific claims, which you appear to have given up on. Good luck with this one. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 20:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps reference is not the right word here. When I write/submit a scientific paper, I am required to provide a list of "references" with no restriction on what may be included. Are you referring to a citation" I am using these books listed above as a "source" of the statements that were made in the books. They include the ISBN so that a reader may find them and read for himself what has been said by the author. If you object you will have to be more specific. Incidently, I take eye witness reports with a grain of salt just as you do, BUT that should not influence whether a report is reported or not. I have names, dates, locations. Of course I will provide them at the proper time. Perhaps you might want to provide me a template, an outline of what you would accept as a verifiable source. For example, do you object to the books written by the principle investigators as a source? Tommy Mandel 23:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The nature of this matter is disputed and I think you agree with it. Even the reference you just provided are not enough as the counter reference are also available, and thats make us again even and put back us on the same position as we were before. There is reasonable observations where humans found making these circals, and a good number of them are available. But there are very few example where, as you suggested earlier BOL recorded on video, you have provide one video but as you can see, the quality of this video is extremely low. It make your point week if you say that some unknown forces are involved in creating some of these circals. If you find yourself in a court and with your limited sources and evidence what will be your chances to win ?

Of course there is a dispute, but it only arises when one makes the extreme assumption that ALL crop circles have been mae one way or the other. There is no dispuite if one investigates deeply, at that level the state of knowledge is simply that it is not known who or what is making a genuine crop circle. The dispute only arises when one makes the assumption that "all" crop circles are made by man. I don't think that any sane researcher has claimed that ALL circles are not manmade.

The evidence is not in your favor. The evidence, and I mean scientific evidence, clearly shows that there are features, gound in some circles, which could not have possibly made by man. What evidence clearly shows that all crop circles were made by man? There is no evidence other than the dubious testimony of jokesters that they made all the circles. Even taking that as true, there are some circles not yet claimed by humans. They cannot even duplicate what has been done.

I really would like to see your sources. Especially the one which states that since some circles have obviously been made by humans, therefore all circles that were crteated unobserved were also created by humans. (Isn't that like saying since all the crows I have seen are black, therefore all crows everywhere are black?)Tommy Mandel 03:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me remind you, we, you and I, are not the judge in this case, nor are we the jury. It is not up to you or me to decide who or what is doing the crop circles. I have the advantage because our side says that we simply do not know, while your side is certain they do know. Our responsibility to the world is to present the facts as best we can. If an observation was made, it is fact that the observation was made. What caused it and why did it happen in beyond the scope of this article. We can report what has been said in this respect but that is all we can do. The sources provided are among the best the field has to offer. They exist and it is our duty to report them. I assume you have sources for what has been stated in the article, because if there is no source then Wikipolicy states that in a controversy, non-sourced material will be deleted. At any rate, I am only beginning, and haven't even started to present the facts as they occur. Our problem is that there are so many of them...Tommy Mandel 04:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the reference where humans were involved in these circals are already reported in the Artical. Your problem that you may have so many of these reference will be problem for you, because if you goin to provide them, it will be you then who have to proove that too. How many lets say videos you may have where your BOL were seen clearly creating these circals. And please stop saying these things that some of the are too complicated for humans to creat them.. we humans are intelligent beings and have abilities to do alot more, not to forget we has humans were able to creat Payramids in Giza and around almost 5000 years ago.. so with so much technical help and knowledge available to us we can as humans can creat these circals. phippi46 22:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

if I assume your theory to be correct, then please tell me why these Allien beings who are suppose to be very intelligent beings creating these designs and why dont they try to take other means of contacting with humans. Why they do this most of time in night time when most of us are in sleep, they come very quitely not to telling us any thing and do what they want. phippi46 22:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the part that is important is not who or how they are made, but what are they saying? My theory does not include aliens, that is too simplistic. The scientific consencus is that we do not know who or what is creating SOME of the circles, we know it cannot be human technology because the observations cannot be created mechanically. Because I do not know, I am open to whatever it is. I do not need more than one video of a ball of light. Just one proves their existence. There has been hundreds of sightings, and they appear in two scientific journals, and it goes on and on.

The balls of light are a scientific fact. What they are has not been determined. They appear to be consistent with plasma because of the observations indicate heat was present. Again, I am not trying to prove anything, all we are supposed to be doing is providing what the world knows about crop circles, it is up to the reader to convince himself one way or the other. Let me repeat, there are things happening that humans cannot do, and it is because of these "inexplicable" observations that lead investigators to suspect that "something very strange is going on." Even the hoaxers themselves report seeing balls of light, one group was chased away by balls of light from the circle they were about to make, and came back the next morning to find a crop circle next to their attempt. Another hoaxer group created a crop circle, only to come back the next morning to find circles were added on. You can know with certainty that a plant is bent. You can only speculate (guess)how that plant was bent. You also know that humans cannot mechanically bend a plant. All we can say is what has been seen (reported), how it got that way has puzzled far greater minds than ours. And if what we say results in a puzzle, then we have done our job. But if we conclude that all crop circles are made by man, then "we don't know what we are talking about."

Same theory goes here when I say I need only one man made Circal to be true. When you say you are open, thats also shows that you dont have any thing to stand, you may be guessing and also ready to take any evidence if present. So why dont you take this humans connection as a proove untill you find something on which you can say otherwise. phippi46 11:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You need only one man made circle to prove that man can make a circle. I need only one circle to prove that a circle can be made by means other than man by showing one instance of what man cannot do.

Increase the crystalization of clay found in the circle for example. Bend canola 180 degrees. Bend any plant. Burst nodes. Facilitate electromagnetic anomalies. Kill the power to an entire town. Read the list above, it all is found in the literature, I didn't make anything up except the part that they are controlled throught the ZPE...Tommy Mandel 02:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Man Made?

This article seems to imply crop circles are accepted as human activity.It is really not fair to imply thousands of crop circles every year are mostly hoaxes and are not atleast a natural phenomina,do mainstream scientists truly believe there all man made?

As far as real scientists are concerned there is not much question left. All of the techniques used in classic circles have now been demonstrated as human creatable and there remains no real mysteries or unexplainable events. Its difficult to disprove something that is actively being hoaxed by inventive people. Keep in mind that many of the "eye-witnesses" are known hoaxers themselves. This and the lack of any "hard" unhoaxable evidence has caused actual scientific investigation to basically cease. However the nuts are still very active in proclaiming their position, be it psycho energy or aliens. (and you will find a few who call themselves scientists who claim supernatural causes, tommysun likes to mention one in particular, an MD not a PhD). Check out http://skepdic.com/cropcirc.html for some links to serious articles. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 23:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Tommys reply to my comment above

Tommysun replied, by cutting my comment to pieces. I have reformatted it so it is readable and does not erase my original message. Please be more careful in the future. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 02:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a Lie. The statement as a statement of fact is not telling the truth. Darkfred knows this, he is not telling the truth. If there is anything inexplicable about crop circles is there are in fact many things about them that cannot be duplicated by man, or in some cases his physics. Man can't lay one down right before our eyes. Or are they lying to us too? Who is lying Darkfred, they who have sen it or those who are only guessing? Tommy Mandel 00:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Its difficult to disprove something that is actively being hoaxed by inventive people.

Good thing they are getting better at it, eh? Tommy Mandel 00:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that many of the "eye-witnesses" are known hoaxers themselves. This and the lack of any "hard" unhoaxable evidence has caused actual scientific investigation to basically cease.

If you have any intelligence, this statement of yours is another lie. You are saying what you are saying is what is happening and that isn't true. Or maybe, "Good! Now we get look at the results of that scientific investigation and make intelligent "educated" guesses.Tommy Mandel 00:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

However the nuts are still very active in proclaiming their position, be it psycho energy or aliens. (and you will find a few who call themselves scientists who claim supernatural causes, tommysun likes to mention one in particular, an MD not a PhD). Check out http://skepdic.com/cropcirc.html for some links to serious articles. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 23:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh darkfred, if we want to know the absolute truth about crop circles, forget all the others, we can just come to you. And NOW, holy cow, if we want to know the mystery of the Universe, just ask darkfred. Tommy Mandel 00:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me be clear: IF you are intelligent, then you know what you said is not true and therefore are lieing. If you believe and do not know other than what you are saying, then you are not intelligent. Clearly you are not scientifically literate, and just as clearly ought not be leading others on. And I did not give you permission to say what I know, you don't know what I know, but as with all your other arguments, you are certain that you do know. Either stop lieing or read the literature. Tommy Mandel 04:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What you are advocating is not science it is superstition, vague fear of the unknown, mixed with magical words that only you know the meaning of. I am not scientifically literate? I am a scientist by education at least, if not profession. You invoke science or lack thereof like a magic charm to prove your superstitions. Science is not meaningless technobabble. Anyone with a rudimentary education can see that you are posturing with your talk of Plasma Balls and Zero point quantum energy. You have no idea what these words mean. You cannot fake your way through this tommy, noone is going to let you put this crap in the page. I know you have never claimed to be a scientists yourself, I assume you are a well read and well meaning amateur. However you are really in no position to call me out and present yourself as the avatar of science when all you can present are startrek theories and your own personal belief in magic.--Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 06:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if you realize how revealing your comments are. In our country we have a national space agency known as NASA. This is from their website

Warp Drive, When? Some Emerging Possibilities The following section has a brief description of some ideas that have been suggested over the years for interstellar travel, ideas based on the sciences that do exist today.

Lists of Some Intriguing Emerging Physics Lists of some preparatory propulsion research General Relativity Vacuum Fluctuations of Quantum Physics 1994 Workshop on Faster-Than-Light Travel Lists of Some Intriguing Emerging Physics Science and technology are continuing to evolve. In just the last few years, there have been new, intriguing developments in the scientific literature. Although it is still too soon to know whether any of these developments can lead to the desired propulsion breakthroughs, they do provide new clues that did not exist just a few short years ago. A snapshot of just some of the possibilities is listed below:

2001 BPP-Sponsored Papers presented at the BPP Sessions of the July 2001 Joint Propulsion Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah. (intended for technical audiences) [This link will take you out of the WDW site and into the BPP Project site.] 1996 Eberlein: Theory suggesting that the laboratory observed effect of sonoluminescence is extraction of virtual photons from the electromagnetic zero point fluctuations. 1994 Alcubierre: Theory for a faster-than-light "warp drive" consistent with general relativity. 1994 Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff: Theory suggesting that inertia is a consequential effect of the vacuum electromagnetic zero point fluctuations. 1992 Podkletnov and Nieminen: Report of superconductor experiments with anomalous results -- evidence of a possible gravity shielding effect. 1989 Puthoff: Theory extending Sakharov’s 1968 work to suggest that gravity is a consequential effect of the vacuum electromagnetic zero point fluctuations. 1988 Herbert: Book outlining the loopholes in physics that suggest that faster-than-light travel may be possible. 1988 Morris and Thorne: Theory and assessments for using wormholes for faster-than-light space travel.

You know Darkfred, you really should know what you are talking about before you go off on a tangent and declare that only what you know is real. You are doing the same thing with crop circles as you are doing with physics, you haven't leaned about them, and nevertheless think you can tell the world what is and what isn't. It may take ten years to grasp the new physics, but surely you can lean about crop circles in six months if you work at it. Why do you think that what you think is real? Do you know what that is called by those who really do know?

Tommy Mandel 15:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Tommysun

Tommy sun believes that crop circles are made magically by balls of energy created by some universal consciousness. He also believes that he has magic powers and can send messages and move objects from a distance using only his mind.

That's a lie Darkfred. Tommy Mandel 04:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No actually you can read it right above on this very page. Are you afraid that people will think you are a lunatic? Its probably to late for that now. And please stop ruining my comments by writing inside of them it is very bad etiquette. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 06:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No, actually it is quite different from the picture you paint. I do not believe in magic, especially atoms that radiate energy forever without a source, It's balls of olight to be specific, universal consciousness is a Jungarian term, and the synchronicity I was talking about, "meaningful coincidence of unrelated events" occured when you sent me a letter just as I was sending you a letter after you asked me to show you my powers.

I think the record speaks for itself.

I don't really feel like replying to tommysun directly. As they say you can lead a fool to knowledge but you can't make him think. Follow this link and read it if you want the truth. It explains how one researcher found out that the other investigators and their witnesses were actually making the crop circles. It includes a written confession by one small group for 90% of the crop circles made in england in one year. enjoy. http://www.nhne.com/specialreports/srcropcircles/fieldreport8.html --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 03:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It explains how a newpaper reporter was led to a couple pretending to be researchers who later told her that they were actually making crop circles all summer. And she believes them. I wonder if darkfred is aware how knowledgable his comments are. Tommy Mandel 05:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

And as far as the testimony of his witnesses, here it is ver batum This is their (Crop circle hoaxers) report in their own words.

RESULTS:

It was clear that a few months into the circlemaking season that as we progressed in our endeavors that our group of circlemakers was changing its opinions and motivations as to circlemaking. This also progressively effected a change in the initial questions that were being asked by us.

We observed many unusual phenomena in and around the fields whilst making circles. We noticed changes in our outlook on life whilst making the circles and got a sense that we were in communication with a much higher intelligence regarding the responses to our circle designs -- ie: other circles which appeared as an apparent reponse to circles which we created.

I will not go into to greater detail about what exactly these life altering changes were as some of this is still sinking in for me, the realizations still far too fantastic for me to feel comfortable writing about.

However, I can say that due to special coincidences which took place --which included the creation of almost exactly the same types of designs appearing in different parts of the country on the same nights as we were working -- we had to conclude that human circlemakers (ourselves included) were being given inspiration from a higher source for their designs.

Due to this change in attitude, we them started to see circlemaking as a form of sacred art which has a higher purpose. This is how I still currently regard the subject.

Our circles were regarded by the circle research community as genuine.

We witnessed many measurable effects such as dowsability of the crop circle after creation. These tests were undertaken by both ourselves and independent researchers -- albeit not to a scientific standard, but to a near enough level for our benefit.

UFOs and other paranormal events were perceived in and around the areas where we were making circles whilst we undertook their construction.

Whilst making circles we became aware that we were being protected by some unseen force or intelligence whilst we worked. This was evidenced many times to us and even took on the form of making us invisible and inaudible to people standing on the edge of the field we were working in. We at first found this very very disconcerting having thought that we had been caught out by either members of the public or circles researchers, only to find out that we could not be seen or heard! Maybe this is why no human circlemakers have ever been caught.

People also experienced various equipment failures in our circles and strange video and photographic evidence has been collected by circles researchers and public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommysun (talk • contribs)

First how about not quoting out of context with just the bits you like and instead focusing on the fact that you called me a liar and I just provided the evidence you said I could not. The fact that this proves that researchers and witnesses are creating the circles seems to have just flown in one ear and out the other. How about an apology for your accusations? Or better yet how about just shutting up already. The article provides all the info for or against that people need. Your stupid little POV war is not going to make a difference because you can't possibly remove all of the evidence you disagree with. And you can't seem to provide anything that isn't already referenced in the article. I have had it with your bullshit. You call me a liar repeatedly and I have repeatedly proven you wrong. To the other wikipedia editors I apoligise. I am sorry for the spectacle of this argument. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 06:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It is pity when some one is called a liar. We are here to discuss the opnions and nothing else. There should be no personal attacks, its not correct and against the Wikipedia Policy. phippi46 23:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If you read what I said, I never called darkfred a liar. What I said, and clearly so, what that either Darkfred is lieing or he is not intelligent. Tommy Mandel 03:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

phippi, I have had much respect for you, so I don't understand your comments. Opinions do not matter here. Please, go back and find all the times Darkfred has attacked me or others personally, then come back with my statement that he is either lieing or does not have the intelligence necessary here. Why didn't you say that to him?Tommy Mandel 02:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

So, I have been attacked by darkfred a dozen times, and now you want to take me to task for what? If Darkfred lies, then he is a liar, nothing personal about that. Keep in mine that I actually said that either he is lieing or he has no intelligence.

Darkfred, you are not qualified to edit the crop circle article. You have done no research and obviously are biased. You have not taken the trouble to research what you are talking about, in the words of a scientist, if you claim that ALL circles are man made then you do not know what you are talking about. Instead you mislead the reader as if you do know what you are talking about. That is a lie.

Darkfred, you are not competant to judge what is scientific and what is not. You are scientifically illiterate and do not comprehend what the scientific method is or how it applies in the philosophy of science. You instead choose to insult the scientists and others rather than look at the evidence they are presenting, and mislead the reader into thining your way. This is an encyclopedia required to present ALL viewpoints. I have not read even one sentence from you which would indicate even a trace of the scientific method.

Darlfred. you are not suitable to act as an editor of Wikipedia. You are not emotionally mature and prone to project your shortcomings onto others. You continually insult others but when it comes back to you you cry foul. You have repeatedly insulted me and my knowledge, and instead of looking for and finding the flaw in my reasoning you instead resort to ad hominum attacks on almost a daily basis. Then you lie about what I think. And when you say that science has proved that the circles were all made by man, that is a lie.

Darkfred, you do not have the training in logic necessary to make rational choices. Your logic is inane and absurd, and does not warrant any serious consideration whatsoever. You totally miss the point and instead fight to defend your own personal viewpoint, which, incidently, has no place at all in this encyclopedia.

And no, I have no intention of interjecting my opinion of how the crop circles are formed, my opinion is different from anything I have read or heard of. I do intend to insert the opinions, as reported, of those who are involved in crop circle research.

Tommy Mandel 02:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Tommy it is for both of you, you both went I think a bit far and calling each other liar or illiterate. Just put your knowledge a side and think that this should not happend. I dont know how many are reading this, but should be alot and I dont know what these people are thinking about you guys. Who ever made personal attacks is responsible. My point is simple, we should not take this personal, it is not personal, it just an Encyclopedia. So give us something informativ. If you think you are doing good job, then keep doing and referain your self even been attacked, nothing changes your knowledge. phippi46 11:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you fortgetting what Darkfred is lieing about? Clever ruse, he plays out, feint injury and distract their attention. Darkfred made the claim that mainstream scientists agree that all crop circles have been made by man well here is his quoteL

"As far as real scientists are concerned there is not much question left. All of the techniques used in classic circles have now been demonstrated as human creatable and there remains no real mysteries or unexplainable events. Its difficult to disprove something that is actively being hoaxed by inventive people. Keep in mind that many of the "eye-witnesses" are known hoaxers themselves. This and the lack of any "hard" unhoaxable evidence has caused actual scientific investigation to basically cease. However the nuts are still very active in proclaiming their position, be it psycho energy or aliens. (and you will find a few who call themselves scientists who claim supernatural causes, tommysun likes to mention one in particular, an MD not a PhD). Check out http://skepdic.com/cropcirc.html for some links to serious articles. --Darkfred Talk to me 23:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting article, utilizing guilt by association, suspicious research, but nowhere does it say with certainty that all crop circle have been created by man. Even the skeptics can only infer...Tommy Mandel 03:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What he is saying above is an outright lie. Real scientists acknowledge there is a question, Haselhoff states in his conclusion "Something strange is going on." Every sentence he writes is a lie. Not all the observations can be duplicated by man. THere is no lack of hard evidence, that is what the science works with. And what about the word "Nuts" if that ain't a [personal attack then we may as well forget the whole thing. Are you afraid of Darkfred? Who even mentioned supernatural causes?

Sane science, says Alfred Korzybski, is to observe first, then abstract. Unsane science, he writes in his book on general-semantics, "Science and Sanity", is to reverse this process, to abstract first, then observe.

So there are two ways to approach this controversy, both here in the article and outside in the world. We can observe first, and then abstract accordingly; or we can abstract first, and observe accordingly. What Darkfred is really doing is abstracting the causes of crop circles first, and then observing facts to fit. And in doing so he presents us with absurd and trivial statements such as "Given that one is one; if one is something, then two is the same something." Like why even bother...Tommy Mandel 13:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If you acknowldege both ways are acceptable then what is the problem. Certaninly we are in the right path, our goal is same, to find the truth ! our approches may be little different. However, If I have to put my efforts in some theories, i will certainly go for "thaughts" that may be effecting world around us. Some of our old dreams, are reality now may be who knows, what we are dreaming these days, becomes reality tomorow phippi46 12:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I certainly acknowledge that both ways are being observed, some crop cricles have been obviously man made, given their messy appearance and geometrical errors, but the scientific evidence also indicates that some circles could not have been made by man. So I wonder if it is possible or even desirable to attempt a neutral point of view. There is no such thing as half man made and half non-man made circles. Hoaxers testimony that are notwithstanding. There is a saying that "all great truths began as blasphemies, but not all blasphemies end as great truths." O think this article should be divided into two sections - hoaxed crop circles and genuine crop circles.

Meanwhile I am continuing to write about the scientific [perspective at the beginning of this discussion. Tommy Mandel 16:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

To refer to 'genuine crop circles' is an argument from incredulity; you are claiming that because you (or others) cannot see how a circle could have been man-made, it must therefore have been created by some supernatural or alien process. To split the article in that manner fails both NOR and verifiability and I for one will resist any attempts to do so; I am sure there are others who will do so too. BillC 21:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I am claming no such thing as you write. There are circles bearing feature clearly not made by man, I do not know and have no intention of suggesting who or what is making them beyond what we observe. I do not know what you mean by supernatural, and I do not believe in aliens.

The beginning of this phenonenon was genuine, and it is only after the fact that man made entered the picture and hoaxed circles appeared. incredulity is not evidence against an observation, science advances on the heels of the incredible witness the birth of quantum physics, founded to explain an impossible situation. If you study the evidence as reported, it becomes obvious that there are features that man cannot make, such as internal changes to both the plant and soil, and it becomes obvious that not all of them were made by man.

I would like to know specifically how reporting the field as it exists would violate any Wikipolicy. The reports from the field consists of two positions, there is no neutral position. There are those who believe that all crop circles are man made. There are those who believe that not all crop circles are man made. And there is in fact a scientific approach to the research the purpose of which is to go beyond beliefs with empirical evidence one way or the other. These are facts and belong in this encyclopedia. There is in fact a scientific approach,are you saying you will resist adding this scientific approach? What is wrong about two sections

Section A A case for hoaxed crop circles

Section B A case for genuine crop circles

The literature supports this division. It is not being made up on these pages.

Nor is Wikipolicy to edit by concensus, where one faction wins over the other. The goal is to present the reported facts which can be verified by the reader, and then it is up to the reader to decide for himself what to make out of it. The opinions of the editors have nothing whatsoever to do with what goes into the article. Tommy Mandel 01:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Tommy if you have time to visit this web site then do that, as I think these guys are talking the same thing, what you are saying all the time.. http://www.steorn.net/frontpage/default.aspx?p=1 phippi46 23:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What these guys are talking about started out many years ago as a crazy idea. But it didn't go away, and some have taken it further. Now they are claiming to have developed the crazy idea into a technology. (See books by Morley B King) I haven't seen their device, but they start with a challange to any scientist to test their device.

In short, if ALL the various energy fields are removed from a space, such that it could be called a zero point, a measurable energy can be found. This is called zero point energy or ZPE. One of the founders of quantum physics, Erwin Schroedinger, once remarked "When we went inside the atom, we did not find a substance, instead we found a shape." This "shape" is an electromagnetic field. Matter is not a stuff, it is a field. So how does this field sustain itself seemingly forever? In 1987 Hal Puthoff wrote the paper which shows that the radiative energies of an atomic particle are balanced by an input from the ZPE. More about this can be found on the NASA website.

How come no one has challanged the crop circle hoaxers to duplicate a crop circle of our own choosing? That certainly would be the definitive test. They could do it in daylight from dawn to dusk. Once completed it would be examined and a comparison made between the original and the copy. For example, the July 18, 2002 Windmill hill circle. While no one has claimed to have made that, it would be a perfect test of human capabilities.

Tommy Mandel 02:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

PROOF of "some" is NOT EVIDENCE of ALL.

Definitions: A "genuine" crop circle is "inexplicable". A hoaxed crop circle is explained by describing the mechanical actions of men.

Argument 1: All crop circles are Hoaxes.

Argument 2: All crop circles are not hoaxes.

Imagine the mental/cognitive condition of the mind which holds to either one of the above positions...

Argument 3: Some crop circles are hoaxes

Argument 4: Some crop circles are not hoaxes

And don't these arguments sound so much more "reasonable?"

Granting the validity of argument 3: with no comment,

what would it take to prove argument 4?

By definition, one inexplicable crop circle qualifies as "some".

So, Darkfred, when you say you do not have to prove anything, you are right. And all we have to do is prove one crop circle is inexplicable.

Tommy Mandel 04:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

To make my case I would start with a scientific analysis. Science, I believe, is unique because it, in principle, ignores opinions, (in reality opinions drives theories), and relies on facts. These facts may not necessarily prove our hypothesis, but they can infer and thus establish a probability. I suppose a probability is all we can hope for from science. At least the final decision is up to us.

The crop circle I would like to describe was investigated by Dr. Hasellhof. He took samples of the plants from inside and outside the circle proper. He devised a computer program which would measure the length of the nodes eliminating experimenter bias. He found a pattern. The pattern was identical to the pattern created by a point source above the circle. So what is the probability of this occuring be means of mechanical flattening?

It is always handy to have a second opinion so to speak. The crop circle cut into the dry lake bed in Oregon also had a bowing in the line from perfectly straight of eight inches at the center point, exactly what one would expect from a point source.

