Crop Circles

[goatboy]

Then what makes them?

Nature?

Bent and elongated nodes are only EVER found in crop circles during the period when they are still in growth stage. So the later in the season, the less likely this effect will be found in a crop circle. It is nothing more than the plant's natural response to being flattened.

Read this and let me know what you think.

http://www.cicap.org/crops/jse_19_2_159-170_2005.pdf

[maryjane48]

so goat indulge my curiosty for moment if you please . now if i read you correctly your reason for thinking crop circles are man made are that there is in your mind scientific evidence poi ting to it being man made . and if that is correct how come your not in the faith thread poi ting out the exact same thing there when it comes to that topic ?

[Passion4Truth]

Bent and elongated nodes are only EVER found in crop circles during the period when they are still in growth stage. So the later in the season, the less likely this effect will be found in a crop circle. It is nothing more than the plant's natural response to being flattened.

Not even close, have you ever seen the evidence? Broken stalks look nothing like the nodes that are elongated or have expulsion cavities, yet, according to you, the answer is so simple that a respected biophysicist with over 50 published papers to his credit, just could not see what was under his nose and a keyboard critic like you figured it out just like that. Amazing. <sarcasm off>

Anything at all works in your mind except admitting an unknown source may be the cause, huh? Oh well, some people are just too conditioned to open there minds to other possibilities. If the "Doug and Dave" theory must live on in your mind, so be it.

[goatboy]

Not even close, have you ever seen the evidence? Broken stalks look nothing like the nodes that are elongated or have expulsion cavities, yet, according to you, the answer is so simple that a respected biophysicist with over 50 published papers to his credit, just could not see what was under his nose and a keyboard critic like you figured it out just like that. Amazing. <sarcasm off>

Anything at all works in your mind except admitting an unknown source may be the cause, huh? Oh well, some people are just too conditioned to open there minds to other possibilities. If the "Doug and Dave" theory must live on in your mind, so be it.

Did you read the link I posted? That was a scientific rebuttal by people way smarter than you or I. Read it and let me know what you think.

You are claiming that Levengood is a respected biophysicist. Can you name some of his peers that have mentioned him being respected? Just because he has published over 50 papers doesn't mean any of them are even close to being right and just because you say he's respected doesn't make that true either.

The onus is always on those that claim something other than the expected or logical explanation. You have posted and proven nothing that points to anything other than you may not know what caused something. Until you know what caused it, the most logical answer must prevail.

[goatboy]

so goat indulge my curiosty for moment if you please . now if i read you correctly your reason for thinking crop circles are man made are that there is in your mind scientific evidence poi ting to it being man made . and if that is correct how come your not in the faith thread poi ting out the exact same thing there when it comes to that topic ?

No, you've read me exactly opposite to what I believe. Until there is scientific evidence explaining and pointing to something other than the most logical explanation, then the proven and logical answer must prevail. That's how science works. What is more likely, man made or Aliens? Man made or mysterious forces? It's already been proven that some are man made, no one has seen an alien create one yet, so what is more likely? We have proof that man has made some. We have ZERO proof aliens have made any. Bent nodes and explosive cavities are no where near proof that aliens or mystery forces have anything to do with it, especially when those "claims" have been countered. Read the link and let me know what you think of their rebuttal.

http://www.cicap.org/crops/jse_19_2_159-170_2005.pdf

[goatboy]

Levengood's peer reviewed paper was not very scientific and shouldn't have been published in the first place:

During December 2003 Francesco Grassi, Claudio Cocheo and Paolo Russo submitted the manuscript "Balls Of Light: The Questionable Science of Crop Circles" to Physiologia Plantarum Journal. During February 2004 Grassi, Cocheo and Russo received a rejection letter from PPL, so they submitted later the manuscript to Journal of Scientific Exploration. JSE accepted the manuscript and submitted it to referees before its publishing.

Since meantime many rumours spread over the internet about the actual reason for PPL rejection, Grassi, Cocheo and Russo decided (August 2006) to ask PPL the permission to publish the actual rejection letter.
We want to thank Physiologia Plantarum Managing Editor for the permission grant.

