User talk:Tommysun/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] Personal Attacks

Where was everyone when I was being attacked over and over and over? So I call them stupid and you all come down on me.

Personal attacks are never acceptable. Comment on the content, not the contributor. Thanks. JBKramer 13:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Evidence of personal attacks found through Art LaPella Quoting Science Apologist's discussion tactics with me from a long time ago.

"SA, in my view, you are obviously anti-plasma" : User:Tommysun,


"in my view you are obviously an incompetent editor who knows very little about the subjects on which you are trying to inject a POV based not on verifiable fact or Wikipedia style guide or policies but on your own prejudices. No one here is "anti-plasma". No one here denies plasma exists. You seem to have some warped view over what exactly the controversy is, but I welcome you to explain your edits rather than heaading off on such tangents. By the way, you should keep your paranoid conspiracies regarding the Big Bang gang to yourself. It makes you sound a bit fanatical."
--ScienceApologist 13:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Art!

Now, you were saying. . .


I take an extremely dim view of the edits you have made on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence. "Outing" a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor in this manner is completely unacceptable, as are your veiled comments about legal action, and an editor's place of work. --BillC 11:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


ScienceApologist made the claim that he worked at a cosmology institute, I did not out him. Please retract your claim.

My veiled comments about legal action is meant as a wake up call. It seems that ScienceApologist and some others think that they can claim someone else is a lunatic and get away with it. Imagine if a search engine were to pick this up. And furthermore, ScienceApologist made the claim that Lerner was using Wikipedia to further his own interests by including his awards. I am simply asking ScienceApologist if he is getting paid by a cosmology Institute for editing the nig bang, err, alternative, er non-standard cosmology pages? I do believe that constitutes a vested interest which according to an ArbCom ruling means that Science Apologist ought not edit opposing articles.

Hi Tommysun, could I suggest that you rephrase your comments to express concern that remarks by other editors may be in contravention of WP:LIBEL. Addhoc 12:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, ok I apologize for overstepping the mark. For what its worth, I agree your comments don't appear to reveal any new information about Wikipedia editors. Also there isn't anything inappropriate about requesting clarification if you think somebody could have a conflict of interest. However, I would suggest that in future, you express concern about libel in terms of WP:LIBEL and don't allow other editors to give the impression you have issued legal threats. Again, my apologies. Addhoc 08:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
AddHoc, my reply was to BillC, (I corrected the order) one of the editors at crop circles. I consider BillC and IAMTHEBOB to be sensible, mature and reasonable editors. There was an editor at crop circles that did not have any of those attributes, and who repeatedly insulted me big time while BillC didn't say anything about that. All this was in the archives but somehow that got deleted...His "stuff" didn't bother me, since it was very telling about him, but I am left with a bitter taste in my mouth nevertheless. I find the same attitude being expressed by ScienceApologist, but SA is at least educated, and ultimately reason prevails. Not so with DF, who seems to me to be a 13 yr old making like an adult. I am trying to be precise with my writing, because it is so easy for others and me to to read into writing something that is not there.


(Redundant. Current physical cosmology does not *argue* for the big bang, it presupposes it.)

[edit] Personal Attacks (Talk:Crop Circle)