Tommy Mandel 05:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Hasellhof wrote this program too. A computer Programm can not be an evidence, specially if you write it yourself. The parameters can be set according to your own wishes. Now all these circals can be made by humans, and so called Hoaxed circals were made by humans. Not to forget, that some of these man made circals do have these patterns and charactristics you mentioned in so called non man made circals. phippi46 15:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"Calibration" is how the scientist knows. Besides, doesn't matter at all what ruler you use, as long as you use the same ruler all the time.

Some people are honest, believe it or not. Some people know what they know and what they do not know. Some people know the difference between what they know and what they believe. Some people are knowledgeable about science and the cutting edge. Not everyone lies and deceives and twists the facts around and finds other ways to make the good look bad. Or the bad look good. It really is sad when the environment is such that even an honest scientist is not credible. And even more sad, in such an environment, when everyone is thought to be a liar, it is the crooks that they support. Very telling I would say. Know a man by his actions, and what they do is telling us what they are. It is not at all hard to tell a fake. It looks like a fake. It's not hard to tell the real thing. It's more than enough. It is perfect.

No, not all of the circles could have been made by man. Just because a hoaxer can copy the original doesn't mean he produced the original. Have you looked at the circles man made?

Man cannot bend a canola plant 180 degrees. Man cannot change the crystalization of clay found inside the circle. Man cannot grow a node longer. Man cannot create the perfect precision, just look at what hoaxers do do. That's good, do-do. There isn't a single admitted man made circle that even comes close to what has been created. IMO. The hoaxers do not have the intelligence to create what has been created. If they had these manual and intellectual skills, they would rank among the genius, and if they were genius they would not play games with people's head as the hoaxers delight in doing. The hoaxers are unconvicted criminals. And the only people they have duped are those who did not go to the trouble and researched the field. That may be a lot, and that is sad.Tommy Mandel 02:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And before I hear the word supernatural again, there is enough really going on in this Universe that we don't need any kind of "supernatural" whatever that is supposed to mean. I can explain it in a few words, but you won't believe me, so maybe ten years of study

is all you need. They are getting better at explaining it nowadays, I had to learn it as the physicists were learning it so it took a great deal longer. So what did these genius physicists do with their extraordinary knowledge they were forced by experiments (observations) to grasp? Each specialty has its own special application so they have each a special name for what is special for them giving everyone else the impression that there are many different ideas and if they don't know who does? The population is being duped, by its own egoism, by its own divisions, by its own wants. And oddly, it will fight to remain duped as if discovering one is being duped is a bad thing. Tommy Mandel 03:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

IF the hoaxers were as intelligent and capable as some crop circles would clearly show them to be, and if their supporters were also as intelligent and capable as their story goes, they would have no need to resort to cheap shots. So it is the tools they use that tells the truth about them. To ignore the evidence is one thing, to misrepresent the evidence is another. To hide the evidence is unethical if not criminal. One scientist's categorization of interested parties of crop circle phenomenon included "...those with evil intent." When that goes into the article, those with evil intent will delete it. Watch.

Tommy here in Germany couple of years ago, we were involved to creat some of these circals, and we laughed when we read the so called experts talking about our creations. Now I am Human, so if I can creat some of these so called perfect circals, i think someone else can that too. phippi46 13:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be some sort of "proof?" All it proves is that you too have lied, deceived and dishonestly reported events. Just because man makes circle A through Y does not mean in any way that man made Z too. And your continuing assertion that some man made circles prove that all circles are man made is deceptive and misrepresents the evidence and is an insult to to who have enough intelligence to have done their homework. In science it is called "prior research" and is required in all papers. Tommy Mandel 17:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Tommy Mandel

It appears that regardless of the reported evidence presented and verified, a faction of hoaxer enthusiasts refuses to allow the publicaton of that information contrary to WIKIpolicy on NPOV. I have every right to post the evidence gained through scientific methods, "they" have no right to delete it. But have fun while you can, I am taking this to a higher level. Tommy Mandel 15:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not said that I publized this stuff, I just mentioned after people discoverd we laughed what they were saying, and when we told them, that this was all man made, they did not belief us. People like you who are so focussed on one thing, are difficult to convinced, not matter what you do. so happy hunting phippi46 21:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh I am quite sure that you hoaxed a circle, told others it was real, and then laughed when they said it was real too. Let's see, first you mentioned researchers, then it was just people who believed you...I focus on the truth, and I do not need the tools of deception, denial and fraud to make my case. It can be read between their lines clear as day. You/they may be laughing now, but tomorrow we will laugh at you/them, well probably not, the way things go by then you/they will be claiming that you/they knew all along. Sorry if I am being rude, but if one really studies science and the Universe, it becomes clear and well known too that there are those who would refuse to recognize truth, and subsequently truth does not exist for them. Isn't that so very cool - the secrets of the Universe are not revealed to those who would deny there are secrets... I have read many times about what Einstein called "little minds" but it was only until now that I actually come to see one in action, and now the whole group has revealed themselves for what they are. It is very simple, there are those who have no qualms about showing what they really are, and there are those who would hide what they really are. Very easy to recognize.

No one convinces me of anything, Only I can convince myself. Because only then can I quickly unconvince myself if need be. Strange, how those who are convinced there is no truth will never know truth, even the truth they made up. They will only know doubt. Tommy Mandel 13:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

offcourse you are right about the small group of people. If you are saying one thing and the rest of the world is saying another, then you are in minority, not the rest of the world. Yes we hoaxed the circle, and never asked any body to say things on it, it was after the people/researcher found these circals and you hear things from them. The point was simple, but you did not get it. There are always two openions and will remain like that, either you like it or not, you just can not change it. And I am sorry to say, I have to laughed specially when you heared things, that this circal was made by non-human entities. phippi46 16:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wisdom is not to be found in the majority. Forgot who said that. Science is not judged by a majority. In theory anyway, scientific facts are not accepted by voting on them. Have you read Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions"? In practice science is politicalized and corrupt as any other human endeavor, but only part of it. In principle science is above opinions and majority views. The methodology of science will make that happen always. The transition, however, usually takes around thirty years.

Nothing wrong with two opinions, it is when one opinion stomps all over the other opinion that bothers me. I don't mess with their editing, why do they delete mine? I posted verifiable scientific observations, still they delete it. Since when is the neutral viewpoint their viewpoint? Neutral is when both sides balance out. It isn't neutral when one side overpowers the other side. and I am surprised that you and certain others do no more than sit quietly by when one side declares to be the only viewpoint. Someday they will be the victims...

Tommy Mandel 20:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"...and some with evil intent."

A. Hidden archives -- critical archive is missing/deleted.

B. Deleted evidence -- Placed scientific summary with proper reference into article. This edit was reverted twice so far.

C. Misrepresentation -- removed POV tag

working article

Science of Crop CIrcles A study of the scientific evidence

This is an attempt to incorporate within the crop circle article those observations which have been reported by serious investigators in the field and the results of scientific analysis of those observations, using the scientific method. We will use the prevailing literature base for our domain of knowledge.

Scientific Investigators

Dr. Eltjo Hasellhof, a practicing physicist, once employed at Los Alaamos and several Dutch Institutes, presently the senior scientist at a medical imaging company in the U.K., has rigorously investigated the crop circle phenomenon. His findings are published in "Deepening complexity of Crop Circles:" by Eltjo H. Hasellhoff, Ph.D. The title of his dissertation was "Aspects if a Compton Free-Electron Laser".

As a good introduction to the phenomenon from the scientific perspective, Dr. Heselhoff writes: Page 128,

"The Facts:" "In the last twenty years. there has been much speculation about different aspects of crop circles. But it takes more than just a little reading to understand where the facts end and where the fiction begins. Personal involvement and investigation, field work, discussion with many people, crucial questions, and much thinking are needed to reveal the true character of the crop circle phenomenon. Unfortunately, much of the public infrmation is not very accurate or even is completely wrong, as a result of ignorance, lack of accuracy or objectivity. or simply evil intent. Although many alleged crop circle properties cannot bear the scrutiny of an objective analysis. some relativly simple observations seem to defy any trivial explanation. Biophysical anomalies, in terms of node leghtening and germination anomalies, are probably number one on this list. The lack of any indication of human presense or mechanical flattening, observed many times in even the most fragile and delicate species of crop, is perhaps somewhat less objective but still good for a second place. The awesome complexity and particularily the hidden geometry in many pictograms at least indicate that this cannot be the result of a simple joke. Even fantastic and extraordinaty observations, in the form of a radient balls of light hovering above a field and creating a crop circle, can fulfill the requirements that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." This extraordinary evidence was delivered in Chapter Three. The node-length measurements unambiguously showed a perfect symmetry in three different cross sections through the circular imprint, in perfect correlation with the radiation pattern of an electromagnetic point source. This is indeed the required extraordinaty evidence, which at least ought to open our minds to the dozens of other, similar eyewitness accounts, and of course the video material of the flying balls of light. Moreover, since identical findings were accepted for publication in the scientific literature, it is quite legitimate to say that the involvement of balls of light in crop circles formations has by now become a scientifically accepted fact. (3) And there is much more extraordinary evidence, in the form of burn marks on the bird box, delicately draped, undamaged carrot leaves; a virgin circle in a frozen field of snow, dead flies, and much more. Anyone who takes the time to explore and verify all of these findings personall find that the facts are plain: Something very strange is going on." At the conclusion of his report, Dr. Hasehoff presents his own conclusions:

Conclusion one: The suggestion that crop circles are all made by practical jokers with simple flattening tools is by no means sufficient to explain all documented observations.

Conclusion Two: The crop circle phenonmenon is often erroneously ridiculted and much undersestimated in its complexity.

Conclusion Three: The true nature of the crop circle phenonmenon is unknown to the general public.

Conclusion Four: "Those who are unqualified to judge should refrain from comment." (D.G. Terence Meaden)

Conclusion Five: Small radiation sources with an electomagnetic character ("Balls of Light") are directly involved in the creation of crop circles. (Their origin and exact character remain yet unknown.)

Conclusion Six: Something very strange is going on.

(A) Principle investigator/sources/reference

(1)Internet reference/source

(1a)Website of organization using scientific methods/analysis:

http://www.bltresearch.com/index.html

Quoting directly from the website, this is their introduction:

BLT RESEARCH TEAM INC.

PURPOSE: The BLT Research Team Inc.'s primary focus is crop circle research - the discovery, scientific documentation and evaluation of physical changes induced in plants, soils and other materials at crop circle sites by the energy (or energy system) responsible for creating them and to determine, if possible, from these data the specific nature and source of these energies. Secondly, our intent is to publish these research results in peer-reviewed scientific journals and to disseminate this information to the general public through lectures, mainstream articles and the internet.

Their reports include ---

Reported Observations

A great variety of observations in crop circles have been reported. Some are typical of a class of crop circles, while some are isolated instances. These are characteristics of crop circles that have been reported/found.

History - The earliest reference to a crop circle is a 1678 wood cut which depicts a circle of crop being cut down by a figure of the Devil. They have appeared since the turn of the Century and esitmates of 100 to 300 circles have been found prior to 1980. Some say as much as 10,000 since 1970. Many farmers tell of their fathers talking about crop circles.

Distribution - worldwide, with the majority in the southern UK. Have been found in most other countries including U.S., Canada, Hungary, BVewlgium, Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Turkey, JPuerto Rico, New Zealand and Australia.

Location - most often in fields of grain. But also have been found on ice, dried lake beds and snow. It is believed that the natural aquifiers found in England contribute much to their occurance there.

Size - Early crop circles were of modest size, 15 to 60 feet in diameter. Recent circles can stretch as much as 900 feet

Visible Nodal Changes - One of the most prominant features of a crop circle is the bending of the plant usually at the node. Often the nodes have burst. Typically, the length of one side of the node increases up to 200% thereby bending the plant over. (See picture) While the heigth of the bend from the ground is usually close to the ground, a set of three circles had nodes which were bent at different heights as one progressed toward the center forming a pattern which was then repeated over and over until the center was reached. The pattern was identical in each of the three circles. Haselhoff was able to take plants from prescribed positions, measure their nodes using compouter hardware and software, and determine a correlation between distence from center to edge and a hypothetical EMF source above the circle. This is "hard" evidence that the circles were created by an EMF of some sort.

Magnetic Anomalies - In many cases compasses are affected severely, metal becomes magnetized. In one video, Dr. W.C. Levengood, a professor and biophysicist, moves a magnet toward a seed taken from inside the circle. The magnet attracts the seed and holds it off the table.

Battery depletion - In many cases the battery of an electronic device taken into a circle becomes depleted. This has happened even to batteries known to have been fully charged before taking it into the circle.

Energy lines - Usually found by dowsing, confirmed by electronic sensors, the circle's geometry is usually found to line up with these natural lines.

Intricate Lay - The crop is laid down in woven and interwoven patterns. As many as four layers of stalks each layer flowing in different directions have been found. In the Julia set circle, a different pattern of lay was found in each of the hundred circles. In one circle, a single standing stalk was found in every square foot of the circle.

vertical patterns - in one circle the bent of the plant varied in a repeatable pattern as they were laid down toward the center. This became obvious when the plants grew upward at these different hieghts.

Eye/ear Witnesses - Most circles being created are not witnessed. There are instances that the circle was observed during it's formation by an eyewitness

Bent Rape Stems - Oil seed rape or canola has a stem structure like celery, it breaks easily. Circles are found in canola fields with bent stalks, here just below a node. One photograph shows a canola plant bent 180 degrees.

Cellular Changes - Laboratory analysis shows several kinds of changes in the cellular structure.

Carbon Blackening - Interestingly, when the node of a stalk bursts, a black ring is often found. Originally thought to be due to charring, it was shown to be a opprotunistic fungus.

Balls Of Light - Lights in the form of a circle or sphere have been seen hundreds of times. In one video two balls of light are seen circling a field and then a crop circle appears in a matter of seconds. It is commonly accepted that these BoL's as they are called, are responsible for making a genuine circle. Heselhoff states that because of the many sightings, and appearence in two journals, the balls of light can legitimately be reagarded as a scientific fact.

Germination Changes - Depending on when the seed is laid down, the germination rate can slow down or speed up, confirmed by laboratory tests of the growth patterns. (Leavengood is now making "super" seeds modified by a similar process...)

Perimeter Stalks - The division of inside to outside is very sharp. (In some circles, bent stalks are found interspersed with standing stalks.)

Crop Selectivity - In the U.K., corn, wheat, carrots, barley. Circles have been found in other environments. A huge "flower of life" was seen in an Oregon dried lakebed. The total length of the lines, 4 inches deep, 18 inches wides with beveled edging, measured 13 miles. After a survey, the lines were bowed out eight inches at the center, duplicating the effects of a point source directly above the design.

Rapid Daylight Appearance - A circle, the Julia Set appeared at Stonehedge in a field in clear view of guards and tourists during a 45 minutes time frame. Consisting of ---circles, each circle with a different pattern of downed plants.

Geometrical theorems - The circle atructure is not random. Precise measurements show that many geometrial relationships can be found in each of the circles. Five new geometrical theorems have been found.

Nitrogen / Nitrate Ratios - The level of nitrates is higher in a circle compared to outside the circle.

Clay crystalization - THe crystaline structure of clay has increased

Time Dilation - Reports of unusual time changes have been made

Electro/mechanical Failures - Almost all electronic equipment brought into a circle will fail due to depleted batteries. Sometimes tractors will stop when driven into a circle

Radiation Anomalies - The presence of radiation with a short half life has been found.

Photographic Anomalies - Balls of light appear in photographs. Some of these have been attributed to reflections from the flash hitting dust particles.

Molten metal imprint - In a shipment of grain staks sent to a laboratory, pieces of metal fell from the stalks during the unpacking . The metal was shaped according to the structure of the plant.

Trilling Noise - A high frequency trilling sound is often heard

Dead Porcupines And Decapitated Dogs - A flattened dad porcupines was found in one circle.

Scared Horses & Howling Dogs - Dogs seem to get excited around circles.

Menstrual Disruption -

Endocrine Effects - THe levels of melatonin, a natural hormone found in the body increase. Melatonin production is inhibited by light ans should only increase during darkness.

From Wikipedia... "Normally, the production of melatonin by the pineal gland is inhibited by light and permitted by darkness. For this reason melatonin has been called "the hormone of darkness". The secretion of melatonin peaks in the middle of the night, and gradually falls during the second half of the night."

Miracle Cures =

Insects Stuck To Crop - In one circles hundreds of insects were found with their wings fuzed to the stalks.

Underground Water - The UK has natural aquifiers

White Substance -

Magnetic substance -

Perpetrators - Non/super-human? This is the subject of extensive speculation. No scientific evidence has been found which would point one way or the other.

Deception - The modern history of crop circles is replete with attempts by various media to deceive and discredit scientists. Haselhoff tells of one time he was asked in an interview if a particular circle could have natural causes, his reply was no, it is too complex. Then he was asked if it could have been man made and he replied that it was possible. When the interview aired, the question asked was could the circle have been man made, and the reply edited in the tape was no, it is too complex, then they panned to the hoaxers laughing.

http://www.cropcirclenews.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=148

They write

Crop Circles : A Field Report of the Howell, Michigan Crop Circle Formation

On July 29-31, 2003, a private scientific research team documented physical evidence revealing that the Howell Township, Livingston County, Michigan crop circle formation was not made by hoaxers.

The team consisted of Jeffrey Wilson, Todd Lemire, and Dr. Charles Lietzau of Michigan, and Roger Sugden of Indiana. Arriving at the field on July 29, 2002, we discovered and photographed the presence of several anomalies that cannot be duplicated by hoaxers. Conclusions

Our research team had at this point in our investigation enough conclusive scientific evidence as well as a body of supporting contextual detail to show that the Howell crop circle formation had not been hoaxed by people using mechanical means, and that the evidence uncovered supports the conclusion that this is an authentic formation. There are other anomalies that were detected in this formation, but until our lab studies are concluded, and we are certain of our findings, we will refrain from reporting those at this time.

Sources

(1a)Website of organization using scientific methods/analysis: BLT RESEARCH TEAM INC. http://www.bltresearch.com/index.html

(2b) The Deepening Complexity of Crop Circles: Scientific Research and Urban Legends. (2001) Eltjo H. Haselhoff, Ph.d. Frog Ltd. Berjekey Ca. ISBN 1-58394-046-4 (2ba) Dr. Haselhoff is a practicing physicist specializing in optical imaging. quote: "Anyone claiming that all crop circles can be easily explained as the work of human pranksters, or hoaxers as they are usually called, reveals that he does not know what he is talking about."

(2c) Secrets in the Fields: The Science and Mysticism of Crop Circles. (2002) Freddy SIlva Hampton Roads, Charlottesvile VA. ISBN 1-57174-322-7 (2ca) Silva has written perhops the most comprehensive book on all aspects of crop circles. Quote:"The astronomer David Darling expresses this elegantly in his Equation of Eternity" 'The conscious mind is crucially involved in establishing what is real. That which reaches our senses is, at best, a confusion of phantasmal energies - not sights, not sounds, or any of the coherant qualities that we project outward onto the physical world. The Universe as we know it is built and experienced entirely within our heads, and until that mental construction takes place, reality must wait in the wings.'"

(2d) The Hypnotic Power of Crop Circles (2004) Bert Janssen. Frontier Publishing, Netherlands ISBN 1-93182-34-7

(2da) Janessen focus on the construction of crop circles, specifically how the geometrical elements hang together. Quote "Crop curckes. One of the biggest mystery of our times. They are obviously not the works of pranksters and practical jokers. They are also not a natural phenomenon. Nature doesn't think. But the thought, whoever or whatever is thinking it, has a very strong resemblance to the way in which we humans think. It is very much as if the phenonmenon is just another part of ourselves. One the one hand we are not responsible for the shapes in the crop, on the other hand we are." (p99)

(Question. A reading of the literature tells us of many acts of deception by the media to fool serious crop circle researchers into declaring a hoaxed circle as authentic. If all crop circles were hoaxed, would this deception by the media be necessary?)

[edit] The Scientific Conclusion The search for the truth of crop circles is embedded in controversy, lies and deception thereby smothering our grasp for reality. The implications of a genuine crop circle (all we need is one) are profound, and extraordinary, and deserves, by any measure, a truly scientific investigation.

Science differs from other belief systems in that a scientific hypothesis is tested to determine if in fact it is true. It doesn't matter if the hypothesis is just a guess, what matters if it proves to be correct. This limits science to that which is testable, leaving science with nothing to say about that which is not testable, but what science can say can be considered reliable.

[edit] Sources Following are the sources which will be referenced in the article. I am including quotes here to minimize misunderstandings. This is ongoing work and should not be cnsidered complete.

(A) Principle investigator/sources/reference

(1)Internet reference/source

(1a)Website of organization using scientific methods/analysis:

http://www.bltresearch.com/index.html

Quoting directly from the website, this is their introduction:

BLT RESEARCH TEAM INC.

(1b)Reports of Analysis

CLAY-MINERAL CRYSTALLIZATION CASE STUDY: 1999 EDMONTON, ALBERTA, CANADA CROP FORMATION http://www.bltresearch.com/xrd.html

They write in their conclusion: "Our present knowledge provides no explanation for these results. It is unlikely that an atmospheric plasma vortex system could account for the changes observed in the clay minerals. The data, however, rule out direct mechanical flattening of the crop circle plants by human beings utilizing planks or boards as an explanation for this event. Control studies carried out by BLT over the last several years have shown that significant node-length increase and expulsion cavities do not occur in crop flattened by boards or planks, human feet or cement rollers, or to crop which has been 100% over-fertilized. And, since either geologic pressure and/or intense heat is required to cause decrease in KI of the clay minerals--and neither can be produced by planks, boards, cement rollers, feet, etc.--this, or a similar mechanical mechanism, must be ruled out. It is our intent to carry out additional plant and soil research in an attempt to replicate the results of this XRD study, if funding can be obtained."

(1ba)LAB REPORT #86 1997 Maryland (USA) Control Study

This study examines the effects of over-fertilization of wheat and subsequent manual flattening throughout the growing season.

(1bb)LAB REPORT #49 July, 1995: E. Meon "Crescents" (UK)

A classic demonstration of node-length increase and expulsion cavity incidence in flattened crop across the formation.

(1bc)LAB REPORT #97 June, 1997: Salem, Oregon (USA)

Node-length increases found in flattened crop and in standing crop outside formation; Beer-Lambert Principle applicable here.

(1bd)LAB REPORT #51 June, 1995: Blueball, Maryland (USA)

Two non-geometrically downed areas with associated light phenomena and compass deviations noted at site; 203% increase in in node-length found

(1be)LAB REPORT #85 July, 1996: Littlebury Green (U.K.)

Node-length increases in both standing and downed crop within formation; increased growth-rate (up to 120%) as compared to controls.

(1bf)LAB REPORT #79 August, 1996: Logan, Utah (USA)

Node-length increases and expulsion cavities found; repressed seedling growth. Exploratory XRD exam of clay-minerals in soils indicates increased crystallinity

(1bg)LAB REPORT #100 August, 1997: Marion, New York (USA)

Linear deposition of magnetic particles in soils, both inside flattened circles and outside flattened areas.

(1bh)LAB REPORT #90 Sept, 1996: Rocanville, Sask. (CANADA)

Linear deposition of magnetic particles in soils along North/South radii only; uniform distribution of particles along other radii

(1bi)LAB REPORT #113 Sept, 1999: Midale, Sask. (CANADA)

Linear deposition of magnetic particles in soils, along all four sampled radii; node-length increases; battery drainage of Geiger Counter in circle.

(1bj)LAB REPORT #121 July, 1997: Assen-Zuid, Holland (NETHERLANDS)

Node-length decreases, germination abnormalities, and a deposited, white silicate substance w/multiple glassy beads in situ

(1bk)LAB REPORT #104 July, 1998: Cherhill, Wiltshire (U.K.)

Increased node-lengths, decreased seed weights & increased seedling growth in standing-plant centers; multiple dead insects adhering to standing plants within circles.

(1bl)LAB REPORT #127 May, 2000: Klein-Kedingshagen (GERMANY)

Node-length increases, expulsion cavities, increased amounts of magnetic material in soils; greatest node-length increase in smallest circles

(1bm)LAB REPORT #122 Sept, 1999: Edmonton, Alberta (CANADA)

Node-length increases (highest in smallest circle), expulsion cavities in all nodes (seen here for the first time), magnetic material in soils

(1bn)LAB REPORT #78 July, 1996: "Julia Set," Stonehenge (U.K.)

Reduced seed weights and evidence of mitochondrial damage; germination abnormalities and clear "spillover" effect into standing crop outside formation

(1c) Published papers

(1ca)Levengood, W.C. & Talbott, Nancy P. (1999) Dispersion of energies in worldwide crop formations Physiologia Plantarum 105:615-624

(1cb)Levengood, W.C. & Burke, John A. (1995) Semi-Molten Meteoric Iron Associated with a Crop Formation Journal of Scientific Exploration 9:2, 191-199

(1cc)Burke, John A. (1998)

"The Physics of Crop Formations" MUFON Journal, October l998, pp. 3-7

(1cd)Levengood, W.C. (1994) Anatomical anomalies in crop formation plants Physiologia Plantarum 92:356-363

(2) Principle Investigator publications

(2aa) Colin Andrews is reqarded as the old man of crop circle research. 2a)Crop Circles: Signs of Contact Colin Andrews (2003) Career Press, New Jersey. ISBN 1-56414-674-X ARTICLE INSERTION

Colin Andrews is one of the senior investigators of the crop circle phenomenon, He has authored two books, one of which is "Crop Circles, Signs of Contact". In 1999, the Rockefeller (sic) family asked Colin to investigate crop circles and report back to them. He did this in 1999 and 2000. His conclusion has become controversial in itself, disappointing to both sides.