Have a good reading:

Email Sent: monday 23 february 2004 11.50

Subject: Manuscript PPL-2003-00411 Decision

Editorial decision: Reject without review


Dear Dr. Francesco Grassi,

I have read your paper 'Balls of light: the questionable science of crop-circles formations' (PPL-2003-00411) submitted to Physiologia Plantarum. I have gone back and read these 2 previous papers and the comments on them and looked at their citation histories. The 1994 Levengood paper was self-cited in the follow up paper in 1999, which in turn was only ever cited in Haselhoff's and Deardoff's comments in 2001.

I have read your letter and your manuscirpt several times. While you have been more polite than I would be, in describing this as "questionable science", I think we agree that this topic is more suited to the popular press than to a scientific forum. The original papers were submitted to the journal and were subjected to the normal peer-review and were, regrettably in my view, recommended for publication and therefore published. Your point is that, given that this journal has published in the past papers that were questionable, in your view and mine, then this journal is therefore the best place to continue this discussion. I understand your point of view and I respect your wish to set the record straight, as you see it, but I must disagree.

The original papers by Levengood were published, and comments/criticisms of these were also subsequently published (Haselhoff 111(1) & Deardorf 111(1)) - inadequate though you may feel these were. After serious consideration I believe that to "continue this discussion", when clearly from the citation record there is not a scientific discussion in progress, only gives gives it substance and credibility it does not merit. I can therefore not accept your manuscript for publication in our journal.

I am sorry to disappoint you but I wish you every success in publishing your paper in a more appropriate forum.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Vaughan Hurry

Subject Editor
Physiologia Plantarum



http://www.cicap.org/crops/en/013.htm

[Fancy]

...a respected biophysicist with over 50 published papers to his credit...

Please post one - I'd love to look at it.

[Passion4Truth]

Levengood's peer reviewed paper was not very scientific and shouldn't have been published in the first place:

During December 2003 Francesco Grassi, Claudio Cocheo and Paolo Russo submitted the manuscript "Balls Of Light: The Questionable Science of Crop Circles" to Physiologia Plantarum Journal. During February 2004 Grassi, Cocheo and Russo received a rejection letter from PPL, so they submitted later the manuscript to Journal of Scientific Exploration. JSE accepted the manuscript and submitted it to referees before its publishing.

Since meantime many rumours spread over the internet about the actual reason for PPL rejection, Grassi, Cocheo and Russo decided (August 2006) to ask PPL the permission to publish the actual rejection letter.
We want to thank Physiologia Plantarum Managing Editor for the permission grant.

Have a good reading:

Email Sent: monday 23 february 2004 11.50

Subject: Manuscript PPL-2003-00411 Decision

Editorial decision: Reject without review


Dear Dr. Francesco Grassi,

I have read your paper 'Balls of light: the questionable science of crop-circles formations' (PPL-2003-00411) submitted to Physiologia Plantarum. I have gone back and read these 2 previous papers and the comments on them and looked at their citation histories. The 1994 Levengood paper was self-cited in the follow up paper in 1999, which in turn was only ever cited in Haselhoff's and Deardoff's comments in 2001.

I have read your letter and your manuscirpt several times. While you have been more polite than I would be, in describing this as "questionable science", I think we agree that this topic is more suited to the popular press than to a scientific forum. The original papers were submitted to the journal and were subjected to the normal peer-review and were, regrettably in my view, recommended for publication and therefore published. Your point is that, given that this journal has published in the past papers that were questionable, in your view and mine, then this journal is therefore the best place to continue this discussion. I understand your point of view and I respect your wish to set the record straight, as you see it, but I must disagree.

The original papers by Levengood were published, and comments/criticisms of these were also subsequently published (Haselhoff 111(1) & Deardorf 111(1)) - inadequate though you may feel these were. After serious consideration I believe that to "continue this discussion", when clearly from the citation record there is not a scientific discussion in progress, only gives gives it substance and credibility it does not merit. I can therefore not accept your manuscript for publication in our journal.