Do you mind not insulting everyone who disagrees with you in the crop circle talk page? It gets kind of annoying, and won't do us any good. This is under accordance with WP:NPA. Thanks. iamthebob 21:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. I have no quarrel with you Bob. I have removed all my insults, although I personally did not take them as insults, and they were NOY Oops, I just saw I left NOT out, sorry Bob. it was NOT directed at you, you know who, I thought of what you call insults as being a fact... It is not that "they" don't agree with me, it is the methods that they "use" in showing this. I have been insulted far worse, why didn't you say something then? I have been implied as "nutty", suggested a lunatic and called raving mad. And their arguments are dumb. All I said is that they are being stupid. And it wasn't "them" so much as it was their logic which is actually a beautiful example of what pseudoscience really is. But you are right, I could be insulted a hundred times, and if I insult back once, it is all my fault. Well, I just had to get it off my chest.
Okay, just wanted to get that straignt :) I think I'm going to take a break from editing the Crop Circle article for a bit, and come back later. It was fun talking to you (and I mean that seriously). Peace. iamthebob 21:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you mind not making edits [1] without re-signing? This makes it look as if you have said the phrase "why didn't you say anything then?" on October 9, which in fact you did not say. If you had said it, I would have responded that I had not joined the argument yet at that point, and that I was not reading the responses clearly. I had only looked over the argument generally while Fred was making his argument, I did not really start to post consistently until he left. iamthebob 22:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it was not intentional. And my pleading is not directed at you per se, rather at anyone who comes down on me, after being insulted a dozen times, and claims I made a personal attack. I lost my senses and called them, not you or Bill, stupid. Actually, I was thinking about some of the stupid things some people have come up with to justify calling cerealology a pseudoscience. As if by putting the same label on two completely differnt situations makes them somehow the same. I'm sorry, but that is stupid. Tommy Mandel 01:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)



[edit]crop circle crops The nature of their origin has become highly controversial with one school concluding they are of human origin, the other school concludng that they are not of human origin, and the scientific community which has directly investigated the circles reporting that they are unable to determine the origin of some circles. Gerald Hawkins, renown astronomer of Stonehenge fame, has investigated the crop circles and concludes, "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."

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. 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. "Mainstream science" is a pseudoscientific notation. PS And if you come back with the argument that there are scientific ideas that have been accepeted by all scientists, you are talking about scientific fact. NOT "mainstream science". Tommy Mandel 15:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

But there can be scientific fact that is accepted by the majority of scientists, no? Like a round earth? iamthebob 04:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC) You hit the nail on the head, what is accepted by the majority of scientists are scientific facts, not majority opinions. It can be argued that the whole idea of science is to prevent rule by majority opinion, an argument by authority. If authority were the rule in science, we would not have the benefits of Russian science.Tommy Mandel 05:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)



Ah, and what if the majority of scientists believed that crop circles are all made by men? See, that is the problem with the reasoning. I do think that the crop circle article should mention the possibility that there exists crop circles that are not man made. However, it should not be made out that this is a majority viewpoint, despite the amount of publishing that may have been done on it. iamthebob 02:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC) I think that the majority of scientists do believe that crop circles are all made by men. But how many of them can/will put that belief into a scientific paper? I don't think that the majority of scientists having an opinion based on opinion only, and a majority of scientists having an opinion based on facts, are the same thing. The majority opinion is not "scientific" and therefore cannot be attributed to majority "science". In other words, the majority of scientists are not aware of the scientific findings. Their "opinions" carry no more weight than yours or mine. I never intended to present it as if the majority view is such and such. My field of supposed expertise is multiperspectual science. What I would want to do is actually present all the facts, from both sides of the controversy as they actually exist. Because, and I know this doesn't count in Wikiland, after I had read of all the facts from both sides, I reached the same conclusion Haselhoff concludes, something very strange is going on. I certainly agree that most people beieve that crop circles are man made. But I also believe that most people haven't studied the subject matter and their opinions are not reliable. The hoaxers lie, they are not reliable. THe true believers are smitten, they are not reliable. The key researchers are somewhat reliable, but they are on both sides of the fence. All that is left are those scientists who have studied the circles. None of them, outside Meaden, claim to know what causes them. Not that they don't have an opinion on that...Most, if not all, of them agree that there are features which cannot be explained by mechanical technology. That is, IMO, the true scientific concensus on crop circles. And if Wikipedia is about presenting the facts, the fact is that there is a mystery surrounding the crop circle phenomenon. No one who has studied them in detail will disagree with that. Even hoaxers who have done a circle say upstraight that weird stuff happened to them - their story is above somewhere. Well, in the crop circle talk anyhow. Tommy Mandel Tommy Mandel 06:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] crop circle crops

The nature of their origin has become highly controversial with one school concluding they are of human origin, the other school concludng that they are not of human origin, and the scientific community which has directly investigated the circles reporting that they are unable to determine the origin of some circles. Gerald Hawkins, renown astronomer of Stonehenge fame, has investigated the crop circles and concludes, "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."