Concerning the now famous 80/20 statement, He writes in his book: "Based in our research, I concluded that approximately 80 percent of all the crop circles we investigated in England from 1999 through the year 2000 were manmade. This was one of the most important research findings to date because it cut to the core of what is truly important: the remaining 20 percent of the crop circles showed no sign of human hands." (p154) (2a)Crop Circles: Signs of Contact Colin Andrews (2003) Career Press, New Jersey. ISBN 1-56414-674-X

Help How do I make a reference?

(2d) The Hypnotic Power of Crop Circles (2004) Bert Janssen. Frontier Publishing, Netherlands ISBN 1-93182-34-7

(3) reports outside the pattern

(3a) Oregon Dried lake bed "The Sri Yantra consisted of 13.3 miles of lines each ten inches wide and scored to a depth of three inches in the hardpan." "Ufologist's Don Newman and Alan Decker went to the site on the morning of September 15, 1990 and reported the symbol as being furrowed into the dry lake bed about 3" deep. The area was noticeably missing any signs of tire tracks or foot prints even though their own tire tracks left 1/4" deep marks on the crusty surface of the dry lake bed." http://www.labyrinthina.com/sriyantra.htm

(3b) Australia figure can be seen from satellite photos Tommy Mandel 02:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

(4) Eyewitness reports:

(4a) EYEWITNESS REPORT OF CROP CIRCLE FORMING WYLATOWO, POLAND - 2000 Witness: Mr. Jerzy Szpulecki, Wylatowo, Poland http://www.bltresearch.com/eyewitness2.html

(4b) EYEWITNESS REPORT OF CROP CIRCLE BEING FORMED IN THE NETHERLANDS

Witnesses: Nancy Talbott (from 2nd floor bedroom) Robbert van der Broeke ( from 1st floor kitchen) http://www.bltresearch.com/eyewitness1.html

(4c)On July 23-24, 2003, a private scientific research team documented physical evidence that gives us a high indication that Wisconsin Farmer, Art Rantala, actually did eye witness the formation of Wisconsin's first Crop Circle in Mayville, Wisconsin BUT what created them and for what purpose? http://www.burlingtonnews.net/wisconsincropcircle.html

http://www.nhne.com/specialreports/srcropcircles/fieldreport8.html

RESULTS:

It was clear that a few months into the circlemaking season that as we progressed in our endeavors that our group of circlemakers was changing its opinions and motivations as to circlemaking. This also progressively effected a change in the initial questions that were being asked by us.

I will not go into to greater detail about what exactly these life altering changes were as some of this is still sinking in for me, the realizations still far too fantastic for me to feel comfortable writing about.

However, I can say that due to special coincidences which took place --which included the creation of almost exactly the same types of designs appearing in different parts of the country on the same nights as we were working -- we had to conclude that human circlemakers (ourselves included) were being given inspiration from a higher source for their designs.

Due to this change in attitude, we them started to see circlemaking as a form of sacred art which has a higher purpose. This is how I still currently regard the subject.

Our circles were regarded by the circle research community as genuine.

UFOs and other paranormal events were perceived in and around the areas where we were making circles whilst we undertook their construction.

People also experienced various equipment failures in our circles and strange video and photographic evidence has been collected by circles researchers and public.

Three revert rule

I have stopped reverting you for the time-being so as not to violate the WP:3RR rule. Tommysun you appear to have violated it, and are in danger at this point of being blocked from editing. You have been reverted by many other users. I will not get into the details of our arguments as you have buried them in spam. But you are the only editor who believes these changes should be made. You are in the minority, please give up it is wasting valuable editing time. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 05:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You have a strange outlook. I have not reverted once. There is no rule saying that I cannot edit. Tommy Mandel 20:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You restored the same text to the article more than 3 times. In wikipedia this is called reverting. And if done in a 24 hour span is grounds for banning. I linked the rule which says you cannot do this above. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 22:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for warning me, I will not replace the same text three times in a 24 hour period. But you are wrong about the article, it is obviously POV, read it. I am attempting to introduce the science of crop circles, certainly a good source of information wouldn't you say? You and your gang are continually reverting my edits with no basis. How can you say I am stating a POV which is not agreed to by other editors when What I am posting is what investigators and scientists have said/reported? You won't even allow the heading "science of crop circles" or any variation of that. What is the basis for that? Does the science of crop circles fail to meet Wikipokicy? Or is it that the science of crop circles would be dangerous to the POV stated in the article. Perhaps it might show the reader what evidence really looks like, I haven't been able to find any of yours. The entire basis of your argument as far as I can tell is the assumption that because some circles have been man-made, therefore all crop circles have been man-made. And that's it! Correct me if I am wrong, but you have absolutely no other evidence to present other than the testimony of the hoaxers. And the hoaxer's testimony that you provide us with says only that they creted crop circles all summer. They did not say they created ALL the crop circles that summer. In fact, I am certain that no hoaxer has claimed that he created all the crop circles. There are crop circles that haven't been claimed by anyone - the July 18 1996 windmil hill circle for one. I can understand why...

Tommy Mandel 23:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

How can you say I am stating a POV which is not agreed to by other editors when What I am posting is what investigators and scientists have said/reported? You won't even allow the heading "science of crop circles" or any variation of that.. Take for instance your recent edition Tommy. The text used out of context quotes and invented quotes to support a viewpoint opposite of the astronomers actual view. I don't know if you wrote this originally but this is intellectually dishonest. This was obviously intentionally biased, if you cannot see these then I don't know what else I can say. Noone is indiscriminately censoring you. Two of your additions remain in the article. However because of your previous history I will continue to revert items which I cannot fact check. Or which make scientific claims with sources not allowed by wikipedia policy. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 03:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, here is the article as you edited it --

In the October 12, 1996 issue of Science News a section entitled "Mathematics" [7] described the numerical relationships found in crop circles by astronomer Gerald S. Hawkins, who looked for mathematical relationships among the various shapes making up the patterns.

""While investigating a series of crop circles Hawkins discovered a number of basic shape relationships that corresponded to new basic geometric theorems. "Hawkins was able to use the principles of Euclidean geometry to prove four theorems derived from the relationships among the areas depicted in these patterns." During his investigation he was able to devise a new more general theorem which could prove any of the specific theorems he had discovered. Hawkins was not able to find any reference to the new theorem or a mention of the other relationships in the works of Euclid or the work of any other geometers ancient or contemporary. Hawkins states that this shows the "hoaxers had to know a tremendous lot of old-fashoined geometry". According to the article, "The hoaxers apparently had enough knowledge to not only prove Euclidean theorems but also to conceive an original theorem.". "Hawkins often playfully refuses to divulge his fifth theorem... Inviting anyone interested to come up with the theorem itself" [8]

It's very illustrative of how your mind works, darkfred. Thank you for this.

First where did this come from? "or the work of any other geometers ancient or contemporary. "

You wrote: Hawkins states that this shows the "hoaxers had to know a tremendous lot of old-fashoined geometry".

The actual quote said: The persons responsible for this old-fashioned type of mathematical ingenuity remain at large and unknown.

You wrote: According to the article, "The hoaxers apparently had enough knowledge to not only prove Euclidean theorems but also to conceive an original theorem.".

The actual quote said "These designs demonstrate the remarkable mathematical ability of their creators," Hawkins comments. The article concludes with: " Their handiwork flaunts an uncommon facility with Euclidean geometry and signals an astonishing ability to enter fields undetected, to bend living plants without cracking stalks, and to trace out complex, precise patterns, presumably using little more than pegs and ropes, all under cover of darkness.

Nothing in the article mentions the word "hoaxer"

The article mentions hoaxers every time it refers to the creation of the crop circles. In both direct quotes and rephrasings of Hawkins. You have not read the article have you? --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 16:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: The above is indicative of the kind of logic that created this article. It ignores the objective evidence, and twists the subjective evidence around so that it is saying something it never said.

PS, he proved NEW theorems form which he was able to derive a more general fifth theorem. He didn't merely prove old theorems and come up with one new one.

Tommy Mandel 05:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Reverted text archive

Dispute tag

Significant investigators

The phenonmenon has produced several investigators such as Colin Andrews, Pat Degado Freddy Silva, Bert Janessen, Eltjo Haselhoff and Gerald Hawkins.

Requested Quotes from new article

Here is the entire article from Science News scanned in. Tommy sun originally misrepresented the quotes, I have changed them to quotes which actually appeared in the article. As you can see above Tommysun either does not have access to a copy of the original and is just repeating what he reads on conspiracy websites or he is lying, it is that simple. http://www.gaiaguys.net/Science_News_2.92.htm --Darkfred

My edit was taken from an online source which showed me a copyrighted version of an article coming from Science News. The original is not accessible to me so I can only assume that they did not alter copyrighted material. There are three different versions of the same article, a 1992 version, a 1996 versio and a 2003 version. Darkfred adapted my edit (1996) using a different source,(1992) and also removed key statements indicating a different POV than what is suggested by DarkFred's edit. (This is why only the original source can be trusted. Once a journalist gets hold of the "Hypothesis" he turns it into a "theory" and then when the reader gets a hold of it the theory is a fact.)

What did Hawkins really say?

After going to Science News Online, and entering Hawkins into their search engine, I found the article for October 12, 1996 in the research news section. The source for this article lists Hawkins himself.

http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arch/10_19_96/note1.htm

Taken from the 1996 Science news research notes:

"Three other patterns also displayed exact numerical relationships, all of them involving diatonic ratios, the simple whole-number ratios that determine a scale of musical notes. "These designs demonstrate the remarkable mathematical ability of their creators," Hawkins comments."

"This past summer, however, "the crop-circle makers . . . showed knowledge of this fifth theorem," Hawkins reports. Among the dozens of circles surreptitiously laid down in the wheat fields of England, at least one pattern fit Hawkins' theorem."

"The persons responsible for this old-fashioned type of mathematical ingenuity remain at large and unknown. Their handiwork flaunts an uncommon facility with Euclidean geometry and signals an astonishing ability to enter fields undetected, to bend living plants without cracking stalks, and to trace out complex, precise patterns, presumably using little more than pegs and ropes, all under cover of darkness."

Tommy Mandel 03:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Now we have a descriptive example of misinformation. An original quote by an astronomer is separated by a journalist and replaced by an inference which is then taken by a reader as stating a conclusion which was not in the original meaning. Apparently there are three articles in consideration here, a 1992, 1996 and 2003 date of publication. The articles are almost identical. Hoaxer is used in the 1992 and 2003 article, it does not appear in the Hawkins quotations published in the 1996 article. None of the articles show Hawkins using the hoaxer word directly.

This below is how it appears in the 1992 article ----

This suggests that the hoaxer or hoaxers "had to know a tremendous lot of old-fashioned geometry" he argues.

This below is how you rewrote it

Hawkins states that this shows the "hoaxers had to know a tremendous lot of old-fashoined geometry".

Item A. The original Hawkins quote did not include the word hoaxer. It was added by the journalist writing about what Hawkins said.

Item B. The journalist is making an assumption and by inference attributing it to Hawkins.

Item C, You removed moved the quotes from Hawkins actual quote such that it included the journalist's assumption, and then attributed the entire quote to Hawkins.

"This suggested to Hawkins that the hoaxer (or hoaxers) had to know a lot of old-fashioned geometry.

The actual quote said:

Did Chorley and Bower have the mathematical sophistication to depict novel Euclidean theorems in the wheat? Not likely. The persons responsible for this old-fashioned type of mathematical ingenuity remain at large. Their handiwork flaunts an uncommon facility with Euclidean geometry and signals an astonishing ability to enter fields undetected, to bend living plants without cracking stalks, and to trace complex, precise patterns, presumably using little more than pegs and ropes, all under cover of darkness.

Why did you remove that Darkfred? Maybe because it reeks of sarcasm?

Well, what did you say about intellectual honesty? Could be that this situation is a good example of how misinformation is carried out. The original "genuine" quote is modified by the journalist, in this case by adding an assumption (which was not previously introduced/present as evidence) and then further changed by the researcher/editor to include the assumption within the quote with the end result is that the quote is saying something that it did not say originally. You don't call this magic?

Here is what the article says now --

"Hawkins states that this shows the "hoaxers had to know a tremendous lot of old-fashoined geometry". According to the article, "The hoaxers apparently had enough knowledge to not only prove Euclidean theorems but also to conceive an original theorem.".

(BTW, you last sentence is also wrong in that they did not prove Euclidean theorems, all five were original which Hawkins used Euclidean geometry to prove.)

If you wrote the above statement Darkfred, then you have published a lie. In no instance did Hawkins use the word hoaxers, and where ir was used in two of the three articles, it was inserted by the author as an assumption. You should know that the makeup of the circlemakers cannot be an assumption. I think you have been doing this since you started editing this article. You systematically eliminate the objective evidence and insert your opinion stated as an assumption.

Tommy Mandel 19:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Darkfred, you claim the video is a "well known fake", but you fail to source your statement. Please do, and I mean something better than some CSICOP link claiming all crop circles are fake, therefore this is clearly a hoax, or "well it's low quality", which has nothing to do with establishing a hoax. In addition, you will need to explain "framing", but your suggestion of dishonesty to me seems to betray a definite POV on your part. 69.145.82.2 00:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a fake video of balls of light making a crop circle. If you look at the video you may notice that the balls of light do not change in size as they move around the circle. It was written up as a fake in Silva's book and by Colin Andrews who suspected a fake all along, mainly because the photographer changed his story among other things. It was created by merging a shot of a untouched field into the shot of the crop circle appearing to appear before your eyes. The balls of light were inserted. There is another video of a ball of light hovering above a crop circle but I haven't seen it. It was reported that as the ball of light hovered above the circle, a farmer approached on a tractor. The ball of light is seen veering off and heading toward the farmer. All of this could also have been faked. But the telling event is that as the ball of light passes over the farmer, he turns his head to follow it. So it is a sighting and a replication recorded on video. Balls of light are ot new or unusual. They are so common that there is a hill named after them, Golden ball hill or something like that. I don't think any educated researcher doubts that they exist. No one knows what they are or how they are controlled. Tommy Mandel 01:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

As tommy said, this video has been going around for a long time. There was a making of section on television detailing how it was created, it was created for a news show. This is not the tractor video tommy is speaking of, which is rather more professional. (albiet probably faked as well since there is not incidentally glow from the bols.) Just look at the video, the BOLS don't even track the camera movements, its as bad as if someone was just shining a laser pointer at a projection screen.

Tommy, about the Science News article. I am sorry if my transcription contained a few errors in puntuation, as you can see the scanned source is incredibly low resolution and the punctuation is faint. As for the word Hoaxers, it appears in all versions I have seen. It may be an addition of the reporter but the context in the article makes it clear that the scientists believes they were hoaxes. He seems to consider the crop circles to be a challenge from another geometer rather than a scientific mystery. 90% of the paragraph is direct quote. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 14:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Your first point, about the video made by Anderson was reported in Silva's book. He tells how the farmer went home and told his family but they thought he was nuts until two later when Anderson showed up with the video. The facts are not consistent with the hoax theory.

Your second point. First you changed my reference from my article to your article, then you changed the quotes with your version stating something that was not stated. Silva writes a lot about Hawkins, and Hawkins did not believe that all crop circles were made by man. Then you removed Hawkins quote which appears in all three articles which shows the subtle sarcasm that Hawkins showed us.

The persons responsible for this old-fashioned type of mathematical ingenuity remain at large and unknown. Their handiwork flaunts an uncommon facility with Euclidean geometry and signals an astonishing ability to enter fields undetected, to bend living plants without cracking stalks, and to trace out complex, precise patterns, presumably using little more than pegs and ropes, all under cover of darkness.

The source for this quote is listed by Science News as:

Mathematics:

Crop circles: Theorems in wheat fields

Patterns of circles and triangles surreptitiously flattened into the crops of southern England reveal the perpetrators' sophisticated knowledge of Euclidean geometry.

Sources:

Gerald S. Hawkins

Boston University Research

Consul 906

2400 Virginia Avenue N.W.

Washington, DC 20037

So you think that Hawkins repeated use of the phrase hoaxers is some sort of "subtle sarcasm" and that he is sending some sort of underlying message supporting aliens or some other phenomenon? Should we then reinterpret his quotes based on your picking up this "subtle sarcasm"? Do you see BOLS in ink-blots. All sarcasm aside have you considered seeing a therapists, this is classic paranoid schizophrenic. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 16:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Darkfred, please read what was written. In no instance did Hawkins include "hoaxers", when it does appear it is a statement by the writer to which he attached the actual Hawkins quote as if they belonged together. And Hawkins did not believe some circles were made by hoaxers. It is not a matter of us interpreting his quotes, what we should do is quote him accurately. You didn't do this, you moved the quotes over to include "hoaxers" as if the it all came from Hawkins. That is another lie. You see, once you start with a lie, you are forced to continually lie in order to cover up the first one. It goes on and on until the final end comes. Tommy Mandel 03:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You wrote this in the article "Also in Science News, Feb. 1, 1992, Hawkins remarked to mathematician Ivars Peterson that he believed the circles were made by "hoaxers", albeit ones with a remarkable knowledge of ancient Greek mathematics." I don't believe you, show me the actual quote. The reason I don't believe you is because in Silva's book, several pages are devoted to Silva's and Hawkins work together. Hawkins did not believe all the circles were man-made. Here is one of Hawkins quotes "Actually if any Hoaxers do come forth, then we have a short latin quiz we would like them to take." Tommy Mandel 04:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV DISPUTE

The editor named DarkFred has continually deleted attempts to include scientific research into the article (see history) Darkfred has also altered quotes to make his point and removed text which does not conform to his opinion. The results illustrate POV pushing, and is a threat to Wikipedia integrity.

Tommy Mandel 21:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crop_circle&action=edit&section=10

Which states in part --

:Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties.

:There are many ways that an article can fail to adhere to the NPOV policy. Some examples are:

:The article can simply be biased, expressing viewpoints as facts (see Wikipedia:POV)

:While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.

:Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others (see Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance).

:The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another.

:The subject or title of the article can imply a particular point of view.

:A type of analysis of facts that can lead to the article suggesting a particular point of view's accuracy over other equally valid analytic perspectives.

:The author's own viewpoint is mentioned or obvious.

:Alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive terms.

These, above, are the parameters for a neutral point of view according to Wikipolicy. This is especially true in controversial subjects. This is especially true with crop circles. I have added a subsection called scientific investigations. I posted a short description of a scientific analysis accomplished by a theoretical and experimental physicist. (Note that his opinion is by itself very neutral as he admits that we do not know what is going on.)

PS I found the 1996 article in the researh news of science news for 10-12-96. Neither the authr or Hawkins uses the word Hoaxer as was presented by Darkfred. The source for the 1996 article is listed as Hawkins himself. Silva writes in his book Secrets of the Fields about his work with Hawkins. Nothing in that book indicated that Hawkins believed that hoaxers made all the circles.

Tommy Mandel 05:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with your desciption of NPOV. "If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties." Well, a significant number of people believe that black people are worth less than white people. That does not mean wikipedia should treat racism as a valid viewpoint. Similarly, if (nearly) the whole scientific community holds one viewpoint, and everyone who hold the other viewpoint use argumentation that does not adhere to scientific principles, it is not POV to present the scientific viewpoint as more valid, in my opinion. That clearly applies for the Crop circle-phenomenon. So there is one experimental physicist who believes crop circles are not man-made. That does not change the fact that there is a scientific consensus in this matter. --Barend 08:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Baremd is bang up right about NPOV policy. Views are presented according to their prominance, and extreme minority claims can be ignored entirely. Jefffire 09:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't make it clear that the above guidelines came from Wikipedia.

There are two extreme views prevalent in the crop circle community: 1) all crop circles are made by man; 2) all crop circles are not made by man.

The concensus always has been that there is something anomalous about crop circles. It is only in the recent era that claims were made that man made some crop circles. No hoaxer claims to have made all of them. There are several circles that have not been claimed by any hoaxer - and no wonder. Therefore it is clear that "all crop circles are amde by man" is an extreme view that is not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

To turn all this around and make the claim that "all crop circles are made by man" is the prominant view is a mistake, if not a deliberate act of misinformation.

Barend wrote: "So there is one experimental physicist who believes crop circles are not man-made. That does not change the fact that there is a scientific consensus in this matter."

I venture to say that the scientific concensus is that the crop circle phenomenon is anomalous. There is no dispute about that part, the evidence is objective and has been reported in the journals. The dispute is over who or what created the circles. Here the scientific concensus is basically: "We don't know."

The scientific concensus is that not all circles have been made by man.

The next question is "who is doing this?" and here all we have is speculation. Opinions which seem to cover every possibility. I doubt that one of those possibilities is that science is wrong about this one.

Tommy Mandel 15:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This is also from wikipedia guidelines:Expertise

On many scientific, technical or social problems, different points of view may be held by different experts. This is especially the case, for instance, in areas of conjecture (e.g. estimating the future importance of global warming). Wikipedia should report all major points of views; however, it should do so in proportion to the credibility of the experts holding the various theses.

One measure of a view's importance is the credibility of the experts who hold that view. What makes an expert credible? Some criteria include:

The reputation of the expert, the reputation of the tradition within which he or she works, the reputation of the group or institution for which the expert works

Whether the expert uses the common methods of the field or completely different ones Whether the expert has or has not failed to respond to criticisms Whether the expert has reputable supporters of his or her claims Whether the expert's point of view belongs in a different article (e.g. evolution vs. creationism) In other words, an idea's popularity alone does not determine its importance. Few people may know that a belief is wrong, but sometimes that is because most are unaware of the evidence against it. If you are not an expert in a subject yourself, your intuition that an article is biased may not be reliable. Keep an open mind and ask others about the evidence.

Points of view held as having little credibility by experts, but with wide popular appeal (e.g.: the belief in astrology, considered as irrational and incorrect by the vast majority of scientists and astronomers), should be reported, but as such: that is, we should expose the point of view and its popular appeal, but also the opinion held by the vast majority of experts.--Barend 08:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's guidelines, specificaly WP:V and WP:OR. Jefffire 15:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not up to you or me to decide what is true and what is not true. Our responsibility is to report what reliable and verifiable sources have reported. So this perpetual argument about who created the circles is not relevant. While interesting to me, I take it as a ploy to distract from the task at hand which is to present both sides of the story. One editor wrote a while back that he would resist any attempt to include what he called incredulous information...I would like to see the reports which state that all crop circles are man-made.

What we have in the article are reports that some circles are man-made. Tommy Mandel 18:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Scientific concensus huh? Thats why Levengood can't get published in a real journal. Damn scientific concensus! Selective Evidence Syndrome just can't see the forest for the trees. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 16:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You are not telling the truth again Darkfred, either you are ignorant of it or you are purposely lieing. Or maybe you are a plant...

Anatomical anomalies in crop formation plants

W. C. Levengood

Levengood. W.C. 1994. Anatomical anomalies in crop formation plants. - Physiol. Plant. 92: 356-363. Tommy Mandel 03:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the record shows that Levengood has published over fifty papers in journals...And what exactly do you mean by "damn scientific concensus" If you were a knowledgable person Darkfred, you wouldn't have to resort to attacks on the person, you would go after what is being reported, the facts of the case. But You have not even once submitted any evidence whatsoever one way or the other that all circles are man made outside the claims by some that they made some of the circles. Selective evidence synfrome" I love the way you come up with these pathologies, I think you are "projecting." I wonder if you read what you wrote? It is YOU who is refusing to consider any evidence outside of what you believe. Who cares what you believe, you don't believe anything. Tommy Mandel 18:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is one about how application of an electrical pulse affects a seed.

Oxford Journals Journal of Experimental Botany Volume 36, Number 7 Pp. 1053-1063

RESEARCH-ARTICLE

Ion Transport in the Testa of Germinating Seeds

W. C. LEVENGOOD

Pinelandia Biophysical Laboratory, 4853 Wolf Lake Road, P.O. Box 388, Grass Lake, Michigan 49240, U.S.A.

Levengood, W. C. 1985, Ion transport in the testa of germinating seeds.—J. exp. Bot. 36: 1053–1063.

The current flow produced when an electrical potential is applied to a partially hydrated seed is drastically altered by the application of a thermal pulse. Specific responses to thermally induced changes in electrical activity are related to the cell wall structure of the seed coat and its state of hydration. It is suggested that expansion and contraction of the micropores in the cell wall matrix provide a model based on a diffusion and dehydration during a thermal pulse and an ion-gating effect immediately following the pulse. Mechanical flexing produced oscillatory behaviour in the electrical current flow through seed coat tissues in a manner predicted by the thermal responses.

Key words: Ion transport, testa, germinating seeds

PHYSIOLOGIA PLANTARUNI 92: 356-363.1994

ISSN 0031-9317

Anatomical anomalies in crop formation plants

W. C. Levengood

Levengood. W.C. 1994. Anatomical anomalies in crop formation plants. - Physiol. Plant. 92: 356-363.

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.

And here is what they did with their impossible findings...

