Talk:Crop circle/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Location of pub
2 Microwave Processes
3 Mythology and TV
4 Lets work on this together
5 309 kilobytes!
6 Science of Crop Circles
7 WikiProject Paranormal
8 HAARP
9 AddHoc, please comment
- 9.1 Evidence of pseudoscience/pseudoskepticism
10 crystal clear
11 End the Flaming
12 To start, Stop lieing
13 Protection

[edit] Location of pub

i made an edit as the Percy Hobbs (D&D drinking hole) is just out side winchester not in southampton, a small edit but one that had been bugging me when i read the page --Mark Barnes 22:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Microwave Processes

I'd like this page to go more in-depth with the difference between manmade and authentic crop circles, namely, the damage to the crops that are not caused by a wooden plank, but by some microwave radiation, causing the nodes inside the stalks to pop and the plant to lie limp on the ground. Also, a link to that one video that showed a flying saucer creating a crop circle in a manner of seconds would be helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.166.203.91 (talk) 09:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Mythology and TV

I think we could get some nice TV clip? or picture of a UFO making a crop circle! --CyclePat 14:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The only video I know of showing a UFO making a crop circle was a cleverly hoaxed video, as pointed out in Colin Andrew's book. I've heard of another video showing a ball of light hovering above a circle and then moving toward an approaching tractor and as it passes over, the farmer turns his head to follow it. The farmer says his family thought he was nuts until the videographer showed up two days later with the video. There is one TV recording of a crop circle being made, but the fotage was stolen and never has been found since. Most TV footage is on hoaxing the researchers, pseudoscientists like to take these hoaxing of researchers as proof that they are all hoaxed.

Aren't you the admin I wrote to asking for help? He never even replied. Then I wrote to your group, and they never replied. No one helped me until Addhoc, the hall monitor, came along. So why are you here now? Mythology and TV...oh, I get it now.

Tommy Mandel 23:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that's advocate, not hall monitor... Addhoc 13:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Darn, now everyone knows...

Tommy Mandel 06:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lets work on this together

Bill and Bob, I don't feel right doing this all alone. I really would like to work on it together with youse guys. I've got a lot of ideas, but I would feel better if you felt the same about them as I do. For example I got permission to upload a good picture, I think we can state the 25 primary observations in one sentence, and go into detail about just a few of them. I'd like to outline the extraordinary observations such as Hawkins theorems, and maybe create a good resource center, ALL the websites for example. Let me say again that I think the official scientific POV is a big question mark. Even Peter Sorensen, the videographer who eventually changed his mind on the whole thing tempers his conclusion with "they PROBABLY are all hoaxed," which is probably the closest we can come to a conclusion, and it does leave the door open just enough so that there is a question still to be answered. I don't see why this couldn't be handled just like a court trial, where one side introduces evidence for, and then the other side introduces evidence against and then the jury (the reader) decides for himself. One thing tho, those balls of light. Seems like everyone, even the hoaxers, has seen them...

Tommy Mandel 03:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I editied out the POV holding that mainstream science believes crop circles are of human origin. The comment without a source is original research and violates NPOV. This was tagged requesting a source bu none has been received. If "mainstream science" is that group of certified scientists knowledgeable about a field, then the mainstream view is that the cause has not been determined. Tommy Mandel 04:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! You edited out the NPOV, you mean! Guy 12:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me repeat myself "I editied out the POV holding that mainstream science believes crop circles are of human origin. The comment without a source is original research and violates NPOV. This was tagged requesting a source bu none has been received. If "mainstream science" is that group of certified scientists knowledgeable about a field, then the mainstream view is that the cause has not been determined.

Tommy, I would like to give you a hypothetical scenario, and I would like you to comment on it. Let us say that the vast majority of scientists (or for that matter, members of the public) consider that Father Christmas is a myth, a story made up by parents to tell their children. After all, there is good evidence that at least some parents make up the story. However, let us imagine that there is one scientist (let's call him Doctor X.) maintains that there is a Father Christmas, and that he has the evidence to show for it. His work, however, receives little to no attention in journals such as Scientific American, New Scientist, Nature, or the Proceedings of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics. Dr. X seems to be the only person researching Father Christmas. Perhaps we can grant him supporters by imagining that Dr. X is not on his own: Mr Y BA and Ms Z (BSc Hons) support his conclusions. By extension of your reasoning above, we can comfortably state that 'mainstream science believes in Father Christmas', as the only persons knowledgeable about the field all say he exists. --BillC 13:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Note also that in this scenario, it would be very difficult to source the statement about mainstream science's belief concerning Father Christmas, because it's so obvious that nobody prints it. A similar situation exists with crop circles - their man-made-ness is so evident that you can't find papers in legitimate journals discussing it; who's going to devote part of their career to proving the obvious, unless there's a reason to doubt the obvious (which there isn't, no matter how many bent straws are pointed to). - DavidWBrooks 15:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

To begin with the analogy does not merit discussion, we are not talking about subjective evidence, we are talking about objective evidence. Secondly, it is clear that you have not researched the topic, otherwise you would be able to telll me about the journal articles which do exist. Levengood was a biophysicist who devoted part of his life, he has two articles in journals about crop circles and has fifty others. Gerald Hawkins was a famous astronomer who has devoted part of his life to the study. Elitjo Haselhoff is a physicist who has devoted part of his life to the study. Can you name one scientist/study which males the testable claim that ALL circles are manmade? There isn't even a book out saying that. 205.188.117.13 21:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say they are all man-made, it says that scientific opinion is that they are of either human or natural origin. If you can find me any references from a reputable journal supporting the idea of anything other than human or natural origin I'd be pleased to read them. Guy 11:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the mainstream science argument is not verifiable, even though I believe that mainstream science does in fact believe that circles are all man made. I would like to ask this question, though: "Are there any works regarding crop circles published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals?" iamthebob 21:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Not that I have been able to find, through public online sources. It's not someting that a legitimate scientist is going to spend much time or money on, apparently. - DavidWBrooks 21:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If you weren't already aware of it, you might find this of interest: Grassi F, Cocheo C, Russo P: Balls of Light: The Questionable Science of Crop Circles Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 159–170, 2005 --BillC 23:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that could really be considered a peer-reviewed journal, in the usual meaning of the term. We'd really love a couple in Science or Nature or something like that. - 23:58, 17 October 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.

205.188.117.13

Both of you are making statements supporting your position that are false.

There is no such thing as "mainstream science" I don't know where that word comes from, but it is not a scientific term by definition.

It is, by definition incorrect. Any scientist worth his salt will not form opinions on subject matter that he is ignorant of. A biologist is not qualified to state conclusions applying to physics. Science is not a doctrine, rather it is a methodology. Opinion is not one of those scientific methodologies. So if a scientist states his opinion on something that he is ignorant of, then he is not using the scientific method and has no more "authority" than any other member of the public. Scientific papers do not get published which uses data such as "the majority of others believe this or that." I( wouldn't be surprised if "mainstream science" came from Wikipedia editors.

So your scenario has a flaw in it by presupposing "mainstream science" actually exists. It cannot exist in the scientific sense. Nor should we present it as if it does.

Obviously all three of you are presenting a POV by your comments. Stating that mainstream science, when no such science exists, without providing a scientific source for your statements, as an opinion held by knowledgeable scientists sounds like pseudoscience to me. - 205.188.117.13 22:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record...From Wikipedia NPOV page

Explanation of 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.

In review:

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.

At any rate both sides are to fairly presented without any WikiTalk slanting the article one way or the other.

Well, I give up with arguing with you Tommy. There really is no use—I'm obviously not going to convince you of anything. iamthebob 22:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That comment is regarding your views towards "mainstream science" and whether crop circle is considered a science; thank you for the journal article though. iamthebob 22:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you please buy a book on crop circles and read it? May I suggest Haselhoff's book because you can read that in one evening. You can see how science operates from his book and you wil be able to tell the difference between fantasy and fact. The irony of this discussion, you say that science believes all crop circles are hoaxed, but are unable to provide any scientific study with that conclusion. You say that mainstream science...but you completely ignore the three mainstream scientists who have studied the phenonmenon.