I am sorry to disappoint you but I wish you every success in publishing your paper in a more appropriate forum.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Vaughan Hurry

Subject Editor
Physiologia Plantarum



http://www.cicap.org/crops/en/013.htm

If I understand this correctly, this is about a rebuttal to W C Levengood's published papers by Dr. Francesco Grassi, entitled: Balls of Light: The Questionable Science of Crop Circles, suggesting Levengood used "questionable science", but it was refused publication. It also states that W C Levengood's papers were indeed peer reviewed and recommended for publication at the time, even though the author of the above letter disagrees at this point.

And of course you will find rebuttals, this subject is full of misinformation and disinformation as are other subjects considered “conspiracies”. This has been done for many years, whether it is for detraction or profit, such as the information regarding studies involving cigarettes to cannabis and other natural cures. Remember all the positive studies on tobacco that were bought and paid for by the tobacco companies? Hence the term tobacco science was coined. It is now being discovered that many studies in the pharmaceutical industry have been using the same type of "tobacco science", but don't look, there's nothing to see here folks, just another conspiracy theory.

Most respected professionals won’t touch many of these subjects with a ten foot pole, due to the conspiracy subjects being career suicide, so you don't see many professionals of the fields involved, or investigative journalists venturing into these subjects. Although that seems to be changing a bit over time, as many professionals of their fields have come forward to question the official story of 911 for instance.

Until someone publicly creates a beautiful, massive, complex and precise crop circle with the mysterious anomalies that are found and does it at at night, I won't believe it as a hoax. Although, as I mentioned, there are actual hoaxes, be it physically flattened, or photo shopped ones, but all the ones physically flattened don't come close. Even with the 72 million dollar budget of the terrible 2002 crop circle movie; signs, the crop circle created for that movie was very lame in comparison to the huge beautiful and complex ones done for free, anonymously. Funny how this (crop circle phenomena) happens so often there are many researchers constantly on the look out for the creation of, yet nobody has been caught creating the huge, complex, elaborate designed ones.

For many people, it is impossible to even fathom the idea that some crop circles are not a hoax, but when you search through the facts, misinformation and disinformation with an open mind it is easy to come to the conclusion that there is something more to this subject than meets the eye. Cognitive dissonance can be a *bleep*.

[goatboy]

^^^^^

So did you read the rebuttal paper, or do you just stick to the ones supporting your belief? What did you think of the rebuttal? Was it fair and accurate? BTW, the rebuttal paper was published, in exactly the same journal as Levengoods original one. The PPL rejected it because the editor now feels that the original Levengoods paper shouldn't have been published and didn't want to continue that discussion in his journal anymore.

So you are willing to dismiss that crop circles are man made until you see one made by man but are more than willing to hang onto the notion that Aliens or a mysterious force is responsible but haven't seen them actually create one either. Isn't that a double standard? If that's your criteria of proof then shouldn't you not believe any explanation right now?

[Fancy]

Prof Taylor, director of the Materials Science Institute at the University of Oregon, said the findings suggest that crop circle artists may be using magnetrons, found in microwave ovens, or similar technology to complete their detailed patterns in the space of a few hours.

Traditionally planks of wood known as “stompers” and lengths of rope have been used to make accurate patterns in fields, with designers even using bar stools to hop from one flattened section to another.

Other theories of how the patterns appeared over the centuries include freak wind patterns, rolling hedgehogs, copulating couples and, in a 1678 report, the actions of a “mowing devil”.

More recently, conspiracy theorists have linked the patterns to UFOs or other alien activity, though some hoaxers have admitted to deliberately imitating flying saucer “nests”.

More than 10,000 examples have been documented in the past 500 years, with one new pattern now appearing somewhere in the world every summer evening.

Prof Taylor said: “Crop-circle artists are not going to give up their secrets easily. This summer, unknown artists will venture into the countryside close to your homes and carry out their craft, safe in the knowledge that they are continuing the legacy of the most science-oriented art movement in history.”