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. 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. "Mainstream science" is a pseudoscientific notation.

PS And if you come back with the argument that there are scientific ideas that have been accepeted by all scientists, you are talking about scientific fact. NOT "mainstream science". Tommy Mandel 15:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

But there can be scientific fact that is accepted by the majority of scientists, no? Like a round earth? iamthebob 04:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
You hit the nail on the head, what is accepted by the majority of scientists are scientific facts, not majority opinions. It can be argued that the whole idea of science is to prevent rule by majority opinion, an argument by authority. If authority were the rule in science, we would not have the benefits of Russian science.Tommy Mandel 05:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


Ah, and what if the majority of scientists believed that crop circles are all made by men? See, that is the problem with the reasoning. I do think that the crop circle article should mention the possibility that there exists crop circles that are not man made. However, it should not be made out that this is a majority viewpoint, despite the amount of publishing that may have been done on it. iamthebob 02:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that the majority of scientists do believe that crop circles are all made by men. But how many of them can/will put that belief into a scientific paper? I don't think that the majority of scientists having an opinion based on opinion only, and a majority of scientists having an opinion based on facts, are the same thing. The majority opinion is not "scientific" and therefore cannot be attributed to majority "science". In other words, the majority of scientists are not aware of the scientific findings. Their "opinions" carry no more weight than yours or mine.
I never intended to present it as if the majority view is such and such. My field of supposed expertise is multiperspectual science. What I would want to do is actually present all the facts, from both sides of the controversy as they actually exist. Because, and I know this doesn't count in Wikiland, after I had read of all the facts from both sides, I reached the same conclusion Haselhoff concludes, something very strange is going on. I certainly agree that most people beieve that crop circles are man made. But I also believe that most people haven't studied the subject matter and their opinions are not reliable. The hoaxers lie, they are not reliable. THe true believers are smitten, they are not reliable. The key researchers are somewhat reliable, but they are on both sides of the fence. All that is left are those scientists who have studied the circles. None of them, outside Meaden, claim to know what causes them. Not that they don't have an opinion on that...Most, if not all, of them agree that there are features which cannot be explained by mechanical technology. That is, IMO, the true scientific concensus on crop circles.

And if Wikipedia is about presenting the facts, the fact is that there is a mystery surrounding the crop circle phenomenon. No one who has studied them in detail will disagree with that. Even hoaxers who have done a circle say upstraight that weird stuff happened to them - their story is above somewhere. Well, in the crop circle talk anyhow. Tommy Mandel

The biggest mystery being, of course, why some people persist in the belief in some kind of supernatural mumbo-jumbo when it's been clearly shown that hoaxing is the most likely cause by far. Guy 10:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
What? That is something Darkfred used to say, oh, I get it. Are you Darfred with a new name? Your ligic is identical with his. The words you use are very telling. "Supernatural" means you are unfamliar with esoteric philosophy, Mumbo Jumbo means that esoteric philosophy is mumbo jumbo to you, and clearly shown means you have not yet studied the subject enough to tell the difference. So, now it all makes sense, you changed your name.
Tommy, Guy and Darkfred are two different people. --BillC 23:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. For a minute there I didn't think so, but after looking at his edits at NPOV talk, that wasn't Darkfred by any means. Anyway, now we have to talk about mumbo jumbo, supernatural and it is clear that the circles are hoaxed all over again.

Guy, first of all there are things about the circles that are not consistent with a hoax. Certain features which defy any trivial explanation as one scientist puts it. For example the structure of clay taken from inside a circle and compared to a sample taken from outside show marked changes. The atomic structure of the clay, the crystallization has increased compared to clay from outside the circle. According to the scientists who have rigorusly tested this, confirmed by a top expert, the changes only occur under great pressure at high temperatures for a long geological time. A piece of wood stomped on the ground is not enough pressure, needless to say. So there is a mystery that hasn't been solved yet. "Probably" and most likely" still haven't made it to all of them.