BLT Research -- Plant AbnormalitiesIn 1998 WC Levengood and John Burke obtained a patent (Patent #5740627) on equipment they developed which delivers unusual electrical pulses to normal seed. ...

www.bltresearch.com/plantab.html

I hope I won't have to dig up all of his articles and copy them over here. Tommy Mandel 18:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack

Darkfred reverted my inclusion of a scientific report, just as I said he would. Then he resorts to a personal attack once again.

(rv the mad ravings of a lone pov crusader. A note: non peer-reviewed fringe science shouldn't be presented as authorative.)

I think it is perfectly clear to anyone with intelligence who the ravng mad POV crusader is...

This is what you removed:

Scientific Investigations - - - Dr. Eltjo Hasellhof, a practicing physicist, once employed at Los Alamos and several Dutch Institutes, presently the senior scientist at a medical imaging company in the U.K., has rigorously investigated the crop circle phenomenon. His findings are published in "Deepening complexity of Crop Circles:" by Eltjo H. Hasellhoff, Ph.D. Page 128, - - - Haselhoff explains: "Unfortunately, much of the public information is not very accurate or even is completely wrong, as a result of ignorance, lack of accuracy or objectivity. or simply evil intent. " Haselhoff has investigated the crop circle phenomenon and concluded, "some relativly simple observations seem to defy any trivial explanation. Biophysical anomalies, in terms of node leghtening and germination anomalies, The lack of any indication of human presence or mechanical flattening, The awesome complexity and particularily the hidden geometry in many pictograms at least indicate that this cannot be the result of a simple joke. " Yet, as Haselhoff points out, ""extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

You just don't get it darkfred, it does not have to be a peer reviewed science journal, it only has to be verifiably reported.

Your removal of the dispute tag and reverting verifiable and reliable counter-information is vandalism. And so is the deletion of the archives.

You are a very dishonest person Fred, but you know what? The ulltimate ending, for lies and the truth is that it will be found out. The only thing you are capable of, judging by your actions, is to attack people and you don't even do a good job at that. But we all know you are projecting. Strange, the only references you have are self confessed liars.

Show me one peer reviewed science article that proves all circles were man-made. Just one. You won't because there are none. Tommy Mandel 20:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have to prove anything to you tommy. I have humored you on occasion, pointed out how you were wrong and directed you to other resources. I have already explained by Levengood doesn't qualify, I have provided you with links to relevant WP policy. Being loud does not equate to being right. You have been reverted on this addition now by 4 editors.

All that means is that you are a cabel pushing your POV. You have no say about whether Levengood is qualified or not. I am citing a journal, something you have yet to do. All you do is make claoms without backing them up. Anyone can do that.Tommy Mandel 01:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

PHYSIOLOGIA PLANTARUNI 92: 356-363.1994

ISSN 0031-9317

Anatomical anomalies in crop formation plants

W. C. Levengood

Levengood. W.C. 1994. Anatomical anomalies in crop formation plants. - Physiol. Plant. 92: 356-363.

You don't make your case better by accusing me of vandalism or threatening me! I have a long history of article writing and RC patrolling. You on the other hand have never made an unreverted or depoved addition to wikipedia in your entire editing history. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 20:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the authority on anything. Is finding out the truth a threat to you? I haven't threatened you yet, unless taking this to a higher level is a threat to you, but when you change the quoted text to suit your purposes that borders on vandalism. And if you purposely deleted the archives, that definately is vandalism. When you change the words around to your POV, that is deceptive and when you discount the science, that is ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommysun (talk • contribs)

Tommy, you have now on several occasions challenged Darkfred to provide proof that all crop circles are man-made. Please stop it, this has become quite tiresome. He can't, of course -- no-one could, any more than you could provide proof that all ice-cream sundaes are man-made. We've heard a lot of talk about man-made and 'genuine' crop circles. What are the objective criteria you or those you are citing use to distinguish between a faked and 'genuine' circle? --BillC 22:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you stop Darkfred from assuming that all crop circles are made by man instead of asking me to stop asking him for evidence? He is the one making that claim that all circles are made by man, not I. I am only asking for the evidence/citation/source. Do you mean since he cannot provide proof, therefore no proof is needed, so he wins? He can't make that assumption anymore than someone who claims that all crop circles were not made by man.

PS. You might read Popper. He says too that very little can be proved, you would have to prove every single instance. The trick he proposed is to falsify, find ine instance which disproves or falsifies the theory. Darkfredd cannot prove that all crop circles were man-made, but what Popper suggests to find one instance which was not mab-made. That is easy, but Darkfred and his friends will not allow any of that to be inserted into the article. That is by definition POV pushing. Tommy Mandel 02:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The objective evidence is that evidence which can be handed to you so to speak. That evidence has been placed before you several times. But in a word - bent, not broken, stems. Canola bent 180 degrees. Expanded and blown out nodes. Changes in the intercellular structure of the plant. Changes in the clay taken from within a circle. Changes in the moisture content of the soil. Changes in the structure of the seed pods. Changes in the germination rate, which Levengood figured out, capitalized on and is now selling it. No wonder Darkfred wants to get rid of him, he has all the objective evidence we need to show that SOME CIRCLES WERE NOT MADE BY MAN. Darkfred is the one holding to the extreme view that ALL CIRCLES WERE MADE BY MAN. Darkfred is the one who is insulting me as if his insults really convince others.

With so many rev. and changes, it is not clear what is fact and what is fiction, atlesat you guys settle on these things, put disputed tage on artical. please.. phippi46 00:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I put it on twice, they revert it. What is clear is that this field is replete with deception and lies. And all I got to say about that is if the hoaxers were that brilliant, they would not try to deceive us. But that is only my opinion. And if any of you had any justification for your position, you would be willing even eager to share it. But in all this discussion spanning several months, Darkfred has not given us any reported evidence whatsoever to support his claims. I agree that some circles were man-made, that much is obvious. Darkfred, on the other hand does not agree that some circles were not made by man. He has taken his own POV and created an article that completely ignores the scientific investigations. That is outright POV pushing and it is a threat to the integrity of Wikipedia. Imagine if every controversial article was no more that the POV of the dominate four.

Phippi, if you are talking about Darkfreds illegal modification of the copyrighted quoted text,

This below is how it appears in the 1992 article ----

This suggests that the hoaxer or hoaxers "had to know a tremendous lot of old-fashioned geometry" he argues.

Notice how the hoaxer or hoaxers is stated by the author of the article, with the remaining add on being the acutal quote.

This below is how darkfred rewrote it

Hawkins states that this shows the "hoaxers had to know a tremendous lot of old-fashoined geometry".

This is a lie. He moved the quotes to include hoaxer. Tommy Mandel 01:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is how it appears in the 1996 Science News article which has as its source Hawkins himself

Tommy Mandel 01:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you see the difference between

"had to know a tremendous lot of old-fashioned geometry"

and

hoaxers had to know a tremendous lot of old-fashoined geometry".

Not only does darkfred copy text from the article without attibution, he modifies that text so that it says what he wants to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommysun (talk • contribs)

Here is a scanned copy of the article [1]. Have a look at the final paragraph. Please stop accusing me of misquoting, we can all see the actual article, you are not fooling anyone.

However this is besides the point, you stated above that all you need is one non-manmade crop circle, and that you can provide unfalsifiable proof. Go ahead, I am waiting. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 02:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Your first point, actually I corrrected the last Hawkins quote, but you missed my edit and left it in. The previous quote I left as you wrote it - and it still reads

Hawkins states that this shows the "hoaxers had to know a tremendous lot of old-fashioned geometry".,[Quote from source requested on talk page to verify interpretation of source],

None of the articles puts the hoaxer word inside the hawkins quote. That is changing copyrighted material which is I think illegal. Among other things...

Your second point, unfalsifiable proofs are by definition, not scientific. The entire basis of science is that it can be falsified. To falsify the assumption that all crop circles are man-made, all we need do is present one instance which could not be done by man. The bending of canola 180 degrees cannot be done by the hoaxers.Tommy Mandel 02:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahh so you can detect sarcasm. As for the quotes, the quotation mark move was inadvertant, as you can see from the framing. I also mispelled some. What I did not do is invent quotes, no matter how hard I searched the article I couldn't find the lines you quoted.

It is impossible to bend Canola 180 deg? This is your incontroverible proof? are you kidding? You mean with all your talk of Balls of light and psychic energy the best you can do is the impossibility of bending grass?!? It is GRASS! And worst, a discredited[2] scientist published only in a pay for publish vanity journal. You are killing me here. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 03:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Canola is NOT LIKE GRASS (another of your inadvertant lies?) it is like celery. Is this my only instance of a crop circle feature that cannot be mechanically produced? Hardly, but it is objective evidence in that there is a picture of it. I saw it. Nickles did not manage to discredit Levengood's science, all he could do is question the techiques used, throw in an irrelevant analogy and make inferences. Skeptics should be skeptical of their skepticism. - - It really isn't smart to listen to only one side, much better to study/know both sides and make your own decision. Doing so trains the mind to be objective. We all are guilty of framing our theories, by design, around what we know. And if we know just a little, then all we are capable of is framing little theories. Ultimately, as Einstein points out, it is the observation which determines the fate of the theory. and not, as Korzybski points out, the reverse. In science, sane science, observation rules. Seeing a bent Canola plant, curved corn stalks, bent wheat nodes, twisted seed pods, burst nodes, original geometry, high precision accuracy does not lead me to the theory that Doug and Dave did it. Tommy Mandel 04:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record I have retranscribed the quote which tommy dislikes, including the full line of framing. I don't think he will like it since it still refers to the crop circle creators as hoaxers, which is what he originally attempted to white wash out of the quotes. Since tommy obviously still thinks that the scientist Hawkins believes in aliens or something I will add back another quote where he again refers to them directly as hoaxers. I originally thought this was just rubbing it in, but then again I underestimated Tommys self-delusion. Personally i think the bit should be moved into creators of crop circles or designs sections. Its obviously not related to the paranormal secion. In fact its a bit boring without tommys slant, its just a retiree talking about trading geometry proofs. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 04:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

G. Hawkins quote "Actually if any of the hoaxers do come forth, then we have a short latin quiz we would like them to take." Tommy Mandel

Gerald Hawkins summation

Secrets in the Fields. Freddy Silva (2002) Direct quote from page 299:

Gerald Hawkins sums this up with an understatement: "If crop circles are made by hoaxers, then they should stop doing it, because they are breaking the law and damaging the food supply. If they are made by UFO aliens, they shouldn't give us back the dates of our trips to Mars and the names of the men from the Titanic era - famous, clever, but now forgotten. If some are tanscendental, the power behind it should realize that our culture is not now willing to accept transcendental happenings. But if they are indeed transcendental, then society will have to make a big adjustment in the years ahead."

You see Darkfred, it will not be at all as you imagine. My journey began thirty years ago, long before the new agers arrived on the scene. Can't say what they are about, but the path all of us are destined to walk is one that leads us to our true self. We find ourselves at the end of the journey. Until that time, we are followers. Tommy Mandel

Huh? You go ahead and take your transcendental journey of discovery. Don't make the rest of us drink the punch though. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 15:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You are telling everyone that Hawkins believes all crop circles are made by hoaxers. You changed his words to use hoaxer when he did not use that word. I found an interview of Hawkins at http://www.share-international.org/ARCHIVES/crop_circles/cc_ml-music-spheres.htm and part of went like this --

Intellectual profile

ML: That eliminates natural processes and Doug and Dave. What’s left?

GH: Lord Zuckerman [former science adviser to the British Government] wrote a review of Colin Andrews’ and Pat Delgado’s book. He said that before we start building theories we should first investigate what would be perhaps the most pleasant solution for scientists, which is that the formations were made by human hoaxers. In a way, he’s not stating that that is his notion. He thinks it would be the simplest explanation. In fact, I am not supporting the theory that they are made by hoaxers. I am only investigating it.

The interview concluded with this comment. This is how real scientists think Darkfred.ML: So the major focus of your work right now is looking into these?

GH: Yes. It’s totally absorbing. It’s not a joke. It’s not a laugh. It’s not something that can be just brushed aside.

ML: Is there anybody else who is investigating it seriously in terms of your scientist colleagues?

GH: No. It boils down to two factors. You wouldn’t get a grant to study this sort of thing. And, two, it might endanger your tenure. It is as serious as that. There are whole areas in the scientific community that are not informed about the crop circle phenomenon, and have come to the conclusion that it is ridiculous, a hoax, a joke, and a waste of time.

It’s a difficult topic because it tends to raise a knee-jerk solution in people’s minds. Then they are stuck. Their minds are closed. One can’t do much about it. But if they can keep an open mind, I think they’ll find they’ve got a very interesting phenomenon.

From the December 1992 issue of Share International

Inappropriate editing

What makes you think Darkfred, that you can take the source of my edit, and change it around to your source, and then change all the info from my source to your source? And on top of it, change the quotes around to include a POV not at all found in my source and which does not, according to Hawkins himself, say what you made it look like he was saying?

Tommy Mandel 06:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, here is direct quotes from the 1992 article

This suggests that the hoaxer or hoaxers 'had to know a tremendous lot of old-fashioned geometry," he argues.

(snipped out paragraph about school 0

The hoaxers apparently had the requisite knowledge not only to prove a Euclidean theorem but also to conceive of an original theorem in the first place -- a far more challenging task. To show how difficult such a task can be, Hawkins of ten playfully refuses to divulge his fifth theorem, inviting anyone interested to come up with the theorem itself before trying to prove it.

Here is what Darkfred put into the article ---

Hawkins argues that this suggests the Hoaxer or Hoaxers "... had to know a tremendous lot of old-fashioned geometry". According to the article, "The Hoaxers apparently had the requisite knowledge not only to prove a Euclidean theorem, but also to conceive of an original theorem in the first place. [8] "Hawkins often playfully refuses to divulge his fifth theorem... Inviting anyone interested to come up with the theorem itself

It is clear that in the 1992 version, it is the writer who is adding hoaxer (...this suggests that the hoaxer or hoaxers "had to know" ) followed by the actual quote. While in the Wikipedia article, it is written as if Hawkins is actually saying the word hoaxer (Hawkins argues that this suggests the Hoaxer or Hoaxers "... had to know...").

Getting close but still misleading.

Tommy Mandel 06:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that we rewrite the entire article on the basis of the opinions of one researcher? Sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works. Jefffire 08:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, on the basis of all the reseachers. Would it be acceptable to you if we gathered together a reasonable collection of researchers and presented their findings? Do you think the reder of this encyclopedia would be interested in learning who all the researchers are and what they do? Tommy Mandel 23:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to tommys: still misleading? Its a direct quote from the article silly. If you would read the article tommy it appears that the writer was using a paraphrase segue between two seperate statements here. This is rather common in interview transcripts. It is not illegal as you put it to paraphrase. You are simply nit-picking because you can't spin the actual quotes from the article to fit your viewpoints. I would guess that you wouldn't have even added these sections if you had known we could find the original sources. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 15:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Go back a couple days before I and you changed those inadvertant errors where you had Hawkins using hoaxer in every sentence. You are lieing again making it look like I called you on a tiny error "nit picking". I called you on changing the copyrighted quoted material purposely. You took my article and sources and changed it into yur article and sources. Almost everything you do and say is a lie Darkfred. Tommy Mandel 23:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No tommy, i did not lie, the article does indeed call him a hoaxer, I have posted the scanned article twice now for you to read. When I say nit-picking I am being kind to you. There are other words I could use for your rewriting of quotes to fit your POV. If you keep attacking me for a mistranscribed a punctuation mark, (which was quickly fixed by myself) I will keep mentioning that I was fixing a quote you had rewritten or completely fabricated to begin with. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 18:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

(rv the mad ravings of a lone pov crusader. A note: non peer-reviewed fringe science shouldn't be presented as authorative.)

"The mad ravings of a lone POV crusader"

are the words of Darkfred.

Here is mine...

The two pillars of Wikipedia are reliability and verification. Verification does not mean truth, because Wikipedians do not do original research and thus are not the arbiters of true and false. Verification means that what was said in the article was in fact said as reported. Verification is something the reader does. It is the responsibility of the editor to provide the link to the verification.

Reliability is a measure of trust. Can the statement and verification be trusted? It is assumed then, that a statement appearing in Wikipedia is trustworthy, i.e., it says what was said; and who said it is trustworthy.

Science is not authoritative. Science is a verb, a process, a methodology. Science is doing science. Objectivity in science means repeatability. Science is not peer reviewed journals. Journals are supposed to publish all sides, but as Thomas Kuhn points out in his "Structure of Scientific Revolutions", mainstream science is a matter of opinion of those scientists who review the submitted papers. What happens is that an obsolete viewpoint is sustained not by science, but scientists who have a vested interest in maintaining that view. According to Kuhn. The authority of science is not the authority of scientists.

The basis of science is testability. Logical positivism held that if the conjecture was not testable, then it was meaningless. This has evolved to become testable at least in principle. It is the test that the scientist uses to verify his hypothesis. Keep in mind that before verification, the conjecture is a hypothesis, and not a fact waiting to be proved.

So it is not the authority of the scientist that matters, although that authority can help us determine trustability, science is what the scientist does. Anyone can do what a scientist does, given the necessary infrastructure. Anyone can compare a feature of a plant with a ruler and use that ruler to determine a value and then compare that value with another.

So what science really means is that anyone, given the tools, can do it. This is what objective evidence is. Evidence that anyone, given the right tools, can replicate (verify).

Darkfred dismissal of a theoretical and experimental physicist, once employed at Los Alamos, now the senior scientist at a medical imaging company, is not reasonable or logically justified. Anyone can pick up Haselhoff's book/report see that it is extremely professionally done, both in typography and content. Anyone can see what he does and given the right tools would be able to duplicate the testing.

There are some circles where the bending occurs at different heights. Using a computer program to measure the heights, Haselhoff was able to find a relationship between the heights and the distance from the center. This relationship matched the relationship theoretically achieved by a point energy source above the center of the circle.

There is another instance of this feature which can serve as a duplicate. A circle was cut into a dried lake bed in Oregon made of intertwined triangles, the lines of which we four inches deep and ten inches wide with beveled edges. The total length of the lines measured thirteen (13) miles. A survey of the lines showed that the centers of the lines were bowed outward eight inches, exactly matching the energy distribution of a point source above the center.

Both of these "features are objective evidence. Anyone can duplicate the test and verify it. At least in principle.

However the authorative Darkfred considers all this "the mad ravings of a lone pov crusader." Well, I don't think like he does...

Tommy Mandel

And apparently not like a few others as well....Tommy Mandel

Whatever. Please read the WP:NPOV faq which contains a section on how to present pseudoscience. Jefffire 06:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? The testimony of hoaxers as to the source of the crop circles is not pseudoscience? Pseudoscience is conjecture without a means of testing it. Read the article, tell me if it is NPOV? It doesn't even mention science let alone include what science says. That omission of the facts is pseudoscience at its best. The best they can do is ignore the real. Tommy Mandel

My edit summary did not refer to any of these scientists. Tommy it refered to you. It was not the nicest way of putting it, but believe it or not I do not enjoy these conversations. Forgive me for getting snarky on occasion. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 18:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edit summary was a personal attack of the first degree, but only one of the many others you have done. You say I am a-lone, well Hawkins does not, as you profess, support the hoaxer theory. You are lieing if you continue to say that he does - here or in the article.

Furthermore it is POV Pushing to change my source/article around to make a POV, and it is illlegal to copy copyrighted text without attribution. You are placing copyrighted text into Wikipedia by your own admission and placing it there as if it were your edit. Changing the quotes to include your POV is not only dishonest, lieing, unacceptable journalism, unethical and a cheap shot.

Tommy anyone is allowed to edit anyone else edits. In your case it was well deserved as you had misquoted the article egregiously. You cannot turn this around on me, because we have a link to the scanned text of the article, and from this it is obvious that you were manipulating quotes for your own personal POV. Which brings us back to the original point, what would you call someone who has repeatedly added POV comments, changed quotes and generally disrupted an article. Do you want to bring this to an RFAr? You have been reverted hundreds of times by dozens of users! Give up. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 01:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't just edit my edits, you changed the article, changed the quotes, misrepresented the quotes to present your POV that all circles are hoaxed. You deleted the evidence that hoaxing doesn't explain everything. I have been trying to get help for some time now, but seems no one thinks I need it...

Please don't give me all the credit, I couldn't have done it alone. Many other hard working editors have also deleted junk you posted. And if you are reading this now, thanks. :) --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 02:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If this dispute were between you and me, I would be ashamed of myself because you have a right to believe what you want to believe as I have a right to believe what I want to believe. But when you force your own beliefs on the children of the world then it becomes a different story. It is frightening that there are others who think like you do, but then you are only saying so. You see, what we know determines the constraints the Universe places on us. If we know a little, then to us the Universe is little. If we know a lot, the the Universe is a lot. Your viewpoint is materialistic and dualistic. The dualism is your separation of the reality into your parts, and the materialistic is assuming that the Universe is nothing more than a lot of stuff. And for you that is the way it is. Your reality is no more than that. I would advise your friends however, that there is a lot more to learn than what Darkfred says he knows, and there is a lot more to the Universe than what Darkfred wants you to believe. Believe Darkfred and you will become like him.

Tommy Mandel

In Hawkins own words

Taken from an interview of Gerald Hawkins his opinions in his own words.

ML: What about the more recent formations?

H: Now we enter the other types of patterns — the pictograms, the insectograms. Exit Gerald S. Hawkins. I don’t know what to do about those.

"ML: Your investigations leave off at the geometric patterns.

"GH: The investigations are continuing, but I haven’t gotten anywhere. I see no recognizable mathematical features. I’m approaching it entirely mathematically, because there is the strength of numbers. There’s the unchallengeability of a geometric proof of a theorem, for example. The other patterns involve other types of investigation, such as artistry and images. But everything I’ve told you here shows that we’ve got a developing phenomenon, starting from the very simple arrangement of diatonic ratios, to a very intricate way of showing diatonic ratios in the geometries, and now to something which I think hardly anybody would claim to understand — the pictograms, insectograms, and so forth.

"ML: So the major focus of your work right now is looking into these?

"GH: Yes. It’s totally absorbing. It’s not a joke. It’s not a laugh. It’s not something that can be just brushed aside.

"ML: Is there anybody else who is investigating it seriously in terms of your scientist colleagues?

"GH: No. It boils down to two factors. You wouldn’t get a grant to study this sort of thing. And, two, it might endanger your tenure. It is as serious as that. There are whole areas in the scientific community that are not informed about the crop circle phenomenon, and have come to the conclusion that it is ridiculous, a hoax, a joke, and a waste of time.

"It’s a difficult topic because it tends to raise a knee-jerk solution in people’s minds. Then they are stuck. Their minds are closed. One can’t do much about it. But if they can keep an open mind, I think they’ll find they’ve got a very interesting phenomenon.

That basically is the scientific viewpoint of those who have done a scientific analysis. If dozens of editors have reverted this, rather than improve it, then it is very telling about their cognitive grasp of what is real and what is illusion. You paint a big picture but have not presented ANY evidence, then, you turn around and you delete/ignore all the evidence that is being presented.

From the December 1992 issue of Share International http://www.share-international.org/ARCHIVES/crop_circles/cc_ml-music-spheres.htm

from info search

CONCLUSIONS: Though the plasma event theory requires a novel cause, its existence is implied by physical evidence. Evidence gathered and analyzed through scientific means (especially when published in peer reviewed journals) should always take precedence over assumptions. The attraction of the mechanical hoaxing theory is that it fitsthat since hoaxers CAN make formations, hoaxers must make ALL formations. But it does not take the bulk of the evidence into consideration

Science of Crop CIrcles

A study of the scientific evidence

Scientific Investigators

As a good introduction to the phenomenon from the scientific perspective, Dr. Heselhoff writes: Page 128,

"The Facts:"

"In the last twenty years. there has been much speculation about different aspects of crop circles. But it takes more than just a little reading to understand where the facts end and where the fiction begins. Personal involvement and investigation, field work, discussion with many people, crucial questions, and much thinking are needed to reveal the true character of the crop circle phenomenon. Unfortunately, much of the public infrmation is not very accurate or even is completely wrong, as a result of ignorance, lack of accuracy or objectivity. or simply evil intent. Although many alleged crop circle properties cannot bear the scrutiny of an objective analysis. some relativly simple observations seem to defy any trivial explanation. Biophysical anomalies, in terms of node leghtening and germination anomalies, are probably number one on this list. The lack of any indication of human presense or mechanical flattening, observed many times in even the most fragile and delicate species of crop, is perhaps somewhat less objective but still good for a second place. The awesome complexity and particularily the hidden geometry in many pictograms at least indicate that this cannot be the result of a simple joke. Even fantastic and extraordinaty observations, in the form of a radient balls of light hovering above a field and creating a crop circle, can fulfill the requirements that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." This extraordinary evidence was delivered in Chapter Three. The node-length measurements unambiguously showed a perfect symmetry in three different cross sections through the circular imprint, in perfect correlation with the radiation pattern of an electromagnetic point source. This is indeed the required extraordinaty evidence, which at least ought to open our minds to the dozens of other, similar eyewitness accounts, and of course the video material of the flying balls of light. Moreover, since identical findings were accepted for publication in the scientific literature, it is quite legitimate to say that the involvement of balls of light in crop circles formations has by now become a scientifically accepted fact. (3) And there is much more extraordinary evidence, in the form of burn marks on the bird box, delicately draped, undamaged carrot leaves; a virgin circle in a frozen field of snow, dead flies, and much more. Anyone who takes the time to explore and verify all of these findings personall find that the facts are plain: Something very strange is going on."