Matin Durrani, Editor of Physics World, said: “It may seem odd for a physicist such as Taylor to be studying crop circles, but then he is merely trying to act like any good scientist – examining the evidence for the design and construction of crop circles without getting carried away by the sideshow of UFOs, hoaxes and alien

http://transmissionsmedia.com/crop-circ ... icrowaves/

[Nomaster]

Cropcircles.
Debunked by Skeptic Magazine's Michael Shermer and many, many, many, many others.

[Passion4Truth]

^^^^^

So you are willing to dismiss that crop circles are man made until you see one made by man but are more than willing to hang onto the notion that Aliens or a mysterious force is responsible but haven't seen them actually create one either. Isn't that a double standard? If that's your criteria of proof then shouldn't you not believe any explanation right now?

The crop circle phenomena is a reality and the theory of "Doug and Dave" simply doesn't cut it any longer. You can still believe it, I do not. The only known way the physical changes in the plants and soil can happen, seems to be related to microwaves. Show me this cool microwave tool that can reproduce the same effects and I will consider your theory. Of course this tool must be extremely accurate to reproduce the same results and somehow it has to create the temperature of 600 to 800 degrees Celsius in the soil without destroying the plants above, only creating elongation or expulsion cavities in certain nodes…. good luck with that.

Go ahead and use the word aliens, if you feel you must try and belittle the subject. I have not mentioned that as part of what I foresee as the truth in this phenomena. But since you brought it up, I’d like to bring up conditioning. It’s funny how people are conditioned from a very young age to joke and laugh at the word aliens, yet some of those very same people will tell you they believe in God. But if God is not a man and does not live upon the earth, by definition, wouldn't that make God an alien? Conditioning is a huge part of what someone will or will not consider as a possibility. Imagine if you could, that you were not conditioned to laugh at the word aliens and you could actually consider visitation of a non human advanced civilization a reality. If you can do this, you come to realize that there would have to be a very good reason that the truth of subjects like UFO’s and Crop Circles, would be purposely hidden from the masses. Because if it were true, why on earth would there be a huge misinformation and disinformation campaign debunking these issues that would be the biggest story by far in human history? Well, I, for one can think of a very good reason and it is very simple. I can answer this question by asking a question:
If you were the king on an island inhabited by your slaves, would you want them to discover the outside world?

If you can show me the above mentioned tool, I will consider your theory. Show it to be being used in the dark, creating huge, precise and complex crop circles, I will believe it. Until then, consider the possibility that your theory is incorrect.

[Fancy]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-26/s ... ks/7660712

"I know the UFO supporters always say these patterns are so intricate a typical human being couldn't do them," Professor Taylor said.

"But that's the mark of a very good artist.

"Most of us can't paint like Leonardo da Vinci, but we don't think the Mona Lisa was created by UFOs just because it is spectacularly difficult."

Professor Taylor still sees value in studying the artists' methods.

[goatboy]

If you were the king on an island inhabited by your slaves, would you want them to discover the outside world?

If you can show me the above mentioned tool, I will consider your theory. Show it to be being used in the dark, creating huge, precise and complex crop circles, I will believe it. Until then, consider the possibility that your theory is incorrect.

If I were a king on an island inhabited by slaves that I didn't want to discover that there was an outside world, would I leave them large formations that might make some of the more gullible think there could be?

Did you read the rebuttal paper and consider its points? I've asked three or four times now and it appears you're on,y open to reading papers that support your own theory.

You wish me to show me a tool that supports my theory but are perfectly willing to accept your own theory without any proof of how it was created. How come? Your theory falls apart when you realize that your belief that these formations were created using microwaves is based on false and unproven "facts" by one quasi scientist. And you call us gullible.

[Passion4Truth]

If I were a king on an island inhabited by slaves that I didn't want to discover that there was an outside world, would I leave them large formations that might make some of the more gullible think there could be?

Of course not, it's not the king of the island doing it. The king is creating a disinformation and misinformation campaign surrounding the formations.

Did you read the rebuttal paper and consider its points? I've asked three or four times now and it appears you're on,y open to reading papers that support your own theory.