As far as supernatural, I don't know what that means. Super -- natural. What is natural?

And the mumbo jumbo. Well, when I talked about the scalar field, DF called it Mumbo jumbo. Obviously he didn't know about it. But I never could figure out how by calling it mumbo jumbo made him come out on top? Anyway, what is new in physics is what is called the hyperfield. It is also called the scalar field, ZPE, ZPF, quantum ground, Dirac's Sea and I call it the inside of space. This is not fringe science look it up at NASA. There is a connection gbetwen the crop circles and this hyperspace. The Balls of Light or BoL's as they are called, look like what plasma would look like. Plasma can become like a ball, and at low energy levels could appear as a transleusent ball of light. The interesting part for me is how this ball of plasma interconnects with the hyperspace? Obviously, that interaction occurs naturally, more specifically, the deep question is, for me, are the balls of light seen worldwide under some sort of "control?" Once that is answered, then the next question, who? But first, are there balls of light? and are these balls of light controlled?

Tommy Mandel 04:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This might be an interesting read: [2]. It is a "refutation" of the work being done by cerealogists. I'm not saying that it's definitive or correct in any way, but it's interestering nevertheless, and sheds light on some of the "science" that is being done on crop circles. Now what I really need now is a refutation to this article by BLT Research or something... iamthebob 05:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Even before I read it I can say that there is objective evidence but before I say more than I know,...Tommy Mandel

OK, I read this one before. I don't think it refures as much as call into question the protocol. Hold on...Tommy Mandel

Yeah, that was the issue I was trying to point out: that there are people out there who think cerealogy is a pseudoscience (as in, it does not follow proper scientific protocol). Nevertheless, I think that the cerealogist's POV should be presented in the article. I just do not think that putting it under a section called "scientific investigation" is appropriate. iamthebob 18:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Hm... I retract the last bit about "scientific investagions." I will have to think it over again; I'm not sure what is needed to be done about the article anymore... iamthebob 18:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, there is irrefutable evidence that some of the circles are hoaxes, and no credible peer reviewed evidence that any of them have anything other than a human or natural source. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As I have said elsewhere, nobody who had not already decided that there was no mundane cause has ever found any evidence to support anything other than a mundane cause. Some have been persuaded to scepticism, I see no evidence of any reputable scientist being persuaded to any of the paranormal theories. Also, I think Tommy, as a "true believer" needs to learn about "writing for the enemy". Guy 18:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)



Guy, why don't you be an example? Besides, you seem to be doing a good job of writing for the enemy. None of what you say is true except that there is irrefutable evidence that some crop circles are man made. Are you using the Wikipedia article as your source? Certainly some crop circles are man made, I have seen pictures of them myself. But those I have seen look like someone made them, so I wonder about that "preciseness". You are wrong Guy, when you claim there is no credible peer reviewed evidence..." Do you have a source? Are you claiming that the thrtee papers spoken of here are not credible? Are you saying that the peer review committee of three journals didn't know what they were doing? Hawkins was a somebody, and he leaves open the question of who made them. And are you saying all those reported observatons were incorrect? Where does "paranormal" come in? How about extraordinary?