What is it that you are trying to convince me of? That most people believe that crop circles are all hoaxed? Even if that were true it would only be your original research/synthesis and clearly violates NPOV which states that the editor must not slant his writing one way or the other. The article must not decide for the reader what is true or not. As editors, we can only report what has been reported elsewhere. For sources we can only depend on the literature that exists in the field. For reliable information we can only dekpend on those who have studied the phenomenon. We cannot step outside and take a poll and based on that poll slant the article whichever way. If there in fact was a poll taken, and that poll was reported in the literature, then and only then could an editor report that the poll was taken and the results are such and such. I doubt that a scientist dunded and conducted a poll of "mainstream science" and the "public" and reported his results in a peer review journal.

You guys must think I am stupid. We are not talking about bent straw, we are talking about the measurable crystalline structure of clay found inside the circle which when compared to the clay found outside the circle indicates a replicable and significant difference, a difference that cannot be produced by any known technology. The increase in the atomic order is accomplished by nature with intense heat and high pressures and a long time. The changes found are an objective fact. They are not Santa Clause stuff. What caused them is an open question with no scientific answer. THe scientists report honestly that they do not know what caused them. They have ideas, and Doug and Dave are not among them.

You must think I am ignorant, but it is clear to me that all of you have not studied that which you are claiming to know so much about. In science it is called prior research. You know so much because you apriori dismiss the counterview. You ignore the evidence and then say there is no evidence. And then you say that, because there is no evidence, I don't know what I am talking about. At least I have read the literature as much as I could find. Funny, but if you would have read the leterature you would find for yourselves the inconsistencies on both sides.

You must think I am dumb. There is no so called "Mainstream science" it would be called scientism. Maybe scientism is what you really are talking about. Hmmmm?

You must think I am a fool, because I would spend so much time on this article. But it is not the circles that fascinate me, but how they are made. I would be a fool if I paid attention to those who don't know what they are talking about.

Not you Bob, our new armchair philosopher. I understand what you want to say Bob, but in all honesty, mainstream science is not aware of what is going on. And attempts to silence the participants does not help scientific research a single bit.

"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".

It should also not be asserted that a view which is unsupported by peer-reviewed evidence is anything other than fantasy. Feel free to cite the evidence published in reputable peer-reviewed journals for crop circles being of paranormal origin. You are familiar, I take it, with the old adage that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?" This is a textbook example. The only "evidence" presented in favour appears to come from people who had already made up their minds that the origin is supernatural. How many previously sceptical scientists have they convinced with this evidence? Thus far it looks to me as if all this gets an official "yeah, right". Guy 11:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not true that a view which is unsupported by peer-reviewed evidence is anything other than fantasy. Verification and reputable sources are all that s required. It is not up to us to decide what is true and what is not true. Clearly, Guy, you haven't read the literature, if you had you would not be saying things like you do. The papers which do appear in peer reviewed journals do not claim paranormal origin, they claim not by mechanical means. I would like to see your peer reviewed journal article which proves your point, whatever that might be. If you can't come up with one, then what you are telling us is just your opinion which you have every right to hold any way you want to. But if you use your opinion to tell me it is a fact, that is not science. Tommy Mandel 01:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 309 kilobytes!

If this Talk gets any bigger, it's going to make my screen fall off the table ... - DavidWBrooks 23:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Archived. Guy 10:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

We have to understand that if these crop circals were not man made then it should be some intelligence entity involved.. these designs are quite intresting and complex, so why when it comes to Ball of Light theory, Tommy restrict hisself admiting that either these Balls of lights are also man made, or some unknown not yet declared allien force is.. and if he do not have any proof to present that aliens do exists then he should atleast say that these circals are man made.. untill he finds something against it.. phippi46 15:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The last time I tried to explain what I thought was going on, they called it mumbo jumbo. What I think has not been published anywhere, so it is just my original research and that should not be in the article. The only thing I am convinced of is that not all of the circles were made by the hoaxers. And that's as far as I go. Personally I would love to know who is pushing those balls of light around. I think I know how it could be done in principle.

There is a big difference between saying "crop circles = aliens, look for the evidence of aliens, here is an anomaly, how do we use that to prove it's aliens", and saying "crop circles = something to look at, mostly hoaxes, let's see if there are any which can be proven not to be hoaxes, and find out what natural phenomenon might have caused them" or words to that effect. The arguments in favour of paranormal or extraterrestrial origin all violate Occam's razor. Guy 15:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Who said anything about aliens? Occam's razor is a guide, not a law. What are you saying?Tommy Mandel 01:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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". Also published in Physiologia Plantarum 111, vol. 1 (2000): 124. Dispersion of Energies in Wordwide Crop Formations" (Opinions and Comments)

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) Principal investigator/sources/reference

(Aa)

Colin Andrews

Amamiya Kiyoshi

Dr. Jean-Noel Auburn

Robert Boerman

Andrews Colins

Pat Delgado

Dr. Eltjo Haselhoff

Gerald 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.

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)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommysun (talk • contribs)

Tommy, you're hammering this poor talk page to within an inch of its life. There is no need to add this much material to it, and to keep doing so comes close to violating WP:POINT. Anyway, to begin to address some of the things you have mentioned:

Dr. Eltjo Hasellhof, a practicing physicist, Okay so far.
once employed at Los Alaamos and several Dutch Institutes, His past employment history is not of importance.
presently the senior scientist at a medical imaging company in the U.K., Nor really is this statement.
has rigorously investigated the crop circle phenomenon. POV. Who says his investigation was rigorous?
His findings are published in "Deepening complexity of Crop Circles:" Okay, but this is properly done by citation, not in this manner.
by Eltjo H. Hasellhoff, Ph.D. Well, it would be. You've already said it's his book.
The title of his dissertation was "Aspects if a Compton Free-Electron Laser". Totally irrelevant to this discussion.
Also published in Physiologia Plantarum 111, vol. 1 (2000): 124. Dispersion of Energies in Wordwide Crop Formations" (Opinions and Comments). Again, cite material rather than copy titles verbatim into the body of the text.

That's as far as I got. Someone else can tackle the rest. Oh and please sign your posts. --BillC 01:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, could you shorten it a bit? Skimming over it, I don't see anything that added to your argument (whatever that happens to be). In addition, I don't really know how much of it you wrote and how much of it you just copied from another website... and I don't see how all of this could possibly be relavent to the article. We already know your POV. And no, no matter how hard you try to convince me, I will not be convinced that it is a fact that there are crop circles that are not man made. And I don't think you will convince other people who think the same way as I do. Things don't just magically become true when you say them on talk pages over and over again. iamthebob^{(talk|contribs)} 01:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Come on guys, this is my working copy, stuff that could go into the article. It took some doing to collect it together, and I don't wnat to lose it in the archives. This is what we got to work with. What do you think should go into the article? Better yet, which single item, taking this one by one, shuld not be in the article? Tommy Mandel 23:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Bob you write: "I will not be convinced that it is a fact that there are crop circles that are not man made." Does this mean your mind is closed? Tommy Mandel 17:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I will revise my statement. "Unless if you provide evidence that is of quality many times better than what you have now, I will not be convinced that it is a fact that there are crop circle that are not man made." I will, however, concede that there exist people that believe that there are non man-made crop circles. However, you take it as a fact that there exists crop circles are not man made. Does that mean that your mind is closed? iamthebob^{(talk|contribs)} 22:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I am not trying to convince you or anyone else that there are crop circle that were not made by the hand of man. What I am trying to do is to present all the meaningful evidence so that the reader can decide for himself - you included. And I do not take it as a fact, several times during this overall discussion I have changed my mind. It is a rather unsettling experience to conclude that my conclusion is wrong. There is more to it than what is presented above - the crystallization of clay, for example. There is absolutely no way stomping on clay can do that Tommy Mandel 03:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Tommy, greetings, if we forget for one second all these things, tell me what other fields of sceince you are interested or working in right now.. phippi46 23:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