Don't you think it's possible that this is part of a disinformation and misinformation campaign? Not to mention that most people, including yourself refuse to see any other explanation than a hoax, so they force the pieces of the puzzle together to fit their theory.

You wish me to show me a tool that supports my theory but are perfectly willing to accept your own theory without any proof of how it was created. How come? Your theory falls apart when you realize that your belief that these formations were created using microwaves is based on false and unproven "facts" by one quasi scientist. And you call us gullible.

The only theory that I have is that it's certainly not pranks with planks and the quasi science is the rebuttal, trying to force fit pieces of the puzzle to fit a preexisting theory of a hoax. Unfortunately, many scientists and investigative journalists refuse to enter this and similar subjects because it can be career suicide when facts oppose the status quo, but here is an great article by one investigative journalist, brave enough to enter the rabbit hole:

LESLIE KEAN: ORIGIN OF CROP CIRCLES BAFFLES SCIENTISTS

09/16/2002

SAN FRANCISCO

SINCE THE RECENT release of the movie Signs, crop circles have
been thrust into the limelight. Such major publications as
Scientific American and U.S. News and World Report have echoed
the common belief that all crop circles are made by stealthy
humans flattening plants with boards. This assumption would be
fair enough if we had no information suggesting otherwise.

However, intriguing data published in peer-reviewed scientific
journals clearly establishes that some of these geometric
designs, found in dozens of countries, are not made by "pranks
with planks." In fact, a study about to be published by a team
of scientists and funded by Laurance Rockefeller concludes "it
is possible that we are observing the effects of a new or as yet
undiscovered energy source."

In the early 1990s, biophysicist William C. Levengood, of the
Pinelandia Biophysical Laboratory, in Michigan, examined plants
and soils from 250 crop formations, randomly selected from seven
countries. Samples and controls were provided by the
Massachusetts-based BLT Research Team, directed by Nancy
Talbott.

Levengood, who has published over 50 papers in scientific
journals, documented numerous changes in the plants from the
formations. Most dramatic were grossly elongated plant nodes
(the "knuckles" along the stem) and "expulsion cavities" --
holes literally blown open at the nodes -- caused by the
heating of internal moisture from exposure to intense bursts of
radiation. The steam inside the stems escaped by either
stretching the nodes or, in less elastic tissue, exploding out
like a potato bursting open in a microwave oven.

Seeds taken from the plants and germinated in the lab showed
significant alterations in growth, as compared with controls.
Effects varied from an inability to develop seeds to a massive
increase in growth rate -- depending on the species, the age of
the plants when the circle was created and the intensity of the
energy system involved.

These anomalies were also found in tufts of standing plants
inside crop circles -- clearly not a result of mechanical
flattening -- and in patches of randomly downed crops found near
the geometric designs. These facts suggested some kind of
natural, but unknown, force at work.

Published in Physiologia Plantarum (1994), the international
journal of the European Societies of Plant Physiology,
Levengood's data showed that "plants from crop circles display
anatomical alterations which cannot be explained by assuming the
formations are hoaxes." He defined a "genuine" formation as one
"produced by external energy forces independent of human
influence."

A strange brown "glaze" covering plants within a British
formation was the subject of Levengood and John A. Burke's 1995
paper in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. The material was
a pure iron that had been embedded in the plants while the iron
was still molten. Tiny iron spheres were also found in the soil.

In 1999, British investigator Ronald Ashby examined the glaze
through optical and scanning electron microscopes. He determined
that intense heat had been involved -- iron melts at about 2,700
degrees Fahrenheit -- administered in millisecond bursts. "After
exhaustive inquiry, there is no mundane explanation for the
glaze" he concluded.

In another paper for Physiologia Plantarum (1999), Levengood and
Talbott suggested that the energy causing crop circles could be
an atmospheric plasma vortex -- multiple interacting electrified
air masses that emit microwaves as they spiral around the
earth's magnetic-field lines.