At the conclusion of his report, Dr. Hasehoff presents his own conclusions:

Conclusion one: The suggestion that crop circles are all made by practical jokers with simple flattening tools is by no means sufficient to explain all documented observations.

Conclusion Two: The crop circle phenonmenon is often erroneously ridiculted and much undersestimated in its complexity.

Conclusion Three: The true nature of the crop circle phenonmenon is unknown to the general public.

Conclusion Four: "Those who are unqualified to judge should refrain from comment." (D.G. Terence Meaden)

Conclusion Six: Something very strange is going on.

(A) Principle investigator/sources/reference

(Aa)

Colin Andrews

Amamiya Kiyoshi

Dr. Jean-Noel Auburn

Robert Boerman

Andrews Colins

Pat Delgado

Dr. Eltjo Haselhoff

Gerakd Hawkins

Dr. Simeon Hein

Michael Hesemann

Ron Jones

Wiliam Levengood

Maki Masao

Terence Meaden

Lucy Pringle Archie Roy

Peter Sorensen

Freddy Silve

Nancy Talbott

Busty Taylor

Andy Thomas

Paul Vigay

George Wingfield

James Withers

(1)Internet reference/source

(1a)Website of organization using scientific methods/analysis:

http://www.bltresearch.com/index.html

Quoting directly from the website, this is their introduction:

BLT RESEARCH TEAM INC.

Their reports include ---

Reported Observations

Size - Early crop circles were of modest size, 15 to 60 feet in diameter. Recent circles can stretch as much as 900 feet

Energy lines - Usually found by dowsing, confirmed by electronic sensors, the circle's geometry is usually found to line up with these natural lines.

Eye/ear Witnesses - Most circles being created are not witnessed. There are instances that the circle was observed during it's formation by an eyewitness

Cellular Changes - Laboratory analysis shows several kinds of changes in the cellular structure.

Carbon Blackening - Interestingly, when the node of a stalk bursts, a black ring is often found. Originally thought to be due to charring, it was shown to be a opprotunistic fungus.

Perimeter Stalks - The division of inside to outside is very sharp. (In some circles, bent stalks are found interspersed with standing stalks.)

Nitrogen / Nitrate Ratios - The level of nitrates is higher in a circle compared to outside the circle.

Clay crystalization - THe crystaline structure of clay has increased

Time Dilation - Reports of unusual time changes have been made

Electro/mechanical Failures - Almost all electronic equipment brought into a circle will fail due to depleted batteries. Sometimes tractors will stop when driven into a circle

Radiation Anomalies - The presence of radiation with a short half life has been found.

Photographic Anomalies - Balls of light appear in photographs. Some of these have been attributed to reflections from the flash hitting dust particles.

Molten metal imprint - In a shipment of grain staks sent to a laboratory, pieces of metal fell from the stalks during the unpacking . The metal was shaped according to the structure of the plant.

Trilling Noise - A high frequency trilling sound is often heard

Dead Porcupines And Decapitated Dogs - A flattened dad porcupines was found in one circle.

Scared Horses & Howling Dogs - Dogs seem to get excited around circles.

Menstrual Disruption -

Endocrine Effects - THe levels of melatonin, a natural hormone found in the body increase. Melatonin production is inhibited by light ans should only increase during darkness.

Miracle Cures =

Insects Stuck To Crop - In one circles hundreds of insects were found with their wings fuzed to the stalks.

Underground Water - The UK has natural aquifiers

White Substance -

Magnetic substance -

Perpetrators - Non/super-human? This is the subject of extensive speculation. No scientific evidence has been found which would point one way or the other.

http://www.cropcirclenews.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=148

They write

Crop Circles : A Field Report of the Howell, Michigan Crop Circle Formation

On July 29-31, 2003, a private scientific research team documented physical evidence revealing that the Howell Township, Livingston County, Michigan crop circle formation was not made by hoaxers.

Sources

(1a)Website of organization using scientific methods/analysis: BLT RESEARCH TEAM INC. http://www.bltresearch.com/index.html

(2d) The Hypnotic Power of Crop Circles (2004) Bert Janssen. Frontier Publishing, Netherlands ISBN 1-93182-34-7

Sounds a load of BS, without anything even approaching an WP:RS. Jefffire 06:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have linked WP:RS here before for this editor, but he does not believe in it. I believe he said we must show all opinions regardless of their lunacy, or something to that effect. Well WP is not a democracy and NPOV does not mean giving equal voice to every disputed theory. An encyclopedia is a list of things which are "known" not a list of exciting and controversial possibilities. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 18:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is then that the only knowledge we find in the article is what you know?

Tommy Mandel

Darkfred, you talk phiosophically, not scientifically. You always, with two exception, use general terminology. General terminology is of the Universal class and is in contrast to the specific. Philosophers think in general terms, but scientists have to think in specific terms so that they say something that can be checked for accuracy. Nothing you say can be checked for accuracy because you do not say anything specifically. Hoaxer theory is as disputed as non-hoaxer. But the hoaxer theory has its basis the testimony of the hoaxers who can only say that they hoaxws crop circles. None of them have said they hoaxed all crop circles, indeed some circles have not been claimed by anyone - the 2002 windmill hill for example. You utter these generalizations without any specific justification hoping that the reader will believe you. Some do. But you have no evidence. So you are forced to deny any other evidence. Bent stalks are not as you put it "exciting and controversial possibilities" they are a scientific fact collaborated by a physicists measurements. Youy cannot provide any evidence except to demean those who have the evidence. Then you project all this onto me as if I were the raving mad lone POV crusader. Never once did I revert YOUR editing, never once did you or your friends not revert my "additions" "hundreds of times" he say it yourself. By the time we are done I will have a complete article saved up.Tommy Mandel

Thank you, most of my friends have called me too analytical to be a philospher, now I can say they are wrong. I speak in general terms because I do not have to prove anything, I am not trying to add any unknowns to the article, you are. You speak of scientific exactness but you cannot come up with any evidence which qualifies as scientific, and your claims change day by day. It is difficult to be specific in an argument when your opponent cannot seem to define what he intends to prove. Or for that matter go about proving it. We seem to be stuck in a rut, none of the other editors will accept your single piece of evidence, and you seem unable to find another. Do you want a more specific argument? Provide something to argue against, you are just reposting random stuff now. Which has been dealt with above. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 02:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. My argument (A) is that E. Haselhoff Phd, is a verifiable and reliable source Tommy Mandel

Those other editors are probably your brothers and sisters who want to play your game with you. I don't see them justifying anything they do, they just revert. That isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to work. I have seen your kind of analysis, "ha ha, their melatonin increases after spending all day in the sun" and "since some circles were made by man All of them have to have been made by man." Period. I am not arguing anything, I am only trying to include the satements of respected crop circle researchers and scientissts which you unjustifiably revert. It is not up to you or your friends to say what is real or not, you have no say at all actually. You, and I, can only report what has been said by those involved with the field work. I have no problem with your evidence, the testimony of the hoaxers, you can keep that in forever as far as I am concerned, you have no right to delete what the researchers say. You only do that because it would hurt your POV. That is by definition POV pushing.Tommy Mandel

Vandalism

Please do not remove references then add the fact template. This has crossed over from being simply POV to actual vandalism. This was a direct quote from the given reference, which cited an exact location in the text. This is so blatant that it escapes any other definition. I do not believe tommysun is a vandal, however he has blanked sections he does not agree with, and fabricated quotes in addition to this. Because of the difficulty of fact checking his additions and depoving them, which I have been attempting to do. I am finding it difficult to take any of his additions seriously. I do not know if I have enough support to simply revert what he rights, perhaps it should got to RFAr. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 15:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I had someone to look at this, and he said it is a case of petty vandalism. I am looking into the tags I can place on your user page include Tommy Mandel 01:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Warnings to user Darkfred

A serious message - PLEASE READ

Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as harassment, and users who do that are often immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Such posting can cause offence or embarrassment to the victim of the posting, not least because it means that their name, and any personal criticism or allegations made against them can then appear on web searches. If you have posted such information, please remove it immediately. Please then follow the link to this page and inform people there that the information was posted (but crucially, do not repost it on that page). An admin or developer can then remove the information from the archives of Wikipedia.

If you do not ensure that personal information you posted is removed from this site you may be blocked from editing this site. REMEMBER: Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, including you.

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

Copyright violation in [[:{{{1}}}]]

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia articles, as you did to [[:{{{1}}}]] without permission from the copyright holder. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. Copyright violations are unacceptable and persistent violators will be blocked. Your original contributions are welcome.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to [[:{{{Hawkins argues that this suggests the Hoaxer or Hoaxers "... }}}]], you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

You are very clever, farkfred, at turning things around to your POV, almost professional...It was my edit to start with, you changed it to your edit, copied in copyrighted material (and you admitted that 90% of the article came from your source) without attribution and changed the quotes to make Hawkins say what he did not say. Now you are claiming that I did all this to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by tommysun (talk • contribs)

I found the source for your material, and cited it correctly. I changed the quotes to accuratly reflect the article. This is not vandalism, this is good editing. Your additions should have accurately quoted your source to begin with. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 15:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be clear to anyone who takes the time to actually study the situation what darkfred is doing. It is also to be expected that some editors believe him. That they believe is not the issue, they have as much right to believe what they want to, as I do, but to move this belief to our children is misinformation at its worst. But this is how it goes nowadays, this kind of misinformation permeates our culture across the board. It happens because the people who know otherwise do not stand up and take a stand for the good. And when they don't do anything, the bad wins by default. But only for the moment, because in the end reality takes over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by tommysun (talk • contribs)

You are right that misinformation is a terrible thing, and unfortunately because of sources like yours and an uncritical public. Popular culture gives equal credence to urban legends and real scientists. In an encyclopedia however we cannot cater to the loudest or most fantastic, and we have an obligation to provide only verifiable information. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 15:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You are the perfect example of a troll, act one - become the victum. Act two deny the counterevidence. Act three And the winner is for lack of evidence. You assume A is true. Therefore evidence against A can not be true. Because there is no evidence, A must be true. At least I have sources, you have done your magic with no evidence at all, and instead have changed the evidence so that it is your evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by tommysun (talk • contribs)

Step 1. Add POV cruft to wikipedia, Step 2. Ignore warnings and policies links, Step 3. Get reverted. Step 4. Accuse DarkFred of playing the victim. Yes it all makes makes sense now, this is the only obvious course of action. Let me suggest anoter version of how this could have played out. 4. Rather than insulting the other editors and stubornly posting the same stuff over 60 times. You could have asked for help rewriting it, been nice and worked with the other editors.

You have managed to anger even the guy who was originally on your side phippi46. And insulting me is not going to get your stuff in the article. It just makes other editors less likely to help you. I don't know what you think you are accomplishing here? Your presence on wikipedia is in a relatively dire situation, you need to shape up. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 08:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You are the reason serious scientific researchers do not use Wikipedia as a source. You are a perfect example, obvious to anyone who takes the time to read your edits, of trolling. What is scary, and perhaps suggests that I am at the wrong place, is that no one calls you on it. Suggesting to me that their intelligence is identical to yours. And if that is the case throughout Wikipedia, then there is a cancer present

I am getting my evidence together to present to the Arbitration Committee, you will be asked to do the same.

Tommy Mandel 01:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC) ge Dark fred

If you intend to request the arbitration committee to get involved please do! I will admit that I have acted in an uncivil manner at certain points during this argument, but this is the worst that can be said. You however, with no history of real contribution to the encyclopedia, will probably not fair well. I am not trying to convincve you not to do it, it would be a load off of my shoulders. I could return to my regular vandal and hoaxer searching activities. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 02:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If you would rather an interim solution would be for both of us to agree to not edit paranormal related articles for a cooling off period. This would give us both a chance to step back, so-as to not take is so personally. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 02:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, why would you be editing paranormal articles darkfred? Do you go around to paranormal articles and edit your view in there too? But you don't know anything about the paranormal, how could even think you can judge what is real and what is not? You stated many times that it is "nutty". Of course what's happening doesn't matter to you... Are you the one who put that paranormal tag on this article? I wonder.

Please, Tommy, I can't handle seeing this any more: the archeological site is 'Stonehenge', not 'Stonehedge'. Just how extensively have you read Gerald Hawkins' writings? --BillC 09:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Is "that" what worries you??? Tommy Mandel 14:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You have accused Darkfred and others of poor scholarship, specifically that he has demonstrated that "he is not knowledgable about the research"^[3]. You have made many attempts to cite Hawkins here. If you have not read his work well enough to notice that you have repeatedly made such a glaring spelling error, you are not in a strong position to criticise the depth of others' knowledge on the subject. --BillC 16:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I can understand your hesitency, and I haven't read Hawkins prior to now, and it is what Hawkins said that matters here. Darkfred has manipulated the text and quotes to indicate that Hawkins supported the hoazer theory. , Hawkins himself said "I am not supporting the hoaxer theory I am investigating it."

This is not scholarship on the part of Darkfred, who obviously is POV pushing. And if you all think otherwise, read the article and tell me if there is any scientific evidence being presented. Since when is the scientific view a POV? Why isn't "crop circles are made by hoaxers a point of view? How come the POV of hoaxers does not need evidence and any other evidence is not admissible? THe logic is something like this

"A" is held to be true;

Evidence to the contrary thus cannot be true;

therefore there can be no evidence to the contrary

Therefore "A" must be true.

You call that scholarship?

Tommy Mandel 00:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

requested aribitration

I am smart enough to know that it doesn't matter what I edit, you and your friends will delete it. Since you are deleting scientific evidence you are violating Wikipolicy. ReqArb has been filed against Darkfred and I have added Jefffire for vandalism (removal of evidence). Tommy Mandel 01:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I fixed up your template at arbcom so it works and looks correct, please follow the directions in the future. Also you have violated WP:3RR today, please do not continue, I do not want to report you, but I have already warned you once. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 15:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Reverting material that was vandalized does not violate 3R, even if you say otherwise. There is an obvious dispute, witness the arbcom request, placing a dispute tag is a statement of that fact, You, as a party to the dispute, are not allowed to revert it.

It is interesting how you work, darkfred, first you remove all evidence that is in opposition to your POV, then you claim there is no dispute "see, there's nothing in the article that disputes"?

I am going to call you on this one Darkfred, I have replaced the missing fact tag that you vandalized out. Tommy Mandel 15:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that 3rr does not apply to you because you are "right"? this is exactly the situation the rule is intended for. You are not going to make you position in the RFAr easier by claiming you are above the rules. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 15:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Not because I am right, but because Wikipedia is reliable. It is a fact that there is a dispute taking place. Your reverts, for example, clearly show that you are disputing my edits. Your last revert has now become evidence in the arbitration case, see top of request. Tommy Mandel

TommySun's Evidence page

I make the claim that Darkfred is POV pushing, copying copyrighted text into article without attibution, modification of copyrighted material to support his POV, Modification of quoted material to support his POV, removal of evidence that does not support his POV, deletion of archives, misrepresentation of evidence, defamation of character of known scientists, repeated and severe personal attacks, trolling, disruption of the editing process and lieing. He does all this as if it is proper. To disagree with him is trolling. Darkfred demonstrates that he is not knowledgable about the research and is not qualified to determine what evidence is valid evidence. He is a threat IMO to the integrity and reliability of Wikipedia.

For POV pushing I submit [4]

Ohh I will admit I am biased, I have never believed in them, when I was in college we went out and made crop circles ourselves. The geometry of the thing fascinates me, as does the fact that many of the groups insist on leaving extras around to confuse paranormal investigators (we never did this ourselves). There was a time when I was a believer (in UFOs not necessarily crop circles), I really do want to believe, but this issue has pretty much been wrapped up in the press and in books even before the internet came along. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 17:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

For personal attacks are the following:[5] (rv the mad ravings of a lone pov crusader. A note: non peer-reviewed fringe science shouldn't be presented as authorative.) (rv the mad ravings of a lone pov crusader. A note: non peer-reviewed fringe science shouldn't be presented as authorative.)

For changing quotes and misinformation [6]

"Hawkins argues that this suggests the Hoaxer or Hoaxers "... had to know a tremendous lot of old-fashioned geometry".

This is how the original articlew reads

This past summer, however, "the crop-circle makers . . . showed knowledge of this fifth theorem," Hawkins reports. Among the dozens of circles surreptitiously laid down in the wheat fields of England, at least one pattern fit Hawkins' theorem.

"The persons responsible for this old-fashioned type of mathematical ingenuity remain at large and unknown. Their handiwork flaunts an uncommon facility with Euclidean geometry and signals an astonishing ability to enter fields undetected, to bend living plants without cracking stalks, and to trace out complex, precise patterns, presumably using little more than pegs and ropes, all under cover of darkness.[7]

That is not a direct quote, it is a paraphrase by another author. What I placed in the article was the original direct quote. see [8] for the ORIGINAL scanned article. Are you really having trouble understanding this? I remember earlier when you were up in arms over a paraphrase calling it "illegal copyright infringement". Hippocritical huh? :) --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 19:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Fred, it is the author in the 92 article that is placing the word hoaxer into the article. The 1996 article is what we would call neutral. It uses words like people, perpetuators, creators, whereas your usag of "hoaxer" is clearly POV. Clearly a POV. It is obvious to me, isn't it obvious to you?Tommy Mandel 14:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

For misrepresentation of the scientific position and demeaning comments about scientists

This quote of yours, (is it your qoute or did you lift it from somewhere?) This is an absolutely false statement, regardless of where it is placed. You have not read the literature so you cannot say what can be created by humans and what cannot. Therefore, you are telling us a lie at worst and giving us misinformation at best. Anomalies have not been explained using classical physics. If this is copy from a skeptic site, then it should be identified as such.

As far as real scientists are concerned there is not much question left. All of the techniques used in classic circles have now been demonstrated as human creatable and there remains no real mysteries or unexplainable events. Its difficult to disprove something that is actively being hoaxed by inventive people. Keep in mind that many of the "eye-witnesses" are known hoaxers themselves. This and the lack of any "hard" unhoaxable evidence has caused actual scientific investigation to basically cease. However the nuts are still very active in proclaiming their position, be it psycho energy or aliens. (and you will find a few who call themselves scientists who claim supernatural causes, tommysun likes to mention one in particular, an MD not a PhD). Check out http://skepdic.com/cropcirc.html for some links to serious articles. --Darkfred [[User_talk:Darkfred|^{Talk to me</strong}

^{Wow, I couldn't have put it better myself, thanks for reminding me :). It looks like a good synopsis to me. We have sources on each of my statements. You even quoted Gerald Hawkins earlier saying as much. Perhaps you could point out a specific problem you have rather than just restating MY argument. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 19:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)}

Ah, so you did copy it and present it as your own. I guess you forgot that part, yeah my intuition told me it was too well written to be consistent with what you write. Remind me to present this as evidence of copyright infringement —Preceding unsigned comment added by tommysun (talk • contribs)

I will interpret that as a compliment of my writing, thank you. However, since I have read alot on the subject it is synthesized in part from what I have read. I also wrote the short essay on scientific sources which I posted to your talk page, although i received some help from others on wikipedia fact checking and correcting it. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 01:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This is my evidence page Darkfred, where is yours? Tommy Mandel

This is not your evidence page, it is the talk page of the article. Try putting it in someplace in your userspace like User:Tommysun/Evidence this is where it belongs. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 20:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Latest reversion

Much has been made of reversions made without comment. So I'm saying why I reverted this last.

This was the text I removed, with my comments inserted in small italics:

Scientific analysis
The section, coming as it did between the 'History' and 'Creators' sections, was ill-placed, and gives the reader no lead-in as to why it is there.
An analysis of clay found within a circle was conducted by the BLT research team. Their report can be found on the BLT website [9]
BLT have not been defined, nor why the reader should consider them an authority. The title of the report is

CLAY-MINERAL CRYSTALLIZATION CASE STUDY: 1999 EDMONTON, ALBERTA, CANADA CROP FORMATION^{http://www.bltresearch.com/xrd.html}
All of the above text following the section heading could be contained within a single properly formatted and written sentence.

A copyright violation, and direct paste of an entire paragraph without any attempt at commentary. It moreover contains material (such as BLT's intent to secure future funding) not relevant to the topic under discussion. No attempt has been made to assert that BLT is an authority on the matter, or that their website constitutes a reliable source. The terms KI and XRD have not been defined, nor why they are important. The changes in the soil have not been described, nor has the crop node-length.

If you ask why your edits are constantly being reverted, these are some of the reasons why. --BillC 06:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore the referenced data (crop node length testing) is levengood's original research. And as far as tommy has provided sources, unmentioned in any secondary or peer reviewed journals. Clear violation of both WP:RS and WP:OR. I have had an extensive conversation with tommy about this on his user talk. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 06:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, and just after I reached a conclusion in my investigation. Perhaps we can work together and come up with a more rigorous reference. First the lead in and purpose has been edited in and deleted out by you previously. If you need the lead in you might have rememberd what it was before you deleted it. I have inserted several parts of the scientific perspective, you and your friends deleted them out, without any of the prerequsite attempts to correct I might add.

And I inserted a good summary of BLT's purpose and what they are doing. In the field we are writing about, BLT is considered one of the top research organizations. They were mentioned by Dr. Haselhoff in his own book, stating that he was in agreement with their work. His work duplicated their work but his was computerized.

They are (among) the top research organization(s) of the crop circle phenomenon. They use trained professionals and practicing scientists to conduct their investigations. They have established a rigorous protocol and strive to work with objective evidence. This report is an example.

We have differences about what copyrighted material can be used. First of all, in our country, it is not a matter as simple as "Thou shalt not copy any corpyrighted material." Fair use statutes grant that in certain situations, education for example, a minimal copying can be legally done. In ALL cases proper attribution must be given. I don't know what the fair use policy is at Wikipedia, probably should be best ignored, but then it is invoked almost all the time. I don't like to paraphrase key statements, using different words makes it sound different. You know that.

working insert

First you commented -- Scientific analysis
The section, coming as it did between the 'History' and 'Creators' sections, was ill-placed, and gives the reader no lead-in as to why it is there.

We will find the best place later.

An analysis of clay found within a circle was conducted by the BLT research team. Their report can be found on the BLT website br> BLT have not been defined, nor why the reader should consider them an authority.

How about this?

The BLT Research Team was established to rigorously investigate the crop circle phenomenon using the scientific method. Their work has been posted on their website [10] on which they state as their objective - "...the discovery, scientific documentation and evaluation of physical changes induced in plants, soils and other materials at crop circle sites by the energy (or energy system) responsible for creating them and to determine, if possible, from these data the specific nature and source of these energies" A copy of a letter from R. Reynold's a recognized authority on clay mineralization is at [11]in which he corraborates the practices followed by BLT Research and the data that was provided.

A defining feature of the crop circle phenomenon is the unexplainable observations that have been reported in some crop circles. Something happened that normally should not have happened, an anomaly. One of the anomalous features of some crop circles are changes found in the soil taken from within the formation as compared to outside. What science does is search for and find objective evidence which can be shared. The results of an investigation was published by the BLT Research Team on their website as the report titled CLAY-MINERAL CRYSTALLIZATION CASE STUDY: 1999 EDMONTON, ALBERTA, CANADA CROP FORMATION.

The report indicates an anomaly and this is confirmed by Reynolds letter,in which he concludes "In short, I believe that our present knowledge provides no explanation for the observed decrease in peak breadth with respect to proximity to the center of the crop circle."

It is this conclusion that many other scientists who have investigated in depth the crop circle phenomenon have reached. An analysis of the objective evidence indicates anomaly, what can be shown to happen, should not have happened. Eltjo Haselhoff, an experimental and theoretical physicist specializing in optical imaging, spent ten years investigating the phenomenon and reports the results of that investigation in his book The Deepening Complexity of Crop Circles He concludes his book with his sixth conclusion where he succinctly writes, "Somethng strange is going on."

Some of the crop circles exhibit precise geometry. A catalog of these circles with careful measurments by Colin Andrews, one of the earliest researchers, in Colin's book Crop Circles; Signs of Contact"[] was examined The renown astronomer of Stonehenge fame, examined Andrews book, and concluded he had all a scientist needed to study the Phenomenon. Working with Colin's measurements, Hawkins was able to find circles having diotonic ratios, ratios that music has. In addition Hawkins found circles expressing unique theorems, four of them. From these four he derived a fifth more general theorem. A Euclidean theorem which could not be found in Euclids books, or any others he consulted. In an interview of Gerald Hawkins by Monte Leach, available at [] Monte asks Hawkins if he is investigating recent circles.

{insert Hawkins interview here}

Exactly what is going on is a question everyone asks but it has not been answered with conclusive and definitive objective evidence. And so speculations as to the cause of the crop circles proliferate and range from they are all a hoax to the aliens did it.

So how is that so far?

Tommy Mandel

First, The statement above needs to tell why the information is important. We know the information exists. If the article was on BLT Research then this might be sufficient, in the context of crop circles it should add some new information beyond describing BLT and advertising their expertise. Second, the statements regarding BLT themselves need to be sourced, the BLT website says that they are a leading research organization. But anyone can say that. A statement such as "BLT research is often cited by X, Y and Z" where X Y and Z are reputable sources would solve this problem. Third, the grammar is bad, but once you get over the first problems other editors will be more willing to help you, rather than revert. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 22:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, anomaly. Should we define anomaly? Tommy Mandel

Well yes an anomaly without an original state is meaningless, why is it an anomaly. An anomaly could mean anything without context. As far as the reader knows he could have discovered a refridgerator in the field, or the bones of jimmy hoffa in the soil. But even with this information it still needs to say why this information is important enough to be included in the article. This is why secondary sources are so much easier to work with, they should have already determined this and stated it with some authority. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 23:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Anomaly is a refrigerator in the bedroom... I was thinking in the scientific context where anomaly has a apriori meaning. I like the word "inexplicable" and basically what that is talking about is something that can't be explained ordinarily. I agree that this is the central point to be made. (And probably the point that drives many people to reject all the claims.)

