Talk:Crop circle/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Rearrangement

I really like the rearrangement effor undertaken by Setanta. However, we still need to address the language in the beliefs section. It has both positive and negative statements which could be unloaded so to speak. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 13:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - it made logical sense to me.

These cereal reverters (bad pun!) should note that an encyclopedia article is not the place for fruitcake nonsense. Consipracy theories deserve nothing more than a cursory mention and possibly one link. To paraphrase The X-Files - "The proof is out there". --Mal 22:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have warned the guy on his talk page about adding nonsense, he keeps doing it. I am gonna warn again. I donno what we can do, just keep reverting till the troll gives up. He is just deleting anything that doesn't fit his theory references and all. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 03:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've got this article on my watchlist. The guy has no respect for compromise, so I'll be reverting any changes he makes to this article as I cannot be bothered to wade through it all to see if there is anything useful added. --Mal 06:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well we have 3 or 4 editors consistently reverting his version. This seems like a consensus to me. The fact that he is removing valid information along with his pov changes seems to indicate that he is actually consciously trolling rather than just pov pushing. We could ask for administrative action. His account has not made any non-reverted changes in its history. But ignore and revert works in the long run just as well. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 15:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I simply loved this edit comment by our troll here: "Attempt to keep this page factually acurate." It made me laugh! --Mal 07:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone is at it again, rather more subtly now though. I am assuming this is in good faith and simply attempting to match their contributions with counter arguments from our existing sources. I may have slightly skewed it skeptical, and the stuff is still located in the wrong section. And the grammar sucks, so feel free to edit me. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 15:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think your edits are particularly admirable to be honest. I'll maybe look later to see if the newly added stuff belongs in another section. I do think this last edit was an effort to compromise though, so all credit to them too. --Mal 20:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the anonymous editor did not like my compromise, in fact they deleted it along this every other section in the article they didn't agree with. I will admit they made a few valid changes to neutralize wording, I will attempt to add these back later. There is just such a mess of changes, most blanking. *sigh* --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 15:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

To be honest Darkfred, I'm just going to be reverting any edits made to this article I see by non-members of Wiki for the forseeable future. Well - I might check to see if they're useful edits, or edits from people who live in the Twilight Zone! --Mal 09:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you could both be inadvertently tilting the article without due consideration to proper evidence. The emphasis on John Lundberg's organisation is disappointing given that there is insufficient evidence to credit him and his associates with the formation of new complex crop formations. There is no evidence to link them with more complex geometric formations such as the Catherine Wheel and other large symmetrical formations. The coverage of crop circle designs in the article is also weak as there have been new complex geometric formations which have occured over the last five years. I suggest a distinction between advertising designs from complex geometric formations. Is it only me that notice the gulf in design complexity or are you guys biased? --Trueffort 14:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Just for the record, as to your concerns. Most of the webpages only blog about "commercial" circles. For the real high complexity ones like the Julia set you see only Tongue in Cheek references to the methods aliens used to construct them etc. This is kind of a hallmark of the crop circle groups