My primary field of research is general system theory. Tommy Mandel 15:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Paranormal

I've re-added the rudely removed project tag. Our project isn't required to 'prove' something is paranormal (which would be rather impossible, I believe), but rather that a topic has been associated with one of the subjects of our project scope (UFOlogy, in this instance). --InShaneee 13:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought that the rating was put there as a joke by one of our editors. Do you see balls of light too? Tommy Mandel 23:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't tell if that's sarcasm or not...either way, I'll just say that we're not making any claims about the content of the article or the subject itself, merely saying that we've decided that this is one of the articles we want to help patrol and improve, which really is a good thing all around IMHO. --InShaneee 15:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the mysterious features of crop circles are what they call balls of light. I can't help but wonder if the UFO's are not actually balls of light too...Tommy Mandel 03:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

And other mysterious features of crop circles are included in what people consider to be paranormal... iamthebob^{(talk|contribs)} 04:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What is this "what people consider paranormal"? I get the impression from at least two editors that there is no such thing as the paranormal. It is scientific to conclude that because one has not experienced the paranormal, therefore the paranormal does not exist?Tommy Mandel 16:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Definiton of paranormal. The paranormal may or may not exist, but evidence for its existence is not backed by science. Now, read your last statement again. Now, answer this question: have you experienced a crop circle being made? iamthebob^{(talk|contribs)} 22:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

no. Tommy Mandel 22:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

(back to margin) I went to the link and here is what I found

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source par‧a‧nor‧mal ::–adjective of or pertaining to the claimed occurrence of an event or perception without scientific explanation, as psychokinesis, extrasensory perception, or other purportedly supernatural phenomena.

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation: such paranormal phenomena as telepathy; a medium's paranormal powers.

Notice the subtle differences. According to the the logic of the former definition, consciousness, because consciousness science has not been able to establish any sort of objective test for consciusness, might read something like. "It is claimed but not scientifically explained that consciousness purportedly exists." In fact, the argument has been proposed by some within the scientific community that they do not know that consciousness even exists. (all that because they have not found a quantitative measurement they can do) It cannot be said in any way that the existence of whatever depends on scientific proof. Science does not know all. Just because science has not found proof for the paranormal it cannot be said that science has proved it does not exist. Tommy Mandel Tommy Mandel 02:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's look at what you wrote above --

The paranormal may or may not exist, but evidence for its existence is not backed by science."

IS this a true NPOV statement? "May or may not sounds balanced, but what about "is not backed by science"

The very same thing can be said about consciousness -- Consciousness may or may not esist, but evidence for its existence is not backed by science."

Can you see the subtle "editorializng" which tends to opine? I know you are conscious, but science has yet to determine what consciousness is and only after they do that will they find a way to measure it and only after that is verified will they be able to say something about consciousness. None of that warrants the opinion that, therefore, "the existence of consciousness is not backed by science."

So, until "science" those who study consciousness in a scientific way, can say what consciousness is, science really cannot say one way or the other what lies beyond our consciousness. Nor can any other scientist, nor can you or I. And a true NPOV will reflect this fact.

It is not scientific or even logical to believe/say that the paranormal does not exist because of the reason "I have not experienced it." Believe me, those who have come to experience it, do not grapple with such questions as "is it real?" Does it exist? Instead they have mastered a relationship with the Universe. Is that understandable? Our relationship with everything else. I don't know if that is a normal thing or not to you. We are not separate from the Universe, when we go beyond the separation of Us and the Universe, when there is no distinction as Plotinus puts it, the, he says"there is no difference. We are the Universe. To some this is mumbo jumbo, which I think is clever. Some do not have this experience, and for them it does not exist.

Tommy Mandel 03:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I am actually being attacked/ridiculed for these views on the paranormal. Tommy Mandel 04:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you are being "attacked" (actually merely opposed) for allowing your views to override neutrality. There is a gulf between what you believe and what can be verified from external sources. Your actions with respect to Bower and Chorley are a case in point; you have advanced no evidence to cast doubt on their statement that they made crop circles and there is unequivocal evidence from various sources that many of the circles which were noised about in the press in the 1980s were hoaxes, yet you repeatedly revert to weasel words which imply that this is only claimed. If your POV was not quite so blatant you would have fewer problems with other editors. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; here we have both a credible prosaic explanation and a failure to provide any compelling evidence to contradict it. Guy 15:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You haven't been around that long Guy to have heard the attacks on me, I have been insulted continually by one editor no longer around, so you can't talk as if I haven't been attacked. Second of all, the article started out as a clearly slanted point of vire that ALL crops circles are hoaxes. There is no question that some of the circles have been hoaxed. It can even be argued that most of the circles have been hoaxed. A funded study found that eighty percent are probably hoazes. I never disputed that claim. I never suggested that the hoaxers do not exist. I researched the subject, and I know for a fact, that the real scientists who did take the time to study the circles, do not take the stance that all of them are hoaxed. Instead they say that some of them, 20% of them, could not be hoaxed. This is the edge of their knowledge, if they were not hoaxed, then what? Here the scientists can only speculate, and that speculation has no more intrinsic authority than does yours or my speculation. Therefore the true scientific mainstream consensus is that they do not know what is making the circles. Leavengood says that he can duplicate some of the plant changes by placing them in a microwave oven for thirty seconds. So a popular idea in science is that they are caused, in part, by electromagnetic heating. If you think that is nuts, Leavengood developed and patented and is selling "stressguard" seeds which have been zapped by him.

Leavengood != popular idea. Legal maxim: the plural of ancedote is not evidence. Please sign your edits. Michaelbusch 07:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HAARP

It has also been suggested that HAARP may be the cause although this seems unlikely and has been refuted by scientists working in the field. (no pun intended)

Citation, please? iamthebob^{(talk|contribs)} 22:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What HAARP has to do with this thing, I thought it was designed to research for Weather Phenomenon phippi46 10:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AddHoc, please comment

AddHoc, I request that you present your evidence of my behavoir as you have observed it on the arbitration evidence page. I ask that you do this as a neutral party rather than as my advocte. If you are inclined to do so, please add your advocacy of my POV clearly stating it as such. Thank you

Tommy Mandel 04:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Tommy you are not mad and I dont think expressing a certain point of view should be treated as something unusall. You belief something and you are free to say here, same time other who dont belief in your theories are presenting there point of views. I have some doubts on your thoeries also, but it is fine for me, as when I get some critisim, I check my facts and try to improve them, and that is why we are here, to find the truth. who is right and who is wrong I dont know .. may be some day we will able to settle on something. keep going... phippi46 13:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that you should be soliciting people to support your POV... especially not on the talk page for crop circles. This has nothing whatsoever to do with crop circles; you will not buy credibility by asking for votes. In fact, someone may cite this page as evidence in the Arbitration page. iamthebob^{(talk|contribs)} 04:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken. There has been mention of my work at crop circles on the arbitration page. AddHoc is my advocate appointed in accordance with policy. He has been monitoring our actions since my request for arbitration was rejected. He is a neutral party and knowledgeable of what I do. Because the references in arbitration concerning my work at crop circles was negative, I am asking AdHoc to testify as to his observations of me. And because he is my advocate, he can throw that in too if he is so inclined. Notice that I did not suggest/imply/tell him how to testify. Tommy Mandel 05:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Bob, you wrote an evidence section which ended up on the arbitration evidence page. So how do you manage

"I don't think that you should be soliciting people to support your POV... especially not on the talk page for crop circles. This has nothing whatsoever to do with crop circles;"Tommy Mandel 20:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed two comments in article stating that science assumes circles are man made. This is false, the science that has investigatied the circles concludes with a big question mark. Tommy Mandel 05:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, could I comment that all statements have to be verified by reliable sources, with the exception of common sense, which includes for example that Paris is the capital of France. The statements that were removed went beyond this and therefore should be sourced. Addhoc 11:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You gave a very good example .. hmmm.. phippi46 15:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Can i have a link of some sort where science has said cirles are NOT man made? Not to say they arent't, but just wanting to read up on that point of view. 210.49.194.248 06:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Go up this page to science of crop circles. Unfortunately the science of crop circles is not allowed in the article. Tommy Mandel 08:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Science is allowed. Pseudoscience is not. Michaelbusch 08:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

--Submitted as evidence of pseudoscience by editors--

[edit] Evidence of pseudoscience/pseudoskepticism

The following has been submitted to the Arbitration Committee as evidence of pseudoscientific actions - implying or stating as scientific fact that which has not been scientifically supported. [1]

Article - Crop Circles

Evidence of POV Pushing

This is what I placed into the article.