It's not that man can make the circles, there are things happening that man did not/can not do - like change the crystalline structure of clay. This inexplicable character of the crop circle phenomenon is why Haselhoff stated as one of his conclusions "Something strange is going on." . There is weird stuff going on and it is not a case of weird people —Preceding unsigned comment added by tommysun (talk • contribs)

"Something weird is going on" is not a good enough reason to include it in an encyclopedia. Independant of other data it and does not even begin to make the case that people could not do it. And it says something of your source's POV that they instantly jump to this conclusion. Personally I would have returned and checked for ash under the top-soil (previous burning location) as well as soil composition versus the surrounding fields, a major posibbility is simply that this location is different. The stem comparisons on the other hand appear to be apples->oranges completely unrelated samples. This is why we would like to see information from more than one primary source at least. It is not our job to jump to conclusions over this data. Nor is it our job to lend credibility to levengood without any further field research. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 15:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I just put down Colin Andrew's book after reading him say that in all the circles he visited, he never found evidence of burning, then he goes on to say that Levengood has found such evidence inside the plant. They used to see black rings around the burst nodes and at first thought this was charring. But scientific analysis shows it to be an opprotunistic fungus. You need to be more specific. You write "The stem comparisons on the other hand appear to be apples->oranges completely unrelated samples" Can you explain what you mean? Are you suggesting that in all these years, with all the bent plants they found, they never bothered to keep them separated? The BLT site has pictures of how they separated them, satalogued them, dried them and shipped them. Incidently, one of those shipments of plants to America arrived with flakes of metal that had fallen off the plants in transit. The flakes of metal were shaped precisely like the structure of the plant, as if it were molded to it. Tommy Mandel

Hold on, here is info on blt http://www.bltresearch.com/index.html

Quoting directly from the website, this is their introduction:

BLT RESEARCH TEAM INC.

OK I merged blt's purpose, and my parphrasing of the central problem/mystery into the working paragraph above after how about this?

BLTs statements still need supporting. Anyone can claim to do this online. Since BLT/Nancy Talbott are often paid speakers at UFO conventions perhaps you could find a newspaper article or report on the convention. At least this puts their claims in context. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 15:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, BLT's work has been replicated by another scientist, a physicist, and who states in his final report that he is in agreement with the BLT's findings. Let me look into this, I'll come up with Levengood's fifty published papers and published accounts of BLT.

Are we going to apply the same standards to your sources when we get to them?

Tommy Mandel 15:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have not added anything recently that I recall so I have no idea what you are talking about? The only additions I have made is looking up sources for your unsourced text. And for the record ArbCom is going to go farther back in history than this, so your insinuation is probably futile. Although I do appreciate your newfound respect for other editors. I am sure they will see this as positive and take it into account. And I am quite interested to read this second paper. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 16:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You are amazing Fred, they should make a movie of your exploits. Please forgive me for dropping the ball on "sources", I have always fallen short on that. I have thousands of quotes and authors, but have no idea where I found them. I have created bibliographies for the Primer Group and for my own papers, so I know what to do. Sorry. I think you should reconsider your position that Wikipedia does not allow Primary sources, what Wikipedia notes say is that they need special training to understand properly, training that secondary sources have acquired. Wikipedia does not say primary sources cannot be used. They only "encourage" secondary sources. Personally, not to change the subject, I rely only on primary sources, secondary sources is someone talking about what someone else is talking about. I have found in my research that secondary sources will sometimes be slanted. Take the Black hole for example, if you go to the primary source, the physicist says that a black hole is a conjecture, the only mechanism they could think of that would explain an anomalous outpouring of energy from the center of some galaxies. Big bang says at first glance that matter should be flowing in, why would it flow out? A black hole has an accretion disk, and matter is pulled in toward the black hole into the accretion disk where outward radiation forces overcome the gravitational pull and spew the excess matter back out. A secondary source comes along and calls the black hole a theory. A third secondary source comes along and says that outpourings means a black hole. A fourth secondary source comes along and says that whenever a great outpouring of matter, this proves that a black hole exists there.

So secondary sources go from conjecture to hypothesis to theory to proven.

I have found secondary sources, where the thinking is already done for the reader, to be always POV. Furthermore, if I can get on the box for a second, ALL concepts are POV, so much so that it could argubably be said that everything is a POV. A metaphor. If all knowledge were regarded as a metaphor, a POV....I'm not making this up, it is well known in contextual domains. The physicists used to argue about it. You said it yourself, our Universe is our dreaming of it. Our consciousness pays attention to what we are looking at, "Don't mistake the pointing finger for the moon", "the word is not the thing," etc...

But this is Wikiland, and we do as the Romans do. What is being said here is that while a primary source is a valid source, if it were valid, secondary sources would have said so. Therefore it is best to depend on secondary sources.

Well, yes, assuming that one does not pick and choose to match a particular POV. Unfortunately that is what happens far too often. Someone promoting a POV would pick and choose delibrately. Caution must be taken with all sources, and the only way to come to the truth is to learn everything about it, enough to know when someone is promoting rather than explaining.

Anyway, I agree with you about sourcing but not about not using primary sources. Remember it is the objective evidence, that which is independant of the source, that matters in science at least. Anybody can have an opinion. But I also get the point about secondary sources which, at least in principle, are the best source because they have done a lot of the homework for us. Tommy Mandel

I did not write WP:RS. You insist that you can violate it, so I have gone along with you, I have only asked you for the bare minimum, corraborating sources. Objective observations may not by themselves be POV, that certainly doesn't prove them reliable, and the conclusions of the author are still definately his own POV. You are confusing the existing of information with proof of validity, repeatedly. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 22:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a secondary source --[10]

Let me quote part of it (ot for publication)

" "Anatomical Anomalies In Crop Formation Plants "

from the Hieronimus & Co. Newsletter Issue #12-13, 1997

"Plant samples from crop circles around the world are being scientifically tested by some of the best Earth biologists alive. Biophysicist, Dr. William C. Levengood, a semi-retired scientist with a seed consulting business in Michigan, took up the request in 1989 for formal sampling of the crops inside the anomalous circles and formations appearing most frequently in southern England, but also being reported in Japan, Australia, Canada, the United States and many other countries. He was first convinced to examine the samples by British researcher, Pat Delgado, one of the original field investigators in Great Britain. At first impelled by curiosity, Dr. Levengood later became stimulated by the anomalous results of that first test, and has been studying crop formation samples ever since.

Formerly with the Institute of Science and Technology at the University of Michigan, Dr. Levengood has been a consultant in the industry for many years and has published over 50 papers in the scientific literature. One of Dr. Levengood's associates joined 21st Century Radio(r) on August 11, 1996 to give us a scientific report on the lab discoveries concerning the physical changes occurring in the plants sampled from inside the crop formations. Nancy Talbott, the "T"in BLT Research Team of Cambridge, recalls being in England in 1991 when she heard about Dr. Levengood's research and as she explains, "at that time there was no hard science being done [on crop circles]. I was struck by the phenomenon itself and thought it deserved a little more attention than it seemed to be getting. So, I came back to the states and looked Dr. Levengood up and went out to see him, went to the lab and became informed a good deal more about what he had found and how interesting it was."

Tommy Mandel]

This is just another reference to the data, Is there more to this article please post a link. You said this was corroboration, but it looks like a reference and synopsis with no additional information. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 22:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me quote another passage from that same link, Tommy:

Anyone who knows anything about batteries, says Nancy, "will know exactly what I am talking about. This gentle percolation of the water creates this electrical charge. Silbury Hill in Southern England is nothing more than a great big battery. It is made of layers of chalk and dirt, chalk and dirt, chalk and dirt. The water seeps down through that thing all year long and sets up an electrical charge which is significantly different from the surrounding territory. And apparently, it may have been built deliberately for that reason."

Two points here:

I'm very familiar with Silbury Hill, having lived just a few miles further down the A4, and have visited it on many occasions, the last being just a few weeks ago.
I'm a professional electrical engineer specialising in high voltage equipment, and worked for three years as a scientist conducting research into equipment failure, such as insulation breakdown caused by partial discharge. A colleague sitting next to me was coincidently enagaged in designing one of the world's largest regenerative fuel cells -- in essence, a giant battery.

I can tell you that it is my professional opinion that Nancy Talbott is quite simply making this stuff up. It does nothing to stamp authority on anything else she says. --BillC 23:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, I could almost use the same words, except I worked for the Dept. of the Navy, and it was a while back. I am a troubleshooter professionally trained by the Navy. I have continued my education up to this very day. For example, perhaps you could tell me about Maxwell's twenty quaternions and his belief in the Aether which the twenty quaternions described? And how that might relate to the plasma like effects that are being discussed off and on?

I did a google search on W.C. Levengood papers. It came back wityh 614 hits. I thought you said he didn't publish any papers?

Again, science is a revolt against authority, Thales of Melitus founded science to counter the belief in authority by objectifying nature. He predicted an eclispe which then did occur. This is something everybody could see. If Nancy is doing what she says she is doing then everybody will be able to see it. It makes little difference who is holding the ruler. And BTW, it matters little if the ruler is correct, as long as the same ruler is always used.

Tommy Mandel 00:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Noone ever said that WC Levengood had not published, we said his publisher was NOT peer reviewed, or reliable. 614 google hits is hardly a good number, a random smashing of keys gets thousands. Second Nancy Talbott does matter, she is only full time employee of BLT research. All of the information you posted comes from the BLT research webpage. She created it. ergo if she is unreliable, nothing she posted is reliable. We have no other sources, even the publishing information on Levengood's paper comes from her website. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 01:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If what BillC says is true then we cannot believe, at face value ANYTHING that originates from Nancy Talbott. This leaves us only with levengood's paper, and only if we can find the text elsewhere. (I have only read it on the BLT website, I could not find it in the planterium's archives). --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 01:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I can trace it back to Reynolds. Reynolds is an authority on clay mineralology. He was announced the 2000 Roebling Medalistthe highest award the Mineralological Society of America.

2000 Medallists and Research Grant Recipients

"On behalf of MSA,(Mineralogical Society of America" it is my pleasure to announce and congratulate the 2000 Medallists and Grant Recipients.

Professor Robert C. Reynolds, Jr., Dartmouth College, is the 2000 Roebling Medallist;

Here is the webpage [11] And here is a letter of Reynold's letter about the work of BLT. He doesn't agree with your professional appraisal. [12] You asked what XRD was?

"X-ray powder diffraction (XRD) is one of the most powerful technique for qualitative and quantitative analysis of crystalline compounds. The technique provides information that cannot be obtained any other way." [13]

REVISION This was added to the working paragraph above. How can we word it so that it answers all your questions?

A copy of a letter from R. Reynold's a recognized authority on clay mineralization is at [14]in which he confirms the practices followed by BLT Research.

In it he verifies that the methods used by BLT were scientifically sound, and ends, after an analysis of the data given to him, with this -- Tommy Mandel 02:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"In short, I believe that our present knowledge provides no explanation for the observed decrease in peak breadth with respect to procimity to the center of the crop circle."

This is a classic case of an anomaly. Our present knowledge cannot explain it. And Fred, this is what most of the serious researchers believe, "we don't know what is causing it". Mechanically formations are ruled out. As Haselhoff says, "Something strange is going on." That much we know. Tommy Mandel

As I have said before, regardless of veracity "Something strange is going on" is not an encyclopedic statement. And somewhat POV, although I would not object to a phrase such as "Crop circle investigator and scientist WC Levengood believes something strange is going on." Since at least it is sourced POV which does not make any appeals to higher scientific authority. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 02:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"Something strange is going on" is Haselhoff's sixth of six conclusions stated in that way at the end of his book. Tommy Mandel

Maxwell's equations describe the basic properties of electric and magnetic fields and remained in that form until they were cast into vector form by Heaviside. There is no relevance here to any talk about 'plasma-like effects', which no-one is discussing bar yourself. Whatever Maxwell believed about the aether is irrelevant; it doesn't exist. --BillC 05:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bill, I thought you were fred. You are wrong, I think. in that there is no evidence that the Aether does not exist, and there is a recent paper that claims the Aether does exist. It is relevant because first Maxwell included it in his original equations, which were in the scalar form I believe, by virtue of the twenty quaternions, And thereby provide a potential mechanism which we are unaware of today. Today the Aether is known by many different names quantum vacumn, Dirac's sea, ZPE, false vacumn and so on. Heaviside simplified Maxwell's equations on the justification that the twenty quaternions were "too mystical." Indeed, in the present form the four equations simply assume that the electric and magnetic need no source, they are preexisting. Just like Magic.

Maxwell's vacuum is not ZPE it was a patch necessary to apply the rules of newtonian physics to a quantum physics phenomenon, it was already considered broken or disproven in the early 1900s. With newtonian physics proven to be inaccurate this thoroughly invalidates even the basis of Maxwell's aether (eg: it is wrong AND has no purpose in physics). It is a fun theory though, i like the idea of the universe having an medium or texture, much more comforting than a hard vacuum. It's revival is one of the signs of pseudo-science. An appeal to old wisdom, without mention of newer more accurate theories. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 17:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Fred, you really shouldn't be talking about science, you always got it wrong. Sometimes you aren't even wrong as the saying goes. None of the above is even close to the scientific understanding, where do you get your information? Maxwell and the ZPE had nothing to do with patching up Newtonian physics. That was the famous blackbody experiment which Einstein used and thus quantum physics was born. Besides, the ZPE is a proof that there is no such thing as a hard vacumn ZERO POINT energy, i.e., at the hardest vacumn which can be produced, there STILL is a measurable energy hence zero point energy. Tommy Mandel 22:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Einstein did not disprove the Aether either, he just didn't use it in his theory.

Maxwell's vacuum could explain light propagation using newtonian calculations. Do you disagree that this is a patch? Or do you disagree that modern physics has a better solutions?--Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 15:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact in 1907 Albert Michelson was awarded the Nobel Prize for the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment which instead of quantifying the effects of Aether ended up disproving its existence. This is arguably the most important experiment in Physics, it opened up an age of new discoverys. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 17:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

WRONG AGAIN Fred, Mochelson and Morley DID NOT disprove the existence of the Aether. All they proved was that their instrumentation did not detect the Aether. This is well known in scientific circles, why do you say that? Secondary sources perhaps? Tommy Mandel 22:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

In physics, when a theory is proven both innacurate and a better one is created it is effectively dead. It didn't happen instantly but this was the first domino, all the expirementors after, einstein etc. owe gratitude to Michelson, because he showed where the current understanding was broken. And noone can argue that the contemporary planck was unaffected by this revelation. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 15:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It was Planck's blackbody experiment that opened up a new age of discoveries. The only thing discovered after M&M could detect the Aether was that Einstein discovered a way to describe the Universe without it. Tommy Mandel 23:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

WOW, the 3 the comments above are misinformed on so many levels I am not even gonna try to respond. This is the problem with getting just enough information to sound informed. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 23:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

When I tried to put myself in your shoes, I caught a glimsp of where you are coming from. We come from different schools, and science is replete with opposing views, and each of us speaks from our own perspective, and from our perspective we are both right. Aether as Maxwell conceived it may not have been found, but Aether having different properties has been experimentally proven. Only now they have a dozen different names for what one physicist, wants to call "Hyperspace." as a general term. Hyperspace is just a modern treatment of the Aether. Sorry to have brought it up.

Tommy Mandel

The problem is that Aether as the BOL enthusiasts describe it IS dead. ZPE doesn't propagate, there is no inherent net charge, no real effect at the macro level. It is completely different than Aether. Using it to prop up a fringe theory is a disservice to real science. Snd if your ultimate goal is to get BOL fringe theories into the article I doubt any of the other editors will allow this. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 15:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

My goal is to present the investigations. I do not know of any investigation of the BoL's, although it is a scientific fact that they exist. I have my own ideas as to what the BoL is, but that is all original research, and my original research regarding what I call the inside of space differs from just about everyone else anyway. So, no, I will not put in fringe ideas about the causes of the BoL, but it is obvious that they do occur, have been seen, have been reported, and can be found, according to Haselhoff, in a peer reviewed journal. ZPE is not a physical property that can be detected read affects the physical, so it wouldn't be expected to do those things you mention.

I made changes to the article insert. I have the working copy above at the beginning of this section, and on my talk page. I made some additions for you to look at and comment. Do you want to suggest a section head name? And where do you think we should put it? What about "The Scientific Perspective"? Tommy Mandel 02:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

My intentions are to incorporate Hawkins into the article. If you don't mind I would rather use the more neutral sounding 1996 article. I can justify this by refering to the Interview of Hawkins in which he states "I am not supporting the hoaxer theory, I am investigating it." Besides we are supposed to make it NPOV. If you continue to insert "hoaxer" especially if you make read that Hawkins is saying it, then it is not NPOV. Obviously. The source given for the 1996 article is the address of Hawkins. The link to the 1992 article is only that - a link t a previous article. If you would help me with where and how I should provide sources I would appreciate it.

My future intentions are to move on to a section named "principle Investigators" in which I will identify the major researchers of crop circles and briefly outline their primary contribution. Sources for this non-science section will be their websites and books. What are your objections to this Fred?

Someone long ago posted a listing of crop circle features. Obviously such a listing should be in the article. I don't know how ewe are going to do this.

Also, how come both pictures of crop circles at the top of the article are hoaxed pictures? I don't think that is giving us an accurate picture of what happened in the fields. Shouldn't we have at least one good picture?

Tommy Mandel 04:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hawkins article

You asked above that the "more neutral" article be used from 1996. However this article is a paraphrase of the original, if we are quoting hawkins we need to use his original quotes as given in 92. However I move that the section be completely deleted, it doesn't add much to the article. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 14:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that it is a paraphrase. While it does link back to the 1992 article, the "source" given for the article is Hawkins himself. The 1992 article places an emphasis on "hoaxer" but it is placed there by the author of the article.

I would like to use the interview of Hawkins by Monte Leach, instead, in which he says "I am not supporting the hoaxer theory, I am investigating it." What Hawkins found would add much to the article, and we have a way to avoid the secondary POV.

Fred, one must keep a scientists data and that scientist's speculations about the data separate. Just because a scientist has a crazy idea about why something happens does not diminish the validity of what the scientist observed. Tommy Mandel 00:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Principle investigators

I am ok with a crop circle investigators section, although I don't know how you would determine the criteria for inclusion. Also the language needs to describe them without asserting scientific credibility. In fact nearly all data we have can be traced back to Nancy Talbott or BLT research, an obviously POV organization. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 14:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Whole article seems to be biased for the existence of non manmade crop circles. There are definitely people who think that all crop circles are man made. NPOV? Iamthebob 03:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? I see only one comment that suggests other than man made...the remaining, IMO, seems to me to be all biased toward the Hoaxer explanation.

Tommy Mandel 00:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I think I was a little bit too general about it, but there are definitely biased parts. The first is under the section "Scientific Investigations of Crop Circles" which is a sort of misnomer, because I'm sure "a great majority of scientists believe that crop circles are hoaxed. The rest is probably more of an organization issue. Sorry about the confusion. I'll move the tags around a bit. Iamthebob 03:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That "all crop circles are hoaxed" is not biased???? Fred taught you well, you say that scientific investigations is a misnomer because a grest majority of scientists believe that crop circles are hoaxed" Do you have the source for this poll? I don't think you do, I think, in the spirit of Dardfred, you made it up. I am not aware of even a single scientist that actualy investigated crop circles claiming that all circles are hoaxed. Not one. Scientists who have not studied the phenomenon are making assumptions, and I really doubt that many real scientists would comment in such a definitive way about a subject he has not studied, and does not have the requisite knowledge to make such a statement - one way or the other.

I am at a loss trying to understand how presenting one side of two opposing viewpoints constitutes a violation of the neutrality policy. Do you people who are conservatives, say, go to a liberal article and edit it neutral? Try and do that in the real world....Tommy Mandel 23:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, my answer to your question is yes. Conservative users would edit a sympathetic article on Liberalism by challenging citations for POV statements and introducing criticism with appropriate secondary references, thus moving the article towards a NPOV. Addhoc 12:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, do the people who are liberals go to a conservative article and edit it neutral? 152.163.100.132

Yes, equally the same happens the other way around. Personally, I don't think a group of Liberals or Conservatives would write a balanced article regarding their own ideology. However, a mixed group would eventually agree on an encyclopedic NPOV version. Addhoc 16:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What happens when one side assumes a power position and literally forces the article to slant one way? 152.163.100.132 00:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing? Exactly what I observed. I have concluded my investigation and would like to thank all the Wikipedians who have participated in this experiment. It has been enlightening and very instructive. Thank you

Tommy Mandel 13:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, they find a mediator or advocate who is awake and who actually replies to question?!? Addhoc 15:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If your interested, there is more info about this in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Addhoc 15:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I can sense that you care about Wikipedia, but are you the only one?

I think Wikipedia is a terrific idea, I have tried to create something like this myself, but ended up doing all the work myself. Obviously a serious researcher has much better ways of acquiring information, such as professionally written by experts encyclopedias, but Wikipedia is fast and no hassle if one is looking for a quick rundown. Kids love it. Editing Wikipedia, however, is avoided by the real experts, or so they tell me over and over, because they simply have not got the time to deal with the edit wars. The edit war here is not about a dispute, it is about, what is the neutral term for criminal activity?

Because one can edit regardless of who one is, I am sure there are many criminals who are using Wikipedia for their own purposes. They are intellectual thieves. I can say that it is probable that those who would dupe others are also here trying to dupe others. Then there are those who get a thrill out of playing with people's heads.

Having said that, I wonder if the Wikipolicy of neutrality is being correctly or appropriately advanced? Does it really mean that the text must be neutral? How does one do that with two opposing views? Wouldn't to try and synthesize them into a neutral statement be original research? I am thinking that neutral point of view is really meant for the editor, it is the editor that must have a neutral point of view, not the text. Obviously the text should reflect what is happening in the real world. It is the editor who ought not add, one way or the other, to what is really happening. Editors who are oblivious of this, circumvent the spirit of the law by finding and quoting those who are biased their way.

There is a good example right here, somewhere above some guy who seems to me thinks exactly like fred, is claiming that the scientific view is biased?! They even tagged it as biased! I'm not kidding you. There really is no counterargument to this ridiculous assertion. Obviously it is the editor claiming bias who is biased. Unfortunately, these people do not react to reason, so reasoning with them is really a waste of time. It is almost as if they purposely argue just to argue.

Fortunately, I am not attached to crop circles, it was just an interesting research hobby. But what I found at Wikipedia is what I found going on in the crop circle field. The deceivers and deceived. There are scientists who have studied the circles, and they all talk about a mystery at least. Even the hoaxers themselves talk about mysterious events. But the field has been tainted, contaminated, ruined by the criminal trespassers who make it out as one big joke. Thought of in that way, all the mystery is a big joke. And that is intellectual theft.

I talked with one involved with the circles, he said they probably are all hoaxed, he wouldn't say for sure. But he did say "I know the BoL's are real, I've seen them myself." Well, the media won't tell us that part. What the media will do is delete it. Just like our friends here deleted Colin's sentence in which he explains while 80% are hoaxed, the remaining 20% were not done by human hands. This ommission of the 20% is indicative of their logic, like, they probably believe (project)that the reader is not smart enough to realize that 80% is not 100%...

I'm very tempted to express what I really think about these guys but I won't. I learned a whole lot from them so maybe I really should thank them. Tommy Mandel 00:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

About text being neutral, have a look at Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, everything which is factual is stated in the neutral section and then opinions regarding the acceptibility of the bombing are given in separate sections. Addhoc 10:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between opinions about whether an act was proper or not, and details about the reality of a physical phenomenon. We don't have a section in the Earth article debating "both sides" of whether it's flat. - DavidWBrooks 10:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is a very well rehearsed argument. For what's it worth the Earth article says "A 19th-century organization called the Flat Earth Society advocated the even-then discredited idea that the Earth was actually disc-shaped, with the North Pole at its center and a 150 foot (50 m) high wall of ice at the outer edge. It and similar organizations continued to promote this idea, based on religious beliefs and conspiracy theories, through the 1970s." Obviously, that isn't giving equal weight, but is explaining views in accordance with WP:NPOV. Addhoc 10:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, this article says in the introduction Although the commonly accepted view today is that crop circles are a man-made phenomenon, paranormal explanations, often including UFOs, are still popular along with other mentions of that viewpoint later. (Incidentally, most valid arguments are "well-rehearsed" - being valid, they're often repeated.) - DavidWBrooks 14:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments David. Addhoc 14:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"A thousand opinions cannot make one fact" BUT "Tell people a lie enough times and they will believe it is true"

The senior researcher of crop circles stated that his investigation showed him that 80% are man made, AND 20% are not. THe editors of this article reworded the statement to read 80% are man made, and then deleted the statement about the other 20% And we are supposed to have trust in this kind of reporting?

And then they tell us all how righteous they are.