Some formations, however, contain cubes and straight lines.
Astrophysicist Bernard Haisch, of the California Institute for
Physics and Astrophysics, says that such "highly organized,
intelligent patterns are not something that could be created by
a force of nature."

But Haisch points out that since not all formations are tested,
it is unknown how many are genuine. Nor is it likely that such
complex designs could evolve so quickly in nature. "Natural
phenomena make mountain ranges and form continents -- they don't
learn geometry in ten years," says Haisch, who is the science
editor for the Astrophysical Journal.

In 1999, philanthropist Laurance Rockefeller made possible the
most definitive -- and most revealing -- study to date. The BLT
Research Team collected hundreds of plant and soil samples from
a seven-circle barley formation in Edmonton, Canada. The plants
had both elongated nodes and expulsion cavities, and the soils
contained the peculiar iron spheres, indicating a genuine
formation. The controls showed none of these changes.

Mineralogist Sampath Iyengar, of the Technology of Materials
Laboratory, in California, examined specific heat-sensitive clay
minerals in these soils, using X-ray diffraction and a scanning
electron microscope. He discovered an increase in the degree of
crystallinity (the ordering of atoms) in the circle minerals,
which statistician Ravi Raghavan determined was statistically
significant at the 95 percent level of confidence.

"I was shocked," says Iyengar, a 30-year specialist in clay
mineralogy. "These changes are normally found in sediments
buried for thousands and thousands of years under rocks,
affected by heat and pressure, and not in surface soils."

Also astounding was the direct correlation between the node-
length increases in the plants and the increased crystallization
in the soil minerals -- indicating a common energy source for
both effects. Yet the scientists could not explain how this
would be possible. The temperature required to alter soil
crystallinity would be between 1,500 and 1,800 degrees F. This
would destroy the plants.

Understanding the possible ramifications of these findings,
Talbott sought the expertise of an emeritus professor of geology
and mineralogy at Dartmouth College, Robert C. Reynolds Jr., who
is former president of the Clay Minerals Society. He is regarded
by his colleagues as the "best-known expert in the world" on X-
ray diffraction analysis of clay minerals.

Reynolds determined that the BLT Team's data had been "obtained
by competent personnel, using current equipment."

The intense heat required for the observed changes in
crystallinity "would have incinerated any plant material
present," he confirms in a statement for the Rockefeller report.
"In short, I believe that our present knowledge provides no
explanation." Meteorologist James W. Deardorff, professor
emeritus at the College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences at
Oregon State University, and previously a senior scientist at
the National Center for Atmospheric Research, states in a 2001
Physiologia Plantarum commentary that the variety, complexity
and artistry of crop circles "represent the work of
intelligence," and not a plasma vortex. "That is why the hoax
hypothesis has been popularly advocated," he says.

However, he points out, the anomalous properties in plant stems
thoroughly documented by Levengood and Talbott could not
possibly have been implemented by hoaxers. Deardorff describes
one 1986 British formation in which upper and lower layers of
crop were intricately swirled and bent perpendicular to each
other, in a fashion that "defies any explanation."

"People don't want to face up to this, and scientists have to
deal with the ridicule factor," he said in a recent interview.

Adding to the puzzle, professional filmmakers have documented
bizarre daytime "balls of light" at crop-circle sites. Light
phenomena were observed by multiple witnesses at the site of the
Canadian circle so meticulously examined under the Rockefeller
grant.

Eltjo Hasselhoff, a Dutch experimental physicist, has taken on
the study of what he describes as "bright, fluorescent flying
light objects,sized somewhere between an egg and a football."

Scientists face real and serious questions in confronting this
mystery. Could this be secret laser technology beamed down from
satellites? Is it a natural phenomenon? Is there a consciousness
or intelligence directing an energy form yet unknown to us?

"To look at the evidence and go away unconvinced is one thing,"
says astrophysicist Haisch. "To not look at the evidence and be
convinced against it . . . is another. That is not science."
It's not good journalism, either.

Leslie Kean is an investigative reporter and producer with
Pacifica Radio based in the San Francisco Bay Area. She can be
reached at [email protected]