[edit] Scientific investigations of crop circles

A number of practicing scientists have investigated the crop cicle phenomenon including Gerald Hawkins, an astronomer who investigated Stonehedge reported on the geometrical formations; William Levengood, a biophysicist and University professor studied the plant structure, E, Haselhoff, an experimental and theoretical physicist studied the patterns of crop bending. The organization BLT research, utilized the scientific method to analyize soil structure. These investigations involved what has been observed in the field.

The BLT Research Team is a group which states as its 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", The BLT group has claimed that anomalous changes in the soil underlying crop circles have been found that could not be explained by conventional theory.[6]

Dr. Eltjo Hasellhof, a practicing physicist, has rigorously investigated the crop circle phenomenon. His findings are published in his book: "Deepening Complexity of Crop Circles:"

"Crop circles have become highly controversial, especially after it was revealed that some of the circles were man-made. "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,"

And this is what happened ---

"I have reverted your edits to Crop Circles, as they give the false appearance of reputable science promoting crop circles as something other than pranks. Any future additions of this material, even in part, should be given consensus on the article's talk page and cited to death. Another suggestion: this talk page is for people to leave you messages. It is not a place for you to catalog all of your edits. That is done automatically (the contributions tab). Michaelbusch 02:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)"

The truth of the matter is that those scientists who have investigated the crop circle phenomenon have found objective evidence which they say could not have been created by mechanical means. In the biological realm, cellular structure changes within the plant are unexplained, In the geological realm, changes to the atomic structure of clays cannot be explained, In the geometrical realm, new Euclidian theorems have been found that are not explainable by chance. And then there are those enigmatic Balls of Light. If mainstream science means the commonly held view of those scientists who are actually involved in the research, and that is all the mainstream view can mean in science, then the scientific mainstream view is that thay do not know what caused the circles. Tommy Mandel 04:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No. The mainstream view is that there are a large number of pranksters out there. The 'objective evidence' cited has been accurately produced in demonstrations of crop circle construction (as discussed in the article). The other problems referenced above (which show a lack of understanding of the corresponding subjects) are not relevant to this discussion. See User:Michaelbusch under Objection 3. This situation is a variant of that case. Michaelbusch 06:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course there are pranksters out there. However, the objective evidence you are basing your conclusion on comes from the article which you are assuming is correct. But on the contrary, the article lacks all the scientific evidence that has been published. And if you are presenting that the POV of the article as the scientific view then I claim you are being pseudoscientific, in spite of your devored efforts to combat pseudoscience. Meanwhile you haven't really said anything, and so I cannot really refute what you do not say, can you be specific? What reputable source claims that ALL crop circles have been made by mechanical means? What reputable source claims that the scientists who have studied them are not reputable?

What do you find wrong with this?

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

First thing wrong with this: massive quote from a text which adds zero content.

Problems with the reference:

Reference is not peer-reviewed, and Heselhoff himself has not published any peer-reviewed papers that I can find in a search of the usual indeces. As far as I can tell, this man has no presence in any standard reference. On Google, the name only appears in your pages on Wikipedia.

The only reference in this reference to anything in the literature is balls of light. But 'balls of light' are caused by a great many things (say a headlamp) and the bare fact that something was accepted into the literature in no way insures validity. I won't bother to list all of the retractions and fraud that have made it past review. Review is the first filter. It is not the last.

The quoted passage in and of itself provides no evidence. Michaelbusch 07:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, you don't think a scientist is reputable unless he is well known. So what about Gerald Hawkins? Can I use him as my source? And would you carefully consider what he has to say if I present it to you?

Tommy Mandel 07:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You are not talking from a position of knowledge when you give us your opinion about the balls of light. I won't go into the details here, but one of the videographers in England who went from believer to "they probably are all hoaxed" wrote on his website, "But the balls of light are real, I have seen them myself." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy Mandel (talk • contribs)

I have also seen balls of light. They are usually lights. I once mistook a cell phone for a firefly. Seeing is not always believing. I don't think a scientist is reputable unless his work has passed review and I can look at it myself to verify the content. I now understand the problem: you have mis-spelled the name. You are considering Eltjo Haselhoff, from the Netherlands, who did some work in optics as a grad student in the early 1990's. He has not published a peer-reviewed paper in physics in the past ten years (his recent activities are focused around playing the guitar). His single paper on crop circles which passed review was in Physiologia Plantarum. This journal is what is termed the 'gray literature': it publishes papers of marginal quality and their review is less than thorough. I was able to find the abstract in electronic form, but not the paper itself. The abstract is wordy and says very little. With regards to Gerald Hawkins: consult his Wikipedia article. After Stonehedge Decoded, his work is suspect and generally not accepted as reliable. If you insist, I can pick it apart, but I don't have the time to do this and Wikipedia is not the proper venue. Michaelbusch 08:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

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? 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. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy Mandel (talk • contribs)

See User:Michaelbusch, Objection 1. And sign your posts. Michaelbusch 08:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I sent that out just as you sent me yours and I got yours before I sent it back out. So far you haven't provided any damning evidence for either man, what about Leavengood? He's making Stressguard" seeds nowadays? Tommy Mandel 08:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Leavengood is/was a biophysicist/professor, wrote fifty papers, and one about the plants. He investigated changes in the plant. These three tell a consistent story...

OK, you want the hard evidence up front. They have measured the crystalization of clay, and found significant changes from inside to outside the circle. Apparently the changes in the atomic structure normally require long periods at high temperatures and pressures. Hardly somethng Doug and Dave could have done...Tommy Mandel 08:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Give a citation for a reference with details of evidence, tests, and methods. Changes in atomic structure is one of the vaguest terms I have ever heard. Two of your three 'consistent story tellers' are not considered reliable in the general scientific community. I have not produced evidence that would hold up in a court of law, because such evidence doesn't exist. I merely presented the publicly available data, which is such that few would trust either Hawkins or Haselhoff. At the moment, I can't seem to locate Leavengood and his Stressguard seeds. I also don't think the stories are consistent, because they give completely different data that do not necessary relate to one another. I am dis-inclined to continue this discussion, both because I am tired and because if I read you correctly, I could take apart all of your arguments and you would simply create new ones for me to dissect. This thought wearies me more than that it is one in the morning. Michaelbusch 08:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I found William Levengood (spelling!), whose work on crop circles apparently consists of asserting that the damage patterns to stalks could only be caused by the water in the plant being heated to boiling. I find no references to 'Stressguard' seeds (either in internet or US patent office, whic also has no patents by him). I find the abstracts of papers in Physiologia Plantarum (see above) and a CSICOP review of his work, which is most unflattering [[2]]. I have not delved deeper, nor do I intend to, especially given the CSICOP report. I don't always approve of their attitude, but they have a knack for finding problems and have done my work for me. I have said all that need be said: your references are all suspect and unsupportable. I am done. Michaelbusch 09:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

CSICOP? You mean those guys who say that the bending is caused by phototropism? They are not smart, they make absurd associations. Anyway,

Here's some dat on Levengood's papers [3]

Here's the patent info. --[4]

"The more positive plant changes--enhanced growth rate, increased yield & increased stress tolerance--observed in the laboratory in seedlings grown from cropcircle plants which were mature when the crop circles occured, have also been replicated in the laboratory. In 1998 W.C. Levengood and John Burke obtained a patent (Patent #5740627) on equipment they developed which delivers unusual electrical pulses to normal seed. Called the MIR process and carrying the registered Trademark "Stressguard," this equipment creates organized electron-ion avalanches which then form organized plasmas, to which seeds are exposed.