Incidently, the Grassi, Cocheo and Russo paper was rejected by the journals. That paper does not claim the three scientific papers are not credible, they ran an analysis on the statistical confidence of the testing that was done. Essentially what they are saying is that the samples used were selected for best of the crop. Evidence of this is cited by the lack of including the center standing tuft in the measurements of the bent crop within the circle.Does this mean it is not credible? Tommy Mandel 00:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This is about as productive as debating evolution with Kent Hovind. Whatever facts are put his way, they conflict with his base premise and are therefore obviously wrong. The way it goes in scientific subjects is: you propose a theory, cite the evidence, and then it gets peer reviewed. If the theory is sound it gets accepted and extended. If not, it gets rejected. If it is still expounded after rejection, it gets ridiculed. Which is the stage that "cerealogy" appears to be at. It is clear, however, that you require proof which accepts your base premise, and since it is your base premise which is at fault, this is an unproductive discussion. Wikipedia is not a place to propound those theories which are rejected in the mainstream. Guy 18:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
You forget Guy, that you are in my page. Why do you come into my house and try to kick me out? It is obvious you are not talking from a position of knowledge, you never wrote a scientific paper and I do not understand your logic. In a sense you are not aware of, this exchange has been the most productive I have ever experienced at Wikipedia. And if this soapbox is not my soapbox then who does it belong to?
The way it is supposed to go in science is that you make an observation, formulate a theory, propose a prediction, conduct a test, publish the results. Peer review kicks in prior to publication and the only purpose is to make sure the data/test was properly conducted. Peer review does not mean acceptance. I do not know of one "peer reviewed published in a journal paper" which disputes the findings of Levengood and Heselhoff. The paper Bob showed us was rejected by the journals, and published in a non-peered reviewed journal of scientific exploration which will publish anything. And as we just discussed at length, it does hot refute the evidence, stating only that the three papers do not provide enough "proof" to prove beyond any doubt.

Well, :::From the BLT website

7. Laboratory Replication of Crop Circle Plant Changes. Apical node (the first node beneath the seed-head) elongation and expulsion cavities (holes blown out at the lower plant-stem nodes) have been induced in normal plants in the laboratory by placing them in a commercial microwave oven for between 20-30 seconds. It is microwave radiation, here, that is heating up the moisture inside the plant stem which--as it turns to steam and expands--either stretches the more elastic fibers at the top of the plant, or blows holes in the tougher nodes farther down the plant stem.
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. Tommy Mandel 01:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

And what mainstream are you talking about? Specifically, who are they?


Guy, could you, please, give me an idea of how much research on crop circles you have done? Have you read any of the books? Which ones? Have you visited BLT's website and read the reports there? Have you read about Hawkins discovery of the theorems and his conclusion? Because I wonder how you arrived at your conclusions that the crop circle debate has been definitely decided by peer reviewed journal articles proving that all crop circle features were produced by man? Is that what you are saying? So can you show me this paper you base your conclusions on? And if you do not have such a paper, then what do you base your conclusions on? Your best guess?

[edit] What they do not refute

Thanks Bob for having an open mind. I will try to respond in kind. I had a reply written in part but it disappeared somewhere. The paper you brought up is an interesting presentation. At a glance it seems to be saying that because the three investigations do not meet statistical confidence, the evidence is not acceptable as a condition which proves that some crop circles are not manmade. What is it refuting it seems to me is the conclusions of the three papers

In my first reply I started to do an analysis of your paper step by step. I lost that so starting again I will go step by step through their paper. I copied them below and will work on it little by little


Only three studies were published in a scientific journal: the first one was authored by W. C. Levengood (1994), the second one by W. C. Levengood and N. P. Talbott (1999), and the last one by E. H. Haselhoff (2001). All three papers suggested the involvement of some kind of electromagnetic radiation during the circles’ formation. However, in those three papers a list of sufficient conditions (or at least necessary conditions) was not provided in order to establish without any doubt if a geometric formation has or has not been made by man.
This is convoluted. What are they sayihg?

A list of sufficient conditions was not provided

in order to establish

without a doubt

Sounds to me like the paper is merely saying that (the hypothesis) has not been proven without a doubt.

It says nothing whatsoever about "therefore this is proof that all circles are man made."