I see little evidence of rational thought here. For example - and I quote:

Exactly who is holding this commonly accepted view"? The commonly held view among scientists who have actually investigated the circles state flat out that they do not know. The commonly held view of actual researchers is that some of them are not man made. The commonly held view among hoaxers is that they are man made. The commonly held view among those who have not studied the research is that they believe the hoaxers.

So what we really have going on is the hoaxers and their followers are the commonly held view, while the researchers are in the minority, which does not have to be reported.

Who do you think we should trust?

Tommy Mandel 23:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This is what we should place our trust in --

http://wikipedia.org/ Which states in part --

Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties.

Tommy Mandel 23:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

More specifically

"There are many ways that an article can fail to adhere to the NPOV policy. Some examples are:

The article can simply be biased, expressing viewpoints as facts (see Wikipedia:POV)

While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.

Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others (see Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance).

The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another.

The subject or title of the article can imply a particular point of view.

A type of analysis of facts that can lead to the article suggesting a particular point of view's accuracy over other equally valid analytic perspectives.

The author's own viewpoint is mentioned or obvious.

Alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive terms.

Tommy Mandel 23:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If one were to actually read the article, and if one has taken the time to read the results of investigations that were conducted, it is OBVIOUS that no mention of this research is made in the article. The entire article is written as opinions without any objective evidence being presented either way. THe observational results of the investigators do not appear in the article. Maybe this is alright if one were writing an editorial, but in an encyclopedia?

It is not the content of this article that I question, it is the conduct of some of the editors who purposely remove evidence not to their liking. This is, in my opinion, intellectual theft. And occuring in an encyclopedia is disturbing. This article does not follow the spirit of Wikiediting, in spite of all the claioms being made that they are doing the right thing. Cheating is never the right thing. And it makes me wonder when to do the good thing is to do the wrong thing...

Tommy Mandel 23:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but is that your answer to my question below? --BillC 00:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Tommy, do you have a view on what proportion of scientists consider that crop circles are a phenomenon that are worth studying scientifically, given that they can easily be (and are) hoaxed? --BillC 23:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Since when is it a given that they can easily be hoaxed? How do they hoax changes in clay? In the cellular structure? Hawkins, a scientist did not believe that hoaxers created some of the circles he investigated before hoaxing became popular. Haselhoff, a scientist, concluded tha something strange was going on. Leavengood, a scientist believed that some of the features he investigated were not made my man. Meaden, a scientist, did not believe all of them were hoaxed. All of this was at one time in the article. But now there is nothing in the article about the scientists who did believe they were worth studying. What kind of editing do you call that? What kind of editing presents one side of a well known controversy, and denys the other side is even worth mentioning? Is the controversy really as absurd as "the world is flat" or is it still a real controversy? And if it is a controversy, any enclopedia worth it salt will report it as such. Tommy Mandel 00:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This interview of Geral Hawkins once was in the article -

GH: Yes. It’s totally absorbing. It’s not a joke. It’s not a laugh. It’s not something that can be just brushed aside.

ML: Is there anybody else who is investigating it seriously in terms of your scientist colleagues?

GH: No. It boils down to two factors. You wouldn’t get a grant to study this sort of thing. And, two, it might endanger your tenure. It is as serious as that. There are whole areas in the scientific community that are not informed about the crop circle phenomenon, and have come to the conclusion that it is ridiculous, a hoax, a joke, and a waste of time.

These are the actual words of Gerald Hawkins. But your friends removed them. And left in their POV which by manipuating the quotations around stated that Hawkins believed that the circles were hoaxed.

Hey, here's a trick I learned from some admin editors, take the statement

"There are whole areas in the scientific community that are not informed about the crop circle phenomenon, and have come to the conclusion that it is ridiculous, a hoax, a joke, and a waste of time."

Now remove the part about not informed, and then publish Hawkins as saying;

"There are whole areas in the scientific community that have come to the conclusion that it is ridiculous, a hoax, a joke, and a waste of time.

See! That's how it is done at Wikipedia. Neat, eh?

Tommy Mandel 02:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I got another one for you to learn. Seems that Hawkins passed away, so anything he had to say is not relevant anymore...

Oh, i'm sorry, if science is kept out of the article, then there is no need for prior research. Tommy Mandel

What I really don't understand is why whenever anyone says that it's possible that "all crop circles are hoaxed" you immediately say that it's POV, while you don't say that "there are crop circles made by unknown forces" is POV. Now, both viewpoints exist, so they should both be included in the article, right? You must understand, Tommy, that there are other people who have diferent beliefs from you. NPOV is NPOV; just because you think something is right doesn't mean it's the only thing that's right. Iamthebob 06:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, according to WP:NPOV views should only be included if they represent at least a significant minority. Regarding statements about the existence of crop circles these should have references that indicate whether they represent the majority of a scientific opinion or a significant minority. Regarding your advice "you must understand, Tommy, that there are other people who have diferent beliefs from you", I would venture that Tommysun is very well aware of this. Addhoc 10:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course "all crop circles are hoaxed" is a point of view, and there is nothing wrong about citing those in the article who maintain that position. Everyone knows there is in fact a controversy. BUT, what is wrong with this article, and it is serious maybe even systemic, is that the other point of view, the other side of the controversy - that the majority of those scientists who have studied crop circles cannot say with certainty what caused (some of) them is not in the article. According to the article the hoaxer POV is the only view.

The other POV, and supporting evidence, that the cause is unknown to the scientists is not in the article. There is nothing in the article about the serious and scientific reseach that has been done. When it is inserted it is removed, I think it was Bill who removed Colin's statement that he found 20% were not touched by human hands. Why was that part of the quote removed? That is the definition of POV PUSHING. When people read an encyclopedia, they expect to find a comprehensive, if brief, explanation of what is going on so that they may continue on with THEIR research. It is not up to Wikieditors to decide beforehand which POV is more accurate. All they can do in this regard is quote those verifiable studies which indicate that this or that percentage of the participants believe this or that. If there is no study of the percentages, then it is not the responsibility to interject his own conclusions. Here is where NPOV kicks in. The editor must be neutral and report what is happening. NPOV is violated when the editor interjects his own POV, directly or indirectly, by eliminating evidence for example.

I have yet to see a scientific investigator conclude that all the crop circles were hoaxed. What I see are statements that (some) have characteristics that cannot have been manmade.

However, the dispute here is not about this or that opinion, the dispute is about presenting one of the opposing viewpoints and eliminating its opposite, and then stating that what remains is what the majority believes. Tommy Mandel 17:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Example of POV Pushing by editors

Even while it was discussed on the talk page that a section heading "=Principle Investigators of Crop Circles= " would be acceptable by Fred, the heading was removed.

Even while the text below was in the article for some time now, it was modified

From this -

Colin Andrews is one of the senior investigators of the crop circle phenomenon and highly regarded by his peers. He has authored two books, including Crop Circles, Signs of Contact. In 1999, the Rockefeller family asked Colin to investigate crop circles. He did this in 1999 and 2000. His conclusion, he writes in his book: "Based in our research, I concluded that approximately 80 percent of all the crop circles we investigated in England from 1999 through the year 2000 were manmade. This was one of the most important research findings to date because it cut to the core of what is truly important: the remaining 20 percent of the crop circles showed no sign of human hands." ^[1]

to this =

In 1999, the Rockefeller family asked Colin Andrews to investigate crop circles.[citation needed] He concluded that approximately 80 percent of all the crop circles he investigated in England from 1999 through the year 2000 were manmade. [6]

This is what they removed -

This was one of the most important research findings to date because it cut to the core of what is truly important: the remaining 20 percent of the crop circles showed no sign of human hands."

At any rate, it is refreshing to discuss the matter in a somewhat reasonable way rather than the previous claims of "Nutty" "lunatic" "mad ravings of a lone POV crusader" Which darkfred seems to think is clever of him. BTW, where is Fred? Tommy Mandel 18:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I reinserted the complete quote by Colin Andrews. Where is Fred?

205.188.117.13 20:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Now they removed all scientific investigations. Which I will add later. Interesting, the section appears in the edit mode, but not in the article? Tommy Mandel 21:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Scientific Investigations has been removed or cannot be accessed by the article. Well, there you have it all AddHoc, minus the ad homenum attacks. I could claim vandalism, POV pushing, removal of evidence, misrepresentation of the controversy, deception by ommission and probably every other action deemed by Wikipolicy to be a violation of NPOV. Where is Fred?

Tommy Mandel 23:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Um yes. Thanks for pointing this out. As it happens... it was entirely my fault, I missed a '/'. Oops. Very sorry. Addhoc 00:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Law students should study this situation. It is not what you did that mattered, it was the intent. Lady walks into store. Later she picks up another lady's purse and walks out. Did she steal it? She thought it was hers. She took her purse. I wonder if that is why the archive is missing?

I added some material to the scientific section, along with Hawkins statement which should make everyone happy. Let's see what happens next.

Tommy Mandel 01:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Latest changes

Contrary to what has been claimed, I have no great objection to Tommy including a section on 'Scientific investigators'. (I do however object to the changes I made being described as 'vandalism'; a term that has been employed here many times over a content dispute.) I also have concerns over the detail in what has been added:

excessive quoting;
unverifiable statements: "highly regarded by his peers", "the now famous 80/20 statement";
the passages are backed by up sources of dubious reliability, or cut-and-pasted verbatim from pseudoscience websites; a reference posted recently by Tommy to the BLT website contained a statement by Nancy Talbott claiming that the neolithic Silbury Hill was built as a giant electrical battery.
I have no objections to a list of people, past and present, who have investigated crop circles, but it should be made clear that these represent a very small proportion; mainstream science having rejected claims of a non-human mechanism for any elaborate circle. This objection has been made here several times in the past; the response has been a challenge to provide proof that all crop circles are man-made, and that we are trying to enforce our POV. --BillC 21:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Bill, let's take your objections one at a time,

You wrote:

"mainstream science having rejected claims of a non-human mechanism for any elaborate circle"

Can you please tell me your source for this statement? None of the science I have read makes this claim. And who represents "mainstream science" regarding crop circle research?

Tommy Mandel 01:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No-one. That's my point. --BillC 05:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Gerald Hawkins? Levengood? I have a whole list above. Why did you say that mainstream science "rejects" when mainstream science did not look into it? Isn't that twisting the truth around? 152.163.100.132 14:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Tommy, (I assume it's you, the last comment was signed anonymously), mainstream science has rejected Santa Claus as well. If your list is, as you say, 'whole', then clearly it represents a very small minority of scientists who are prepared to accept a non-human explanation for elaborate circles. A number of your sources are coming from places that do not seem to meet Wikipedia's requirements as to WP:RS. In my mind, chief amongst these is presently Nancy Talbott for her claims about Silbury Hill. As I have said, I have no objections to you expanding this section of the article, provided it meets consensus, and does not imply that these are the views of the majority of sciencists, because they aren't. Each time we come round this loop, you have been adding in the phrase 'scientists that have studied this phenomenon', or 'those who have conducted research', or some such. Please understand that it is my contention that this field is limited to such a very small number because the vast majority of scientists feel that there is no compelling evidence to be worth investigating. Darkfred has said something very similar in the past.

The section you added contains a number of spelling errors; you might like to address these.

And finally, please refrain from using phrases like 'twisting the facts'. Throughout this, I have been generally courteous to you; please extend that consideration back to me. --BillC 19:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I will not infer an association with Darkfred if you refrain the association of Leavengood et al with Nancy Talbot, OK?

Have you read Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions? It' s about how the mainstream view is often upheld not because of scientific evidence, but for the fear of losing one's job.

This interview of Gerald Hawkins once was in the article -

GH: Yes. It’s totally absorbing. It’s not a joke. It’s not a laugh. It’s not something that can be just brushed aside.

ML: Is there anybody else who is investigating it seriously in terms of your scientist colleagues?

In other words ignorance is not a basis for competance.

Tommy Mandel 23:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean by "refrain the association of Leavengood et al with Nancy Talbott"? If I understand you correctly, this seems to imply that you don't consider Talbott a reliable authority, but you do Leavengood et al., is this correct? Why is Freddy Silva in the section about scientific investigations; who is he? – a scientist? More to the point, I don't see why he is in the article at all, since the only function behind mentioning him is to introduce a quote from Hawkins. You have sections called 'Scientific Investigations' and principal investigators, what is the difference? Since BLT are probably the group that get the most publicity, why are they in 'scientific investigations'?

Part of the problem here, Tommy, and the reason why so many of your edits here have simply been removed by other editors with little or no comment, is that you haven't tended to act responsively to any discussion. ~~You haven't for example even fixed the spelling errors in the paragraph you introduced. Please take the time to do this.~~ I take this back; I missed the edit you made. However, please address the capitalisation and punctuation. Please also take the time to find a reliable source for your claim that crop circles have been found in Canadian fields where there was no means for persons to gain access without treading the crops.

I don't have absolute objections for some of the things you want to introduce to the article; but if so, at least do it well, and at least respond to the criticism. Otherwise stuff will get removed again. --BillC 23:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for making intelligent comments in a civil manner. I still have a bad taste in my mouth from well, let's forget that.

1. I do not consider Nancy Talbot a reputable scientific source herself, as prior to crop circle research she was a roadee (sic) for a band. BUT, that fact does not invalidate the organization she helped form assuming that it works according to the scientific method.

Levengood was a professor at a University and a biophysicist. Big difference.

Freddy Silva wrote perhaps the most comprehensive book on crop circles, and I used his book as the source for Hawkin's comments.

There is a big difference between the crop circle investigators and the scientific investigators, and so this distinction should be apparent in the article. The BLT group should be considered "scientific investigators" if only because they use scientists and scientific protocol. The principle investigators are, in part, engineers, for example. The difference is usage of objective evidence, meaning that subjectivity is not included in the test results. It is this objective evidence that is most interesting at least to me, because it is not an opinion, but an observed fact. For example, at one time a blackening was found around the burst nodes, and opinionators speculated that it was due to extreme heat, but a scientific analysis showed that it was due to an opprotunistic fungus.

Finally if there is a spelling error, is it Wikiprocedure to remove it or help fix it?

Oh, I will look for the source of the Canadian comment. I added that in the talk page in response to a comment that hoaxers use tramlines for access. But in Canada there are no tramlines. Also, the circles were made in corn.

Tommy Mandel 03:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

OOPS back to square one

http://www.cccrn.ca/formationarchive2004.html Nahanni Butte, Northwest Territories #2 - May 26, 2004

Circle in balsam poplar trees, approximately 91 metres (300 feet) diameter; all trees snapped and flattened radially inward with tops pointing toward the centre, approximately 1 kilometre (0.6 miles) from first circle.

Nahanni Butte, Northwest Territories - May 26, 2004

Circle in balsam poplar trees, approximately 151 metres (500 feet) diameter; all trees snapped and flattened radially inward with tops pointing toward the centre.

I made some changes to the introduction. It is a first draft. It is difficult to edit because I am constantly being auto=blocked because I use aol. Much of the time I am in a rush to save the edit fast.

Comments

I removed and/or edited two sections:

The introduction. I included some of the text you added, but removed most of it in its original form. The main reason was I wasn't happy with the writing: "Some say that the crop circles are man made, while other say that they are not man made" is not not good style, and is a repetition of the theme, already well-expressed in the paragraph, that the topic is one of opposing viewpoints. "On the other hand, numerous anomalous observations within some of the crop circles still remain unexplained." I contend that (a) some of the anomalies are insufficiently documented, (b) the sampling methods have been brought into question: Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 159–170, 2005 and (c) a strong counter-case has been offered as explanation for others; see, for example: Special Report: Circular Reasoning. In other words, the very existence of anomalistic phenomena is strongly contested, and certainly can't be simply added to the article as if it were not.
The para on Haselhoff: "... has rigorously investigated the crop circle phenomenon": It is POV to say that his investigations were rigorous. "Haselhoff has investigated the crop circle phenomenon": A repetition of this sentence later in the same paragraph. Approximately two-thirds of this paragraph is a verbatim quotation from Haselhoff pasted into the article, and I consider this excessive.

More on Silva later. I have not yet touched this para. --BillC 10:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There certainly are anomalies. It is the anomalies which are the basis for the controversy/mystery. Again, it is not our job to prove the anomalies one way or the other, it is our job to report that they have been reported. I read that report by a skeptic and was not at all impressed by his reasoning. Especially by his association tactics. Nitpicking about the method of sampling does not invalidate the observations. Why then would a journal publish the data? And the observations are documented by photographs which is objective evidence that anyone can see. Your source discounts the bending by assigning it to the natural growth process, but fails to mention or take into consideration that this process takes 5 to 7 days to be noticeable. Finally, clay crystalization has not been explained or explained away by anyone. I'll take a look at your changes soon.

205.188.117.13 16:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Bill, seems you removed everything about the controversy. You say "and is a repetition of the theme, already well-expressed in the paragraph" But where in the paragraph does it say ANYTHING about opposing viewpoints? You are not saying that we have to read the entire article to arrive at that conclusion are you? If there is anything noteworthy about crop circles is that they are controversial, so much so that there should be an article in Wikipedia titled "crop circle controversy" Don't you think? 205.188.117.13 16:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

OK I inserted a revided introduction. What do you think of it now?

PS I looked at Nickles paper again, and am even less impressed, He does not offer any counter-evidence, giving us only counter arguments. For example, he states that balls of light can show up on photographs due to a reflection off a strap, etc. Well, Haselhoff goes into detail about this, actually showing us pictures the flash bouncing off dust in front of the camera. He also shows us the flash bouncing off snow flakes. So this isn't something discovered by the skeptics only. And it doesn't explain the eye witness accounts especiallly that of Sorensen and the hundreds of others.205.188.117.13 23:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Time to be honest

It is certainly clear, at least to me, that this field is replete with deception. It is difficult if not impossible to know who is telling the truth. I have found, over the years, that deception is ubigitious, and far too common, in all human endeavors. Even in the field of science, not everything you hear is true. While it is difficult for the layman to tell what is true or not in science because much of it is cloaked in mathematics, which by itself is tautological, it becomes easier in other endeavors provided that one becomes knowledgeable in the field.

I was in contact with Peter Sorenson, a key crop circle investigator producing perhaps the largest video taped record of the circles. He says that while he was a believer in the beginning, he slowly came around to now, when he says that "probably all crop circles are man made." But, Peter says, "The Balls of Light are real, I have seen them myself."

I am skeptical too, after all I am a "Doubting Thomas" I don't believe anyone, even the skeptics. But I also am skeptical of my skepticism, and frequently find my favored position evaporate in front of my eyes. This crop circle research has taken me from one to the other many times, but you know what? As soon as I concede that they are manmade, I find something like a 500 foot circle in trees. All flattened and pointing toward the center.

In my own research, I like to look for inconsistencies. Things that don't sound right. Because if something is true, it is consistently true. I believe Peter not because he has convinced me with his evidence, but because he used the word "probably" (thank you Peter) and that is consistent with telling the truth.

There are a tremendous number of observations made in connection with crop circles, far too many to list in the article. Some of them are trivial but some of them are significant, even important.

The balls of light are not consistent with hoaxed circles.

Tommy Mandel 05:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

But still can you proof your ball of lights theory, observations are other things and prooving them is other. So until you proof completely that there is a 100% chances of these ball of lights, it will remain not prooven. phippi46 14:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That isn't relevant, material requires secondary references to be included not supposed proof to a confidence level of 100%. Addhoc 15:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

ok lets say not 100% but how about the sceintific community to agree on it in principal. there are not so many people who actually think that the Ball of lights theory is correct.phippi46 15:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you Phippi. I find your questions thoughtful and deserving of answers which I always tried to give to you the best I can. In all fairness, I see your questions as an honest attempt to understand the subject matter. However, It is not the responsibility of this encyclopedia to prove which of two opposing sides is more relevant and truthful. If the practitioners can't resolve that, how can we be expected to accomplish that.

Having said that, to answer your question about the Balls of light, to begin with, Haselhoff writes in his book that the balls of light, considered by him to be extraordinary evidence, are considered by him to be scientific fact. He cites reference to two journal articles, video recordings, and testimony by thousands, not just a few. Indeed, there is a hill in England called Golden balls hill after the lights. Also remember that Sorensen, who is quite familair of the crop circles, even while he throws the whole question of cause into the hoaxer category, states that he has seen them. Balls of light are ot uncommon, and if one looks at all reported instances, not just crop circles, they have been seen by astronaults, pilots, air traffic controllers (radar) the police, and a wide range of ordinary citizens.

However, it s not our job to figure out what they are. Our job is to report that it has been reported that they have been seen. And it is our responsibility to provide the path of verification for the reader that in fact what we report has been reported, and that the source is reasonably reputable. Keep in mind that "reputable" is meant to distinguish between, say, the New York Times and the National Enquirer which in this country is often reporting "Girl born with two dog heads" or the like. So a report by a real scientist, who has actually investigated the circles using the scientific method, in not at all questionable source from our perspective.

205.188.117.13 15:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

PS, Proof that hundred dollar bills can be counterfeited is not proof that all hundred dollar bills are counterfeits...205.188.117.13

If this is the way then let me ask one more question.. is not sourceable that majority of these circals were created by humans ? in some sources almost 80% of these crop circals were repotedly man made, the rest they dont know for sure. But still there is good chance that the rest were man made ? If in NY police is able to solve 90% or murders, the rest 10% of them are committed by some .. lets say unknown forces.. no body will argue here, my question is when it comes to solve things, we are humans are really good in this thing. We humans survived for a long time and we humans are really good in so many things. Hence we have crop circals, where we need help from other forces, are we not good enough here ? I wonder why phippi46 16:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Karl Popper, the philosopher of science who coined the word "paradigm shift" states that, and I am paraphrasing, "confirming that all swans we have observed are white, is NOT PROOF that there are no black swans." Solving 90% of the murder cases is not proof that the remaining 10% were not suicides or accidents.

The problem HERE is that we, collectively, are not paying attention to the results of scientific investigations. We are not listening to best of our human knowledge. Ironically, the bulk of what is presented in the article is the testimony of admitted liars??? Does that make sense to you?

Given that science is the most reliable of all sources, (because it is always tested (verified)) we are, here, nevertheless depending mainly on opinions of the participants from one side of the controversy. That is not how science works. Science works because of what they call objective evidence, which by definition is not dependant on the subjective feelings (opinions) of the investigator.

When Levengood reports that nodes have burst, that is objective evidence no one can deny. When he speculates that humans could not have burst the nodes, that is subjective evidence, his opinion. Given that he is a biophysicist, it is more likely that he knows more than some paid skeptic who can only present us with plausible alternatives. A plausible alternative is not a proof or even evidence, that everything happened that way. Tommy Mandel 18:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

PS. That is not to say that YOU cannot have an opinion based on whatever you deem trustworthy. I am saying that a scientist does not and cannot create a theory out of opinions, and further, a presentation of scientific evidence by definition is not an opinion. This is not saying that a scientist cannot have an opinion, but it must be clearly presented as such. Tommy Mandel 19:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence must first be gathered, and the gathering process can, and often is, subject to criticism. --BillC 20:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Bill, I agree with you on this. It is my desire to be able to present ALL the evidence as it is presented by the parties involved. I have not reverted anything which was presented as a hoaxer explanation, I would expect the same courtesy. It is not I or anyone here who has created the crop circle controversy, it was born in the field, so to speak, and is a fact of life. It is insulting to the reader of Wikipedia, and remember, it is the Wikireader that this encyclopedia is all about, NOT the editors with nothing better to do. Wikipedia was not established to fulfill the writing aspirations of anonomous editors...Having said all that after being taken aback by Brooks bullying tactics, let's try again one more time.

We have a problem gathering evidence, there is so much of it. We have a partial listing of observations from the field, so to speak, above. It is very long. Wikipolicy does not allow us to synthesis information, and even if we were allowed, none of us are competant to do the synthesis. I propose, as I did from the start, that we begin by using Haselhoff as our source. He is a real scientist, he has spent ten years doing crop circle research, and he has published a book outlining this research. He is a reputable and reliable source and thus provides us with a verifiable source. Otherwise, there are a dozen books with thousands of unique observations.

POV Pushing

It is very disconcerting to work so hard on an edit, work which involves working with others, and someone who should know better comes along using bully tactics to push his POV.

David brooks, you have continually disrupted my work on this article and here you did it again. By removing critical evidence, and reverting my edit without discussion and justification you are POV pushing. As far as I know, you have done nothing to contribute to this article outside of reverting my edits. As a journalist (?) you are well aware of the ethics involved. Your actions are very telling. Consider this as your first warning. Cease and desist with your bully tactics. Act intelligently, try to improve, don't merely pull it all down. Tommy Mandel 03:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Not all the deletes are vandals. When you say things like "numerous anomalous observations within some of the crop circles still remain unexplained" with certainty, people are going to delete it because that is the controversial topic, and because it is not certain to be true. And please, if you don't mind, stop calling people who are trying to improve Wikipedia (just like you are) vandals. Iamthebob 06:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Though I do agree that the article pushes the mainstream POV, with bias against the paranormal view. I edited it a bit to try to create a bit more NPOV in general. Iamthebob 06:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It does nothing to improve Wikipedia by Pushing a POV, even if the POV is mainstream. Tommy Mandel 20:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can explain to me how the statement -

"While mainstream scientific opinion believes all crop circles to be created by humans,"

is not a POV. First of all, what source do you have to verify that statement? What scientific paper states that conclusion? Isn't this in actuality just your opinion?

Second, how can you say that

several scientists have become involved in crop circle research, trying to use science to prove the existence of non-manmade crop circles.

When immediately below the actual purpose is stated to find out what is causing them without any reference to man made or not?

Why can't we just tell it like it is???????????? Finally, when someone consistenly removes evidence without discussion, it can only be vandalism. Tommy Mandel 15:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Dude, if you want to argue POV we can. Tell me how "while mainstream scientific opinion believes all crop circles to be created by humans" isn't true. Sure, I'll try to find a citation for it, but have you actually looked at my other edits and how I'm fixing POV in your favor? That entire section on "scientific research" is complete bias towards research on topics that aren't even considered science by most scientists, so I add one sentence stating that.

Can you put down the "consistently removed evidence" please? Because I didn't really object to any of the removals of evidence.

And immediately below it says this: "the discovery, scientific documentation and evaluation of physical changes induced in plants, soils and other materials at crop circle sites by the energy (or energy system) responsible for creating them and to determine, if possible, from these data the specific nature and source of these energies" that's definitely not talking about people, it's trying to explain crop circles with paranomal phenomena.Iamthebob 16:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to Brooks consistently removing evidence without contributions of his own. How can humans change the crystalization of clay found inside a crop circle? How do humans burst nodes? How do humans lenghten nodes? Obviously these are the results of energy systems, NOT mechanical systems. I don't want a POV in my favor, I want both sides fairly represented so that any reader has enough information to decide for himself. It is an insult to the reader if the information is one sided as if he is not capapble of deciding himself. It does not improve Wikipedia to slant articles regardless of what editors may believe. Editors are supposed to be neutral and the data should reflect both sides of the controversy FAIRLY. Editors are supposed to report what is happening, not emphasize one side of the controversy and de-emphasize the other side. It is assumed that editors from both sides will eventually arrive at a neutral POV, but this cannot happen if one side continually removes the other sidee's edits. Tommy Mandel 20:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record...From Wikipedia NPOV page

Explanation of the neutral point of view The neutral point of view The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

Is it necessary to repeat this?

Tommy Mandel 21:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly: and not everyone's POV agrees with yours, so you don't need to push it. I don't see what I'm saying is wrong, it's a perfectly valid that the mainstream scientific opinion says that Crop Circles are made by humans. Unless if you are going to contest that too? Please, if you don't mind, stop calling people who are trying to make NPOV POV pushers, when you might actually be one yourself. Iamthebob 22:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Tommy, will you be prepared to accept mediation on this article? --BillC 20:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation ? are you sure phippi46 21:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Of Course, not only prepared but hoping...but are you? Tommy Mandel 21:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh please .. go ahead and hopefully you will accept the results also .. have fun :-) phippi46 23:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think mediation might be necessary, though the argument now is much better than it was a month ago, there are still several things to be done, such as clarifying what exactly is NPOV and what isn't, and trying to get the article to be less biased and less reverted. Iamthebob 23:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My main concern is over WP:RS. --BillC 23:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My main concern is over WP:NPOV, because much of the disagreement arises over what exactly constitutes it... Iamthebob 00:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me read it to you --

"all significant published points of view are to be presented"

WIKIPOLICY The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

And "All significant published points of view" includes scientific views as well as those of criminal trespassers...Tommy Mandel 04:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Um... do you mind not doing that? I've read it, you know. And I still have no idea what you are talking about. We don't agree on what is NPOV. When you think you are presenting NPOV, I think that you are biased for paranormal explanations. When I think I am presenting NPOV, you think that I am biased for the hoaxers. We need to solve a problem. Oh yeah, and I do think that the points of views of criminal trespassers (see here for why). Iamthebob 04:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, one more thing. Your quote states that "none of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth." I'm not quire sure how the edits that are being made are doing that. In fact, the edit that I made today removed bias against paranormal explanations. Also, consider reading the section on undue weight. This article is giving a lot of weight on the paranormal explanation of crop circles. Now while I can't cite or prove that that's the minority view, I'm pretty sure (yes, I know that's not a proof) that it is in fact the minority view, but is definitely not :given a minority view in the article (there is a list of names that I don't think should be there at all due to insignificance, for example). I really think mediation is necessary here, or else we need to find a better way to solve the problem on our own, rather than making personal insults and defending all the edits made by the policies of Wikipedia, because we will not reach consensus that way. Iamthebob 05:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make that up, it is from Wikipedia policy NPOV page. In short, we are not supposed to determine what is true and what is not true, nor are we supposed to determine what is popular and what is not popular, all we are supposed to do is report what has been reported. If someone saw a horse flying in the air, and it was reported in the local newspaper, we can report it as well. We cannot say that it is impossible, or that it was a hoax, or that they guy who saw it was drunk, but if it was reported in the paper that way, so can we. Please don't knock my poor example, it is just an example.

I really don't understand how you can say that the article is biased toward the paranormal given that there is nothing in it about the paranormal except for a paranormal tag put there by Fred as a joke. Besides, if a significant number of people believe the paranormal, and it is reported as such we are supposed to report it as well. Maybe you are referring to all that flying saucer stuff which I didn't put there and which I haven't even read. As far as I am concerned you can take all of that out, and while you are at it, remove the life history of a couple crooks as well. I am only concerned with the research that has been done, not those wild ideas that have been proposed. If the scientific view is biased toward one way or the other then what is wrong with saying so? My complaint is when the senior researcher says that his investigation led him to conclude that n% are not touched by humans, and the fact that he said that is removed from the article for no apparent reason, then that is POV pushing.

Maybe you haven't noticed but we are being watchedTommy Mandel 05:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that all issues should be published. I was talking about undue weight. I will do some reorganization on the article. Now, I haven't done a lot of research on the subject of crop circles, but from what I have read, I see the following problems with the study of crop circles that may make it seem unscientific:

lack of peer review - Correct me if I'm wrong, but no articles about crop circles have been published in scientific journals. Peer review helps spots flaws in the work, something that can only be found by people who can understand the text. In addition, articles are reviewed by many people, acting as double and triple and quadruple checks for a piece of work, taking it apart to make sure that it's conclusions hold from the given data. The articles found on crop circles do not demonstrate this; we can only take the word of the people who wrote the article.
Lack of observations - no one (or very very few people) has ever seen a crop circle being made by anything other than a person; this makes the claims of alternative methods of crop circle formation less convincing
Existence of some unknown force or energy - suspicious because it is something something not replicatble and never observed, and unexplainable
Argument from ignorance - the statement that crop circles were made by external forces because no human has made claim to making it, or because it has certain "proeprties" that people cannot replicate

And some original research:

recent increases in activity recently in crop circles - if it were some unknown energy source that caused crop circles, why would there be so many crop circles today and so few in the past? It is true that there are man-made crop circles today, but the general lack of crop circles in the past makes it seem likely that almost all crop circles today are made by people.
lack of control data - instead of comparing crop circle observations with nearby surrounding crops in the field, are crop circles known to be hoaxed studied in the same careful detail? Comparing a plants within a crop circle to those around it in the field is not enough; there needs to be studies of plants that are found in crop circles known to be man made as well, to see if the observations are due to the fact that the plants were bent, or are due to the fact that the plants were bent by some external force. The point is to wonder if say stunted plant growth is caused by the bending of the plant, or by some other reason. There could be some other variable, perhaps creating a crop circle causes water flow to the top of the plant to be reduced, which causes smaller and dehydrated seeds.

Now, I'm not saying that all crop circles are made by humans, but that there are reasons why people believe that cereology is a pseudoscience and not science. The study of crop circles should still be left in Wikipedia of course. Though I think the article still needs work from its present state; there isn't good organization describing the different points of view.

Iamthebob 07:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

How can you write an encyclopedia article without knowing about what you are writing about? May I suggest that you purchase Haselhoff's book. It gives a excellent outline of the research, is beautifully constructed and can be read in one evening. Silva's book might take a couple weeks. A good source with pictures of how they selected samples, how they tested them and what they found can be found at the BLT website... There have been several eye witness accounts documented in detail at the BLT website. But aren't you doing original research? Not saying you shouldn't, but what goes into the article must, they tell us, come from some other appropriate source, not you. Or me.

Interestingly, known manmade circles do have "some" anomalies usually attributed to genuine circles, for example, one group made a circle at night, saw the balls of light while they were doing it, and when they came back the next morning, found two additional circles there. I copied ther report way above. Magnetic anomalies have been detected in known manmade circles.

I have a lot of unanswered questions too... Circles were reported in the past, but were these reports reported? or were they dismissed? Anomalies found in crop circles do appear in the journals, but who is publishing a crop circle journal? The balls of light have appeared in the journals according to Haselhoff. (And very interestingly, a launch officer at a minuteman missle site testified before the National Press club about how he got a call from the guards at the gate reporting strange lights, and within minutes eight out of ten missles went into a no launch status. A while later he got a call from another site reporting that all ten of their missles went into a no launch status...) At any rate, a picture of a blown out node does not need peer review to figure out that something strange happened. Undue weight I think is when we title a section "creators of crop circles" and then write it about the hoaxers. A NPOV would title it honestly, "Creators of hoaxed crop circles." What people believe, expecially those people who have not investigated the circles, is not what we are supposed to be reporting. Obviously we could report the results of a poll, if there were such a thing. I don't understand your argument from ignorance conclusion, the whole crux of the controversy centers around the fact that there are certain features found in some circles that could not have been made by the hand of man. Sounds like you are saying that since we don't know what did it, it doesn't exist...I don't understand this pseudoscience stuff. Science is a verb, not a doctrine. Anything done in a scientific way is science. First graders can do science. Anyone can do science. Science is not something done by only a select group. The difference between the first grader and the physicist is the test setup and what they are testing. The whole point of science is that anyone (given the proper tools and ability to use them) can do it... Pseudoscience is something that cannot be tested, simple as that. That is, when they claim it to be scientific. If no claim of scientificity is made, then it is not a pseudoscience. Santa claus is not pseudoscience.

First of all, I'm assuming that the above comment was made by Tommy, I am sorry if I am mistaken. Several things:

Regarding scientific journals: I am interested to know where I can find an article in a scientific journal about crop circles. It would be an interesting read.
Regarding "Creators of Crop Circles": You are treating your POV as a fact (that there are crop circles that are not "hoaxed") when it is not, there are people who believe that all crop circles are in fact man made, while there are also people who believed that some are not. Saying "Creators of hoaxed crop cirlces" would be POV. On second thought, if you can describe the creation of a non-hoaxed crop circle accurately, with a cited source that points to a reputable source (as considered by the scientific community), you should put it in the secton "creators of crop cirlces" to make that section more complete.
Clarification on pseudoscience, as stated on Wikipedia: "A pseudoscience is any body of alleged knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method." Something that cannot be tested is not falsifiable, which may be a property of pseudoscientific research.
Clarification on argument from ignorance: the argument made by cerealogists is basically (paraphrased), "because there are anomolies within the crop circles and the plants within the crop circle that to the best of our knowledge cannot be man made, they must be made by some external force." The key there is "best of our knowledge," perhaps there are techniques that they have not seen before because the people using them will not reveal themselves.
Clarification on the science: [science] is a noun, not a verb. It is in fact not a doctrine, because it does continually change, but there are certain beliefs that are generally to be pseudoscience by a the scientific community, such as ufology.
Santa Claus is not a pseudoscience, but you cannot use the scientific method to prove existence of Santa Claus, simply because the hypothesis is not falsifiable: there is no way to prove that Santa Claus does not exist
Question on blown nodes: how do we know that man made crop circles don't contain blown nodes? Have they been researched in as much detail as the supposedly "real" crop circles?
Ball of lights: perhaps they are flashlights?
Regarding peer review, and blown nodes: Peer review is when other scientists need to look at the blown nodes as well to give their opinions about the nodes. Similarly, other scientists read over papers before they are published in journals (peer review) to make sure the work is valid and follows the scientific method.

Iamthebob 00:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and [this is] an interesting refutation on burst nodes. From the same site, [this] talks about node elongation. You can see the rest of the pages [here]. I know it's original research that isn't done by a reputable source, but it's still an interesting read. Iamthebob 00:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for triple-replying, but just wanted to mention that the above site demonstrates why peer review is necessary: diffent people come to different conclusions from the same pictures. (Note: I'm not saying that the person is reputable and is a good reviewer, but am only making a point about peer review). Iamthebob 00:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

On the NPOV policy

There is a risk here of missing an extremely important part of the NPOV policy, andone which appears to hev been unilaterally removed, perhaps as part of this particular dispute. It is this: "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing all significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias." In the case of crop circles this means that the dominant view in the scientific (and wider) community, that they are a hoax, must be given most weight, and the article must overall convey this view. Guy 11:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

And you will be able to provide a reputable and verifiable source that science considers the circles a hoax, right? How soon will you have it available? How did you determine that? When I count the papers, it is something like five to one in favor of non-hoaxed circles.

64.12.117.13 15:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

How do you determine which is the dominant view? If we count the book published, I know of at least ten that question the hoaxer theory, and not a single book that claims all the circles are hoaxed. If we count the websites, I know of only two that imply al circles are man made, and at least a dozen that question the hoaxer theory. If we talk about scientists, I know og at ten who question the hoaxer theory and none who claim they are all man made. If you count the wider community, I am unaware of any survey on this subject.

You will conform to Wikipolicy and provide us with reputable verifiable source, correct? Otherwise I will be inclined to think that you are giving us original research which is a violation of Wikipolicy.

Tommy Mandel 15:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to bet a lot of money that if I went and asked all the scientists at any major research university in the world, over 95% of them will say that Crop Circles is pseudoscience. I cannot prove this, but I have a very very good hunch that this is true. If you can only name 10 scientists, it probably isn't the majority view... Oh, and the reason why we can't find books trying to prove that all crop circles are man made is due to response bias, because that book would be boring, short, and no one would buy it, since it isn't illustrating a controversial point of view. Iamthebob 00:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Cerealogy is the science of crop circles

I have removed the references to cerealogy and agriglyphs in the lead, per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. The supposed discpline of cerealogy is, of course, a pseudoscientific discipline and removing discussion of it will reduce the need to include the contentious pseudoscience category. Guy 11:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

One step forward, two steps back. Certainly you can provide a reputable and verifiable source that cerealology is a pseudoscience, how soon will you post it here?

64.12.117.13 15:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

How about someone from the University of Maryland, Purdue University, and Syracuse University? Can you provide a reputable and verifiable source (that means, someone not associated with crop circle research) that thinks cerealology is a science? Iamthebob 00:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I read them but did not find a statement saying that cerealogy is pseudoscientific. Perhaps you could help me out and find it for me? You have to do this anyway in order to provide verification. What I read is that there are a lot of stupid things being said by misinformed or stupid people and therefore everything is stupid. Is that right?

Tommy Mandel 05:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Is that the best you can do? Come on, science is not a doctrine, science is a verb (original research, but google "science is a verb" The scientific method. A method. A way of doing things. A way of testing. Testing. Verify test. Verify. Science is about duplicating a test to verify it is consistent. Testing. Testing. Science is testing.

Pseudo science is not testing, but claiming you don't have to.

Just like you are claiming you know without having to learn what you claim to know. That is pseudoscience, And really I want to thank you very much for pointing me to these sites. Are skeptics skeptical of their skepticism? I think I got it now. Critical thinking. The skeptic site talked about how to think critically. Think. Think. The pointing finger is not the moon. Think, The Sound of one hand clapping, no thinking. No thinking. Intu=ition in-tell-ect, intu-ition. Not thinking is the basis of all Eastern philosophies and is an integral part of the higher thought systems. Thinking is only an illusion, a play of words. But words have no reality, they are only symbols. Words have no direct connection with reality. The thinking mind had no direct connection with reality. Get it? The thinking mind can only experience the symbol. The word is not the thing. "The map is not the territory." Intu-ition. When we cease our thinking, we experience something else. Yes, we don't die if we stop thinking. We experience our intu-ition. intu. When we go intu ourselves, we become intuitive. In-tell-ect can only tell us about reality. Intu-ition can experience it.

The skeptics are materialists, who believe only what is in front of them. What is behind them does not exist to them. And they are right. What they don't experience does not exist for them. I think that is way cool. If they think it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. But that's just for them. That is so cool...

If these sites are all you got to make your point, then I claim that you and them are the true pseudoscientists. You and they take ridiculous examples of absurd things that absurd people dreamed up, and apply it across the board. as if everyone is absurd. That is non- thinking if you ask me. If you think that because there are absurd explanations then all explanations must be absurd is not science. Did you test it? Did you retest it? No all you do is say it. And you say it as if your words have some kind of truth about them. No, your words, my words, all words are bullshit. Test it. Test it, that is the scientific way. I know science when I see a test. You refuse to look at, study, and confirm the testing that is being made. You are the true pseudo scientists. I challenge you to test your theory. How come every single man made crop circle (those I have seen) that was openly made looks like crap? Well, you can select the evidence, so why can't I?

Let's see... http://www.entm.purdue.edu/academics/courses/website/199GPseudo/199G.schedule.Sp05.html Purdue University

I find:

Some patterns of pseudo science:

Often uses the following argument when confronted with cases of fraud: "Well, perhaps many, even most cases of [crop circles | UFO abductions | Bigfoot sightings | etc. ] are hoaxes or misunderstood natural phenomena, but could they ALL be hoaxes or misunderstood natural phenomena?"

In fact, a perfectly legitimate answer to that question is "Yes, absolutely! 100% of them could quite easily be hoaxes or misunderstandings!"

Duhhh, the observations/evidence that is inconsistent with human involvement is deleted from these pages - how come? You, and bill and fred remove the evidence and then claim that there is no evidence and you are right. Do you think that is clever thinking?

Would I ask a geologist about biology? Scientists are like anyone else, incompetent about knowledge they are not familiar with. Here is competency in action --

http://www.share-international.org/ARCHIVES/crop_circles/cc_ml-music-spheres.htm

An interview of Gerald Hawkins, the renown astronomer of Stonehenge fame, in his actual words, not Fred's twisted around version...

On Intellectual profile...

ML: That eliminates natural processes and Doug and Dave. What’s left?

The interview concluded with this comment. This is how real scientists think

ML: So the major focus of your work right now is looking into these(pictograms)?

GH: Yes. It’s totally absorbing. It’s not a joke. It’s not a laugh. It’s not something that can be just brushed aside.

ML: Is there anybody else who is investigating it seriously in terms of your scientist colleagues?

GH: No. It boils down to two factors. You wouldn't get a grant to study this sort of thing. And, two, it might endanger your tenure. It is as serious as that. There are whole areas in the scientific community that are not informed about the crop circle phenomenon, and have come to the conclusion that it is ridiculous, a hoax, a joke, and a waste of time.

It’s a difficult topic because it tends to raise a knee-jerk solution in people’s minds. Then they are stuck. Their minds are closed. One can't do much about it. But if they can keep an open mind, I think they'll find they've got a very interesting phenomenon.

From the December 1992 issue of Share International

And here is how a real scientist writes, yes all scientific papers have a conclusion. They deleted this too, eventually deleted all of Haselhoff. That action is misguided at best, POV Pushing at worst

Dr. Heselhoff writes: Page 128, in the section he named

"The Facts:"

"In the last twenty years. there has been much speculation about different aspects of crop circles. But it takes more than just a little reading to understand where the facts end and where the fiction begins. Personal involvement and investigation, field work, discussion with many people, crucial questions, and much thinking are needed to reveal the true character of the crop circle phenomenon. Unfortunately, much of the public information is not very accurate or even is completely wrong, as a result of ignorance, lack of accuracy or objectivity. or simply evil intent. Although many alleged crop circle properties cannot bear the scrutiny of an objective analysis. some relatively simple observations seem to defy any trivial explanation. Biophysical anomalies, in terms of node lengthening and germination anomalies, are probably number one on this list. The lack of any indication of human presence or mechanical flattening, observed many times in even the most fragile and delicate species of crop, is perhaps somewhat less objective but still good for a second place. The awesome complexity and particularly the hidden geometry in many pictograms at least indicate that this cannot be the result of a simple joke. Even fantastic and extraordinary observations, in the form of a gradient balls of light hovering above a field and creating a crop circle, can fulfill the requirements that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." This extraordinary evidence was delivered in Chapter Three. The node-length measurements unambiguously showed a perfect symmetry in three different cross sections through the circular imprint, in perfect correlation with the radiation pattern of an electromagnetic point source. This is indeed the required extraordinary evidence, which at least ought to open our minds to the dozens of other, similar eyewitness accounts, and of course the video material of the flying balls of light. Moreover, since identical findings were accepted for publication in the scientific literature, it is quite legitimate to say that the involvement of balls of light in crop circles formations has by now become a scientifically accepted fact. (3) And there is much more extraordinary evidence, in the form of burn marks on the bird box, delicately draped, undamaged carrot leaves; a virgin circle in a frozen field of snow, dead flies, and much more. Anyone who takes the time to explore and verify all of these findings personally find that the facts are plain: Something very strange is going on."

At the conclusion of his report, Dr. Hasehoff presents his own conclusions:

Conclusion one: The suggestion that crop circles are all made by practical jokers with simple flattening tools is by no means sufficient to explain all documented observations.

Conclusion Two: The crop circle phenomenon is often erroneously ridiculed and much underestimated in its complexity.

Conclusion Three: The true nature of the crop circle phenomenon is unknown to the general public.

Conclusion Four: "Those who are unqualified to judge should refrain from comment." (D.G. Terence Meaden)

Conclusion Five: Small radiation sources with an electromagnetic character ("Balls of Light") are directly involved in the creation of crop circles. (Their origin and exact character remain yet unknown.)

Conclusion Six: Something very strange is going on.

You see, the scientific concensus among scientists who know what they are talking about is that there is a mystery here, and none of them can/will say what it is. The scientific view is that the cause of (some) crop circles is not known.

It is called honesty

And that is my view as well. I don't know what is going on, but I sure as hell do not expect to find the answer here, given to me by people who haven't bothered to read even one book on the subject. And who dismiss the real investigations as if they know better. Clearly you (I'm generalizing here, you is all of you who maintain all crop circles are manmade) do not know how science works or else you would be able to tell what is science and what is not. It is you, you who think it is all a joke, that are being pseudoscientific, and you think you are being clever by pointing the finger at the scientists who do know what they know, and what they don't know, as if your state of the art knowledge is superior to theirs. So why are you so hot to remove the evidence? If you are right, and they are wrong, then you should welcome the chance to put it all on the table and let the reader come to your conclusion. No, you choose instead to dismiss it, ridicule it, hide it, distort it, delete it and deny it. That is not science. That isn't even logical. The logic about why no books written by hoaxers to show that all crop circles are hoaxed is not valid. "They don't write them because they would be boring and no one would buy them" is a very interesting observation, but it is not why they haven't written the books.

Tommy Mandel 05:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion Six: Something very strange is going on.

That's for sure...

Tommy Mandel 05:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience. I am sorry that it had to get down to personal attacks, Tommy. I'm not sure what I did wrong, except that I was trying to show you what scientists consider to be pseudoscience... I do not think this discussion will continue well any further. Perhaps mediation will be required. iamthebob 05:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't you protect me when I was savagely attacked by Darkfred? Nutty, lunatic, mad ravings of a POV crusader and there were more but Darkfred managed to delete the enire archive. And get away with it, What did you say then? Maybe you weren't here then, but if you read what was said, I was attacked numerous times personally, as if my person had anything to do with what I was talking about. I know what I am, Darkfred and the likes know nothing about me. But their remarks are telling. I am sorry and I apologize if I in some way attacked you, but my experience working on this article has been warlike thanks to you know who, and I still haven't quieted down. And now some Guy comes along and without even have read anything at all decides he knows best, and the progress we were making, remember, went flying out the window. Please do not present stupid stuff to me as evidence of any position. I am not dumb and you are insulting my intelligence. I know the difference between flying spaghetti and burst nodes.

Tommy Mandel

Though what you say is interesting, I will rethink the idea of Pseudoscience. Maybe I'll even get around to reading their talk page, which is like 3x the length of this one (like wtf?). iamthebob 06:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It's easy

"A pseudoscience is any body of alleged knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method."

Therefore

Cerealology, insofar as it follows the scientific method, is science.

Don't watch the moving mouth, watch what the hands are doing...

Tommy Mandel 09:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the tricks of pseudoscience is to make a claim without any actual evidence to back it up. The claim can be made subtle by associating one with the other. An association with science, but without the experiment, probably is top of the list. But not far down is association with the meaningless. As if this association has some sort of validity to it.

Categories: Talk archives

Talk:Crop circle/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

source discussion

Man Made?

Tommys reply to my comment above

Regarding Tommysun

PROOF of "some" is NOT EVIDENCE of ALL.

"...and some with evil intent."

working article

Three revert rule

Reverted text archive

Requested Quotes from new article

NPOV DISPUTE

Personal attack

Gerald Hawkins summation

Inappropriate editing

"The mad ravings of a lone POV crusader"

In Hawkins own words

Science of Crop CIrcles

Vandalism

Warnings to user Darkfred

Copyright violation in [[:{{{1}}}]]

requested aribitration

TommySun's Evidence page

Latest reversion

working insert

Hawkins article

Principle investigators

NPOV dispute

Example of POV Pushing by editors

Latest changes

Comments

Time to be honest

POV Pushing

Mediation

"all significant published points of view are to be presented"

On the NPOV policy

Cerealogy is the science of crop circles

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search