Here is the report on clay crystalization

CLAY-MINERAL CRYSTALLIZATION CASE STUDY: 1999 EDMONTON, ALBERTA, CANADA CROP FORMATION[5]

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."

I listed the BLT site not that far above, obviously you didn't look at it. Here are the researchers they list

PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS

The scientific consultants listed below provide expertise in multiple disciplines; analytical techniques available include optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy/electron dispersive spectroscopy (SEM/EDS), infrared spectroscopy (IR), nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), mass spectroscopy (MS), gas chromatography (GC), and X-ray diffraction (XRD). Several other sophisticated definitive techniques are also available, if the situation warrants these. Recently several additional scientists have indicated interest in the research results and we anticipate working on projects with them in the future.

Current Consultants

BUDINGER, Phyllis .................................................. Analytical Chemist M.S. in Organic Chemistry, Miami University--1964 Research Scientist for BP/Amoco Oil Company (previously Standard Oil) for 35 years, with specialized experience in petroleum, chemical & polymer analyses using spectroscopic techniques (IR, NMR). Working knowledge of most other analytical techniques. Currently: Technical Director, Frontier Analysis, Ltd. Laboratory -- Chagrin Falls, Ohio.

CONRAD, Diane . ................................................................ Geologist M.S. in Geological Sciences and Clay Chemistry,State University of New York (SUNY)--1984 State Geologist at the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, 1991-1995; Director of Environmental Programs for Salt Lake Organizing Committee, Olympic Winter Games, 2002. Currently: President, Maka Cante Associates -- Tucson, Arizona.

IYENGAR, Dr. Sampath S. .............................. Geochemist/Mineralogist Ph.D in Materials Chemistry/Mineralogy, VA Tech--1980 M.S. in Soil Physical Chemistry, VA Tech--1972 Materials Science specialist, with strong background in the analytical characterization of materials. Developed XRD method for characterization and analysis of pharmaceutical compounds in multi-component mixtures. Currently: Analytical Manager, Technology of Materials Laboratory -- Wildomar, California.

RAGHAVAN, Dr. Ravi ............................ Chemical Engineer/Statistician Ph.D in Chemical Engineering,Purdue University--1978 (specializing in Mathematical Modeling and Computer Simulation of Processes) Leader of Unit Operations, Project "Aspen," M.I.T., 1979 Senior Systems Engineer, BF Goodrich, 1980 - 1997 Extensive training (Black Belt Six Sigma) in Applied Statistics. Currently: President, Raghavan & Associates, Inc. -- Cleveland, Ohio.

REITER, Nicholas A. ........................................... SEM/EDS Technician Associate Degree (2-yr.) in Applied Sciences--1983 (Terra Technical College, Fremont, Ohio) Since1984 has worked in fields of engineering technology, vacuum technology, thin films and high-temperature semiconductor chemistry. Also works on research projects in association with the McMaster Foundation for Gravity Research. Currently:Scientist, First Solar LLC -- Toledo, Ohio.

REYNOLDS, Dr. Robert C., Jr. .................... Geologist/Clay Mineralogist Ph.D in Geology, Washington University--1955 B.A. in Geology, Lafayette College--1951 Asc.A. in Chemistry, Keystone Junior College--1949 Roebling Medal Recipient of the Mineralogical Society of America, 2000; Frederick Hall Chair of Mineralogy, Dartmouth College, 1989-1997; President, Clay Minerals Society, 1991-1992; Chairman, Department of Earth Sciences, Dartmouth College, 1983-86; Currently: Frederick Hall Professor of Geology and Mineralogy, Emeritus, Dartmouth College -- Hanover, NH. Dr. Reynolds is a world-recognized expert in X-ray diffraction analysis of finely-dispersed layer compounds and, particularly, of clay minerals.

ROLL, Dr. illiam ..................................................... Parapsychologist Ph.D, Parapsychology, Lund University (Sweden)--1989 M.Litt, Oxford University (England)--1957 B.A., University of California at Berkeley--1949 Roll joined the staff of the Parapsychology Laboratory at Duke University in 1957, working under Dr. J.B. Rhine until 1964. He has authored more than 100 scientific papers, edited eleven volumes of Research in Para-psychology, and written three books. In 1996 he received the "Distinguished Career in Parapsychology" award from the Parapsychological Association and in 2002 was awarded the "Dinsdale Memorial Award" for his investigations of R.S.P.K. Currently: Adjunct Professor of Parapsychology, State University of West Georgia -- Carrollton, GA.

STEARMAN, DR. ROBERT O. .............................. Aeronautical Engineer Ph.D in Aeronautical Engineering, Cal Tech--1961 M.S. in Aeronautical Engineering, Cal Tech--1956 B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, Oklahoma State Univ.--1955 In addition to teaching both graduate and undergraduate courses in reliability, unsteady aerodynamics, random vibrations, aeroelasticity and structural dynamics since 1963, Professor Stearman has worked with the Boeing Co. as an Aerodynamist and as a Senior Analyst in the Mathematics and Physics Division of the Midwest Research Institute. His consulting experience includes work for the Air Force and several D.O.D.-funded programs at wind tunnel research facilities at NASA Ames and NASA Langley and at Air Force-owned AEDC facilities. Most of this work involved research on aeroelastic-related phenomena. Dr. Stearman has published multiple papers in refereed journals and is an active member of several professional societies, including the AIAA, ASA, SAE, ASEE and the EAA. Currently: Bettie Margaret Smith Professor of Engineering, Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics Dept., University of Texas at Austin.

Previous Consultants:

LEVENGOOD, W.C. ........................................................... Biophysicist M.S. in Biophysics, University of Michigan--1970 M.A. in Bioscience, Ball State University--1961

Research physicist at the Institute of Science and Technology and the Department of Natural Resources, University of Michigan, 1961-1970; Director of Biophysical Research for private-sector companies, 1970-1983. Has published 50+ papers, in professional scientific journals, including Nature and Science. Three papers (1994; 1995; 1999) present results of laboratory work on crop circle plants and soils.

Currently: pursuing multiple research interests at Pinelandia Biophysical Laboratory -- Grass Lakes, MI.

This is from one study they did [6]

STUDY OBJECTIVES:

To determine through x-ray diffraction examination (XRD) and measurement of the consequent Kubler Index (KI) whether changes in crystalline structure exist in specific clay minerals (illite/smectites) in surface soils inside crop circles, as compared to control soils from outside the flattened-crop perimeters;

To determine the statistical significance of the KI data;

To determine whether changes in crystallinity of the illite/smectites in crop circle soils (as demonstrated by changes in the KI) are correlated with apical node-length changes in crop circle plants sampled at the same sampling locations as the soils;

To determine if the XRD/KI results rule out direct mechanical flattening of the crop circle plants;

To determine if the XRD/KI results offer support for the hypothesis that an atmospheric plasma vortex system, emitting microwave radiation, is involved as a causative agent in the crop-circle formation process.

The work has been reviewed

MINERALOGICAL REVIEW:

We were extremely fortunate, at this time, to be able to consult with Dartmouth College geologist/mineralogist Robert C.Reynolds, Jr., described by his colleagues as "a brilliant scientist and without any exaggeration ... the best known expert in the world of X-ray diffraction analysis of finely-dispersed layer compounds, and first of all, of clay minerals" (D.M. Moore, "Presentation of the Roebling Medal of the Mineralogical Society of America for 2000 to Robert Coltart Reynolds, Jr., Am. Mineralogist 86:943-45, 2001).

Currently Frederick Hall Professor of Geology and Mineralogy, Emeritus, Dr. Reynolds examined our work and stated that he was

"...convinced that the sample preparation methods and the X-ray analytical procedures used were consistent with sound, standard methods of analysis. In short, the data have been obtained by competent personnel using current equipment."

So am I supposed to believe you who is writing from the outside? Who after a couple hours of research decided that there is no science to report? Or am I supposed to believe the scientists who actually work on this? Tommy Mandel 00:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] crystal clear

I am not a Lemming. Thank you for the enlightening experience

So Long

tommy

There is a basic principle that you fail to understand or even acknowledge: since we have information on how many crop circles were made from those who actually made them and since we know that they can be made by human beings with rather primitive equipment (charcoal, wooden planks and ropes, roughly), the burden of proving that those made by unknown "crop circlers" were made by anything other than human hands in the absence of evidence otherwise is on your part. This couldn't be simpler. This is always how it works: the side making the extraordinary claim (that with the least data) then has to prove the claim. Snapdragonfly 14:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC) (yes I did)

The above comment was added by an IP address, making it unclear if the user Snapdragonfly actually wrote it. - SpLo T _{(*T* C+u+g+v)} 13:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you even bother to read the evidence presented here? The evidence isn't found in the article because it is continually reverted (suppressed) What good is evidence if it is hidden by one of the parties? What good is Wikipedia if it doesn't follow it own policy? The Rockefeller family commisioned Colin Andrews to investigate the crop circles in 1999. He concluded that 20 percent of the ten thousand circles were not made by mechanical means. Here is he exact quote -"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."[3]

Apparently editors come here and read the article and based on the article, which does not include the scientific evidence, conclude that it is all a joke. The article should be written such that all significant views are presented accurately so that the reader can make his own interpretation of the facts. I have researched the literature and the story it tells is not the story we read here. You can rightfully ask for the facts, but you have no right to delete them from the article because they do not support your position. The article is based on the testimony of self-confessed criminals, and it their evidence, and their life story, that is admitted. But the evidence from the serious investigtors is dismissed as pseudoscience. Well, I claim that in this instance it is the Wikipedia article that is pseudoscientific. Of course you will deny that. But the fact of the matter is that no other institution operates this way. In science prior research is required, not suppressed.

Tommy Mandel 16:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

He is funded as part of the Rockfeller foundation's spirituality projects, and he admits himself (Colin Andrews) having pushed some (or even most) of his material through publication before going through peer review processes. His only unwavering claim is that it could have to do with a natural effect of earth's magnetic field; serious papers are still wanting on the issue. Snapdragonfly 17:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to provide me with the sources of your assertions? Also, having read his book, I do not recall him making any unwavering claim about the earth's magnetic field, please provide me with the source for this assertion. Did you go to the BLT website? There are serious mpapers there if you look. Objective evidence that anyone can duplicate, given the requisite expertise to do so. Would you please provide me with a serious paper that supports your own position? I would like to see just one paper. I have asked repeatedly for this reputable, verifiable, mainstream paper which assets to have proof of how all the circles were made, but I have yet to see even one. And when I asked about the books written by a hoaxer, the reply (here) was that they do not think it would sell so they did not write any. Tommy Mandel 23:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Tommy, if you're asking for a book written by a crop circle creator, allow me to oblige: Rob Irving & John Lundberg (2006). The Field Guide: The Art, History and Philosophy of Crop Circle Making. London: Strange Attractor Press. ISBN 0954805429.. --BillC 23:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting. I'll see what I can do to get the book and read it. Tommy Mandel 05:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the report on clay crystalization, changes in the soil which can be accurately measured.

CLAY-MINERAL CRYSTALLIZATION CASE STUDY: 1999 EDMONTON, ALBERTA, CANADA CROP FORMATION[5]

"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.

I think we can proceed within Wikipedia boundaries in this situation. Clearly the assertion in the conclusion above is ruling out mechanical flattening as a cause. Can we verify that statement as a reputable scientific statement? If no, then it shouldn't appear in Wikipedia. If it can be verified as reliable, then it should appear in Wikipedia. Does everyone agree?

Tommy Mandel 05:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"Scientists are unable to provide an explanation ...but rule out mechanical flattening as an explanation..."

OK, I'll ask the next question for you. Has the testing been conducted in a credible manner?

209.244.42.5 03:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And the answer is [7] Specifically --

Currently Frederick Hall Professor of Geology and Mineralogy, Emeritus, Dr. Reynolds examined our work and stated that he was

And that is the scientific way it is to be done.

209.244.42.5 03:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Having established an anomalous objective observation, tested it using standard procedure, reviewed by a highly regarded expert, without any disagreement forthcoming from other editors, it appears to me that the evidence just presented warrantes inclusion into the article.

Tommy Mandel 03:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree. I have reviewed your lengthy posts to this page. I see nothing any better than the material that I debunked. I have not debunked the new material because I lack the time to do so and I believe you will only flame more (this is supported by your actions since my debunking). I suspect that many other editors feel likewise. I will revert any edits you make that do not have explicit widespread support. I will say only one thing: your standard for 'highly regarded expert' seems to be very loose: you accept only people you agree with (whom you do not question) and you disregard all others. Michaelbusch 04:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, you have not debunked anything. All you have done is said that you have seen headlights and cell phones lights, and somehow this is supposed to mean, I am assuming, that therefore all the reported lights are explained. You have not researched this subject, that is obvious, If you are serious about editing you would do well to become knowledgable about what you are claiming to debunk. I cannot accept what you are telling me because you do not know what you are talking about. Talk to me with real knowledge then we can get somewhere, but don't insult my intelligence with your headlight theory. I have researched this subject enough to be able to tell when you and others are talking from a uninformed perspective. There is nothing opinionated about not going along with mistaken and wrong and misinformed opinions. Study the subject then talk to me. Don't sit there and tell what you think and then tell me you are being scientific about it, and imply tht it is I who is wrong. That is pseudoscientific my friend. And if you are studying to be a scientist, then you should know better. And if you do know better but have some reason to resist the facts, then I question your integrity. If you are here to investigate me, then I wonder why you are pushing your point of view. Are you trying to set me up? Even before you read up on the science, you concluded that the science was bogus. well here it is, something that everyone had better look at very carefully. Really look at the evidence and then let's talk, but until you know what you are talking about, it is obvious to any knowledgable person that you don't. You can insult me, claim that I am disrupting the editing process here, but you are the one to start this crap. And that is all it is CRAP. Don't insult me with your uninformed opinions.

Tommy Mandel 06:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC) The BLT Research Team investigated changes in the atomic ordering of clays from within the 1999 Edmonton, Alberta, Canada crop formation

The clay mineral extractions and X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis was conducted by Dr. Sampath S.Iyengar, a geochemist/minerologist and X-ray diffraction and materials science specialist, who was also totally unacquainted with the crop circle phenomenon or any of the controversy surrounding it, thus further protecting this analysis from any experimenter bias. They found an increase in the crystallization of clay.

They report in their case study that :"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."[8]

The team submitted their data for review to Frederick Hall Professor of Geology and Mineralogy, Emeritus, Dr. Robert C. Reynolds who concluded that he was :"...convinced that the sample preparation methods and the X-ray analytical procedures used were consistent with sound, standard methods of analysis. In short, the data have been obtained by competent personnel using current equipment."

Tommy Mandel 06:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed this in the article --"Colin Andrews is held by some to be an investigator of the crop circle phenomenon, "

what's the use..

And why did you take out the fact that Colin's research was during the 1999-2000 season funded by the Rockefeller Foundation? Colin Andrews is one of the first investigators and it is a fact that he is highly regarded. I think that everyone holds that he is an investigator of crop circles. And that CISCOP stuff did not dispute the findings it disputed the statistical presentation. It also did not consider other observations suvch as the clay KI decrease. Tommy Mandel 06:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Tommy, if nothing else, your recent edits were a copyvio, being as they were mostly a cut-and-paste from this page. --BillC 18:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That was my reference, I rewrote what I could. It is not a violation to copy a quote especially when it makes the point and is properly attributed. I'm convinced that there is nothing I can do that will not be reverted by you and your friends. I do not see an honest effort to work together on this, what I see is aggressive biased editing. specifically to oppose the intrtoduction of the real scientific view. This is by definition pseudoscience. Furthermore I am being discredited out by you and your friends, for example, today there is an edit war going on! Can you believe that? I don't understand how all of you can pretend to know what you are talking about without actually studying the literature. The more and more I study this and related fields, the more ludicrous the claims of outside observers that it is all a case of mistaken identity become. If you would have really studied the observations, maybe you would find the true inconsistencies that are found on both sides. For example, the diatonic ratios found in some circles before circle making became popular has to do with music which is a human invention...And some of the elaborate circles have been found to have construction lines underneath the flattened crop. But before you jump to the easiest conclusion, some of theose construction lines/points would have extended into unflattened crop, but they didn't.

I always thought that anyone actually reading the discussions here would readily see what is going on, specifically the POV that ALL crop circles have been manmade, and therefore all evidence indicating outherwise must be false and therefore must not be in the article. Apparently, that is how it is done here at Wikipedia. What happened is not important, what is important is what the editors think happened. It doesn't matter if an editor is knowledgeable or not, it is his intuitive fellings on the mtter that ultimately will be found in the article. And if someone comes along with evidence to the contrary he or she will be reverted every time, discredited, demeaned, falsely accused, and eventually banned. Your bias, which you necessarily have to impart to the reader, is just as obvious to someone knowledgable as it is convincing to someone who can only trust what he reads. Do you understand that? It is impossible to slant an article without the article looking like it is slanted. However, it can be slanted by removing evidence and that is what is going on here.

I find it ironic that the POV presented in the article has as its basis the testimony of self-confessed liars, while the real scientists who have actually investigated the field are, how did he put it, "debunked" thereby eliminating evidence that does not support the article's POV.

209.244.42.20 22:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please provide citation for the last paragraph. Note that admitting to a mistake is not lying. Michaelbusch 22:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think he means that anyone who creates a crop circle is a "hoaxer" and therefore a "liar". Tommy has posted words that effect several times previously on this page. --BillC 22:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If so, then it is merely consistent with all of the previous flaming. If it referred to an editor of Wikipedia, it would probably constitute personal attack. Michaelbusch 22:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I define a liar as a knowledgeable person who tells us what is not true when he knows it is not true. This is different from telling a falsehood unknowingly which is a mistake. I called DarkFred a lair when he took a quote and changed it to say the opposite of what was intended. When you talk about the mainstream scientific view maintaining that all crop circles are mmanmade. I know that is not true. I know what the mainstream scientific view is. When someone persists in telling the falsehood, then it becomes a lie - a purposeful twisting of the facts. Someone who tells a lie is a liar. I am tempted to call Michael a lair, but I think his mistakes so far are due to being unfamilair with the literature and thus is merely ignorance. But if he persists in denying credibility to those scientists who have investigated the circles, then that is purposely telling a lie, and I will at an instant label him a liar too.Tommysun

Why don't you argue the facts instead of finding some flaw that you are obviously using to distract everyone because to admit the facts would disprove your position? 209.244.42.3 15:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Reading the above, you seem to think that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, knows it, and choses not to admit it. This is an impressive conspiracy theory. See my user page. Michaelbusch 18:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] End the Flaming

User:Tommysun and, more recently, 209.244.42.20, have of late been dominating this talk page with what seems to be their sole purpose on Wikipedia: getting various dubious 'evidence' into the article (neither has contributed to any other articles). Their postings here are lengthly, at times obviously violating WP:COI and WP:C (this has been noted several times). I use the term Flaming in the broader definition of long, emotionally charged posts. Certainly their frequent regressions into ad hominem arguments are not helpful.

I have previously asked Tommysun to moderate his tone and exercise some level of restraint, as have several other editors. There are currently several Requests For Investigation relating to his edits. However, he and now 209.244.42.20 continue to flame. I predicted that this would probably happen, but hoped it would not. I appreciate the zeal of these editors, but their work follows a pattern that is precisely what I have come to expect of fanatics advocating one form or another of pseudoscience. I have had occasion to reference the majority of my user page in this respect. So I will ask one final time: cease your ranting. I suspect that this will not help, but ignoring repeated requests to restrain editing would not be good for Tommysun in the outcome of the Investigations.

Both Tommysun and 209.244.42.20 have contested my debunking of their original arguments. Their references at that point consisted of one author who had published much good research, but for the last twenty years of his life alienated himself from the scientific community by making outrageous and frequently disproven claims, and two more recent writers in a journal that, while nominally peer-reviewed, is known for publishing dubious results. One of these writers has not written any main-stream publications since he finished school, so his work has never been subjected to proper scrutiny. The other, and his work on crop circles, was investigated by the CSICOP and the result was that his results were almost entirely bunk. Now, the CSICOPs are at times abusive and holier-than-thou, but when they debunk something, it is very much debunked. If nothing is left after the debunking, then the work was bunk. Tommysun contests this point, but if he wants to support it he has a lot of work to do. I realize that I am making use of something like an ad hominem argument for the first two sources: the scientific community has ostracized these people, therefore their work is most likely invalid. This is based on the assumption that the scientific community is a good judge of science. I suspect that these two will contest that point. See my user page, Objection 1.

I'm afraid that this post will only led to more flaming, but I have to try to stop this. To that end, here follows what a crop circle zealot should have to be convincing in saying that something other than pranksters is at work. Any work proporting to support this should be peer-reviewed by an established institution. I very much doubt that this evidence exists, but if it does, the process will take some time and cannot be done here. I would feel quite justified removing any attempt to do so.

Proported differences in soil structure between 'genuine' and other crop circles: provide independent definition of what consitutes a 'genuine crop circle', test structure of a large variety of soils outside circles using the same techniques to establish controls, test soil structure in several areas before and after crop circle construction by you and by others to establish what human activity can do (this last was a major criticism in the CSICOP report [[9]]), conduct double-blind tests of soils to determine if the proported soil structure can be recognized without any additional information, have these results duplicated independently by other groups. Nothing in the above relates to the techniques used to analyze the soils. They may be standard or completely new, but the way that the techniques are applied is what matters.
Proported effects on plants. As above when it comes to testing for human activity, with the added note that 'cerealogists' often refuse to subject themselves to either single- or double-blind tests. Their reasons for this are various, but blind testing is the only way to insure that the evidence being presented is the actual evidence being used.
Proported mysterious lights over crop circles: this one is a little tricky. At the moment, it is strictly ancedotal. To support it at all requires detailed recordings of many crop circles being formed, having those recordings pass careful examination by experts at spotting fakes, demonstrating that the lights concerned were not being carried by a human, and providing an explanation for the lights. To do this properly would require wide-area, IR & visible monitoring of a large area of cropland with something like a spysat. For what it is worth, the civilian and scientific satellites have not seen anything like this.
Explain distribution of crop circles by something other than human activity. What else respects fencing, is biased to a relatively small number of countries, happens only in cropland (i.e. why no circles in forests, on plains, in deserts, in mountianous areas, etc.), occurs only in the dead of night, is strongly correlated to news reports of previous crop circles, and can be readily replicated to high accuracy by a few slightly drunk men? The distribution is generally ignored by zealots, because it is the strongest evidence against their arguments. If you are going to be convincing, you must explain all of the evidence.

Tommysun will now want to say that pranksters do not explain all of the evidence. But because proported mysterious lights, effects on plants, and effects on soil have not been properly tested, they are not good evidence. I have given the most likely source of lights in a field: a prankster wanting to be able to see. In the absence of good evidence to the contrary, that explains the lights. The effects on plants can be explained by human action, if the CSICOP report may be trusted. Certainly that and any changes in soil chemistry must be rigorously tested to show that human activity or normal variation cannot produce similar effects. Michaelbusch 21:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To start, Stop lieing

Tommysun and 209.244.42.20 are the same person, sometimes I forget to log in. Contrary to your claim that I have not edited any other articles, I have also attempted to edit the plasma cosmology article and am a party to an ArbCom case there, in which I am on the verge of being banned for aggressive biased editing. Translation: editing that does not support the article owner's position.

You write:

"I have given the most likely source of lights in a field: a prankster wanting to be able to see."

Are you trying to tell me that is a scientific assertion? It is not. "The most likely reason" is not scientifically the correct reason a priori (That sounds a lot like the reasoning of the CSICOP people, as if finding an alternative explanation proves that the alternative explanation is correct.) Have you heard of testing? If you would have read the literature you would have noticed the lights are seen at all elevations, not just on the ground. In one video the BoL flies over a farmer on a tractor who turns his head as it passes over him. (After seeing the video, the farmer said "My family thought I was nuts...") There is no absence of evidence when it comes to the lights. The question is what are they made of? To dismiss them without even learning about them is not science.

"Certainly that and any changes in soil chemistry must be rigorously tested..."

Now you know why I paste in whole paragraphs, I want to make sure it gets read. Why didn't you read the edit you reverted? It is very clear that one of the world's best known experts on mineralology reviewed and retested the clay samples and declared the testing to be correctly done. Do you need a letter from the president of the University? You won't accept that because that is the single falsification required to falsify the hypothesis that the circle was created by mechanical means. In case you are not aware, that one single falsification is even more significant because it supports the findings of other anomalous observations.

"(i.e. why no circles in forests, on plains, in deserts, in mountainous areas, etc.),

Really, you should read the literature, circles have happened in forests, sixteen of them to be exact. In one, the trees were broken and the tops all pointed to the center. Circles have appeared in a dried lake bed in Utah, thirteen miles of a 14 x 4 inch trench with beveled edges, Circles have been found on quarter inch ice, in snow. In corn. In canola which breaks if you bend it. You don't know any of this because all of it was reverted out by your friends. They let you down, and made you, and anyone else who believes the article, look like a fool. And don't come back claiming I made an ad hominum attack on you because you said this to me first.

Regarding the desert that i assume you are talking about the Sri Yantra by the artisit Bill Witherspoon and regarding canola (oil seed rape) it is not brittle when they have just flowerd, i know this as i have pushed them down personaly with out braking them. there is also documented evidence of this from a D&D formation (Sutton Scotney, 1992)--Mark Barnes 22:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There are two articles that I know about one is a supposed debunking of the bent stalks and the other is a supposed debunking of the cause of the bent stalks. The first article "debunkd" the bent nodes by claiming that normal phototropism would bend the plants too. What they fail to mention is that it takes three to five days before noticable bending to occur. The article was not in a peer reviewed journal. The second article was a review of Haselhoff's hypothesis that a point source located above the center of the circle would account for the measurted differences of heigth of the bend. This article was rejected by a journal. The reviewers did not dispute the bending, they disputed the statistical analysis. For example, they claim that the center tuft of standing stalk was not included in the data with the downed stalks...If anything, they questioned the hypothesis that the source was a point above the center. Notice that they did not question the fact that the bending of the stalk was proportional to the distance from the center, quite a neat trick to do with a board...

"For what it is worth, the civilian and scientific satellites have not seen anything like this."

For what it is worth, look at the Disclosure Project for testimony of sightings of Balls of Light. [10] Again, it is called prior research. Obviously you haven't researched civilian and scientific satellites. See [11]

"Although Levengood finds a correlation between "structural and cellular alterations" in plants and their location within crop-circle-type formations (as opposed to those of control plants outside such formations) [1], he should know the maxim that "Correlation is not causation." As the noted Temple University mathematician John Allen Paulos recently demonstrated-quite tongue in cheek-there is a direct correlation between children's math ability and shoe size!

They find a circle. In the circle they find bent stalks. They look at the stalks and find nodes that have lenghtened and blown out holes and pits. They do not find these outside the circle. CSICOP's argument that just because they find a bent stalk with a lengthened node does not mean that the lengthened node bent the plant is ludicrous. Their alternative explanation is phototropism, as if no one noticed which way the plants are bent.

You claimed to be an investigator, requested by three editors. I have an investigator here too. But why would an investigator come here and immediately take sides? Are you lieing to me? I think you are. A smart investigator would have observed first and then abstracted.

You came here, with no working knowledge of the subject, and removed the scientific evidence from the article on the basis that it is wrong to imply that science supports that view. What kind of reasoning is that? Without even researching the subject, you came here already knowing the truth. That is not science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommysun (talk • contribs) 05:05, 2 December 2006

I do not agree with you. This is not lying, because lying implies some deception. I do not claim to know the truth. I claim that all of the reliable evidence is against you, but present you with what I and the bulk of the scientific community would accept as reliable evidence of something unusual happening (which you have not met, but assert that you have). I do not claim to be an investigator, I only note that there are requests against you. By contribute to articles, I meant just that. Your 'contributions' have been restricted to flaming talk pages. At this point, you have violated at least a half-dozen Wikipedia policies. I suspected that the IP was you, but wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. This ends now. Michaelbusch 05:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Is this protection still necessary? Anyway, I just randomly wandered across the article. My intial impressions:

'Despite the evidence that crop circles are of human origin various paranormal theories continue to enjoy some currency, although these violate Occam's Razor'

While this statement is true, I also don't think it particularly belongs in the opening. It should probably be tacked onto the end of the previous paragraph without the reference to Occam's Razor, and with a mention of some of the associated groups. e.g.

'Despite the evidence that crop circles are of human origin various paranormal theories continue to enjoy some currency in some circles, including a number of UFOlogists.'

This strikes me as a lot fairer treatment. As UFOlogists are the most prominent group advocating these supernatural claims, I think they merit mention in this manner.

Also, the section "Unidentified Flying Objects" is mislabeled; they are claimed to be alien spacecraft, so it should be labeled as such. If they are not claimed to be such, then they should be left as UFO in the text and not relabeled as "flying saucer", as there's a difference between the two.

Finally, is the BLT Research Team notable? I've never, ever heard of them before and have no reason to believe they're considered to be an authority in the field amongst paranormal believers. If not, then I think its an example of undue weight or someone trying to insert their own group in as a means of advertising of sorts. They don't even have an address, just a PO box, so seem like they're not likely to be a prominent or important group. Their site seems to draw very poor conclusions. For example:

"This formation was found by the farmer (who subsequently reported that he had observed multiple circles the previous year in an adjacent field, which he had thought might be caused by deer bedding down) at harvest, and was not visible from the nearest roads. The fact that the field was infested with Canadian thistle, which made it almost impossible to walk in the field without high protective boots, tended to further rule out the possibility that this formation had been mechanically produced."

This is a very poor conclusion for a great number of reasons, foremost among them that –they- managed to go out there and extensively photograph it, and the farmer went out there to find it – there's no reason to believe random persons could not go out there. Moreover, what kind of harvestable field has that much Canadian thistle in it?

Their node analysis is thoroughly bunk – I've seen that many times, after walking through weeds. What causes it? The plant being squished/run over/whatever. Heck, I often play around with grasses and cause damage identical to that which is pictured.

The group doesn’t seem reputable, I've never heard of them, and unless there is some reason to believe they're well-known, I can't see justifying their inclusion under the principle of undue weight.

Anyway, yeah. Just my two cents while passing through. Titanium Dragon 20:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The protection was necessary because of the flaming above. It may be time to loosen it to a partial lock. I do agree that the BLT group seems most non-notable. Michaelbusch 21:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Following Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, Tommysun (one of the worst offenders) may not edit this article any more. I have also removed the NPOV dispute, since I think it was largely Tommy who disputed the neutrality on the grounds that the article stated that crop circles are not widely believed to be of paranormal origin. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The statement that paranormal explainations violates Occam's Razor is not true. An event or perception is said to be paranormal if it involves forces or agencies that are beyond scientific explanation. At present some crop circle phenomena is beyond Scientific explaination. That isn't to say the phenomena will always be beyond Scientific explaination. But it's clear some crops circles maybe the majority are not created by people with planks on their feet, although some clearly have been. However the idea this is true of all Crop circles ignores scientific evidence to the contrary. So although debunkers often use the Occam's Razor argement to support reductionist philosophies and beliefs. IMO it's not relevent to the facts or some of the evidence in regard to Crop Circles. There is no need to present any kind of view in an article like this. Simply because some people fear the unknown. The only important thing in this information is to present the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artberry (talk • contribs)