It's not trying to say that all circles are man made. It's trying to show that cerealogy is pseudoscience. iamthebob 01:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
What makes you say that?. A credible scientific paper, if proven wrong by a second experiemnt, is not thereby made uncredible/pseudoscientific. Being wrong in science is not being pseudoscientific. I really didn't catch that one. I understood that they were nit-picking the results, and this is what they found.
I think the idea of the paper is to show that the cerealogists were not thorough in their work. The flaw with your second sentence (A credible scientific paper...) is that it assumes that the papers written by the cerealogists were credible in the first place, which they might not be (just like the paper that I showed you might not be). Perhaps there are things that were missed in the papers, in which case they should be revised to produce more accurate results. iamthebob 04:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Not being thorough is not being pseudoscientific. My second flaw is my assumption that the journal peer reviewers knew what they were doing. Remember it is the Russo et al paper that wasn't accepted by the reviewers. But your point is well taken, I would like to see a definitive paper too.
There probably is a whole lot of Pseudoscience going on in crop circle circles. A scientist does not set out to prove someone is pseudoscientific. I would bet that the term came from Wikipedia. A scientist would simply say, That is not science. I don't see at all, even in the questionable title, that the three authors are stating in any way that the other three papers are not doing science. What they are actually saying, which is what they are supposed to be doing, is that the science is not enough to prove beyond any doubt, because, they imply, it is possible to duplicate the node growth in a man made circle. But are they right about that?
I agree that the paper does not say that the three papers are not doing science, but it is trying to show that the papers are doing bad science—and that's not far away from not doing science. iamthebob 04:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but their goal is to "prove" and that is a long way from bad science.
Pseudoscience is when one claims a scientific conclusion which is not based on testable evidence.
Exactly. The purpose of the article (as far as I could tell), was to show that the journal publications about crop circles were not detailed in their research and that the evidence was not sufficient to obtain the conclusion that they obtained, which means that it is not conclusive that there exist crop circles that are not man-made. iamthebob 04:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, BUT it can only be said about that specific evidence. I'm not at all impressed by the skeptics paper. What about Levengood's findings? And, not even mentioned, what about the clay structure? And isn't it the ball og Light effect that is being questioned? Haselhoff said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And is he showing us a relatinship between the nodes and a supposed point source above the center of the circle. Haselhoff is saying that there is a measurable relationship. Tommy Mandel
Yes, and the paper says that the relationship is measurable, but that the results that Haselhoff obtains are not complete, and that a different analysis of the same data that Haselhoff uses provides completely different results (so Haselhoff's conclusion is not correct). What the paper tries to show is that Levengood was not following proper scientific procedure when performing his experiment, hence his findings are not accurate, becuase he may have used his process in order to obtain the results that he wanted. iamthebob 21:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
You say Levengood was not following proper procedure, but I find nothing about Levengood's procedure specifically, did you mean Haselhoff?Tommy Mandel
Levengood is mentioned on page 11 of the article. iamthebob 01:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


An experiment carried out in Maryland in 1997, Levengood and Talbott (1999) made, by themselves, a crop circle, claiming that the gravitropic response of the flattened plants was no more than about 10% in the three days since the circle creation, too little to explain the elongations observed in the alleged ‘‘genuine’’ fomations. We will discuss this assumption later in this paper. In 1999 Levengood and Talbott (1999) published the results of the monitoring
it should be noted that the node lengths increase up to 30%, proving wrong the conclusions of the Levengood and Talbott experiment at Maryland (1997), in which plant gravitropism was estimated to be no more than about 10%, ... meanwhile demonstrating that man-made circles can have node elongation as large as those found in the reputedly non-anthropogenic (‘‘genuine’’) formations.
Well, I sure wonder a lot about this node stuff. Are the Croppies so dumb that they didn't notice which way the plants are bent when they found them? Correct me if I am wrong, but a plant node that elongates on one side, and thus allows the plant to fall toward the center, or a plant that is forced down by mechanical means, would have to elongate in the opposite direction to bring the plant to the previous position. This is very evident when a plant is pulled back toward its original position I would think sitting here in my philosophers chair..."That way" and "back" are not the same bend. And the skeptics argument for gravitropism in three days can equal what has been found, does not explain those circles which were found the next day. What the skeptics don't talk about are the real strange stuff, like canola plants that bend. Carrots...Trees...Ice...Corn. On the other hand, where is the definitive paper in regards to bending plants?
Man made circles do not have node elongation immediately after they have been stompted. It takes several days before node length changes by natural means. Seems to me that it is the skeptics who are being sloppy here.Tommy Mandel 17:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe it says in the papers that some of the plants were obtained several days after they were formed. iamthebob 21:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't make sense, too many different researchers to make the same dumb mistake. Obviously aftr a while, the plant tries to bend back, do the scientists collected grain that was a week old and didn't notice the direction of the bending? Many circles were found the next day. Tommy Mandel 04:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

::Any conclusion concerning the comparison of samples coming from the formations and those from the whole crop field are therefore not supported by a robust statistical analysis.

Wellll...I believe that the above is the point they are trying to make. That point is clear, they are saying that the three papers do not prove "X" with the appropriate level of confidence. They don't say the papers are wrong, only that the samples may have been selected to make the point. Let me say this, if I were investigating the circles I would look for the most extreme example, for example I would look for the single photograph of a canola plant bent into a 180 degree bend. One example is all I need. I do not need five or five hundred, all I need is ONE plant that man could not have bent. And I do not need a scientific paper to prove it to me, because the evidence is objective, it exists out there. There is a photograph of a canola stalk bent 180 degrees. Canola does not bend, it breaks like celery.
If the paper says that the three papers do not prove "X" with appropriate level of confidence, that means that the conclusion is not proven. Since the three papers conclude that there must exist man made crop circles, the skeptic paper is saying that the three papers may not be correct; and that it is possible for all crop circles to be man made. The problem is not with the most extreme example; there are always anomalies within crops; there are just so many of them in any given field. iamthebob 21:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the problem is a reader reading into a paper what he or she thinks it is saying. If the skeptic's paper were scientific, and the refusal of the journals to publish it suggests that it is not scientific, if it were scientific it would state up front what it is trying to prove. It is not fair to twist the intentions of the skeptics around by claiming "that is what they are saying inbweteen the lines." That is not science. Tommy Mandel 16:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


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

included.

You know, even if we accept everything that is said in this conclusion, we are left with their own conclusion that there is a difference (how much they don't say mere doesn't do the job) but they do not explain how mechanically bending a plant lenghtens/bursts the node.
I do not think that it is necessary to include all circles, just one circle is enough to prove existence. I do not think it is necessary to include the standing stalk in the center of a circle as part of the bent stalks within the circle in order to arrive a significant conclusion.
I would reject the skeptics paper too if I were a reviewer. It is obviously not a comprehensive or definitive paper. It finds flaws, but the flaws are not fatal flaws. Let me say this, two possible explanations are always found in science. It is not science to say that because there is an alternative explanation the primary explanation is thereby proved incorrect. Proof that a crop circle was man made is not proof that the next one is man made.

In science it is the test, not the theory that ultimately prevails (Einstein said that) Right now I want to show you how this works. There is a whole lot more going on than the correlation of source and bending. We can talk about changes in the seeds within a crop circle. And they have the pictures to show that. But forget the statistical analysis, Levengood, took their knowledge, figured out what was going on, built a machine to replicate it, patented it, and now are on the way to their bank.


From the BLT website
7. Laboratory Replication of Crop Circle Plant Changes. Apical node (the first node beneath the seed-head) elongation and expulsion cavities (holes blown out at the lower plant-stem nodes) have been induced in normal plants in the laboratory by placing them in a commercial microwave oven for between 20-30 seconds. It is microwave radiation, here, that is heating up the moisture inside the plant stem which--as it turns to steam and expands--either stretches the more elastic fibers at the top of the plant, or blows holes in the tougher nodes farther down the plant stem.
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. Tommy Mandel 01:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I just got an idea! Thanks Guy! I don't know if I can get away with this, but I sure am going to try. Because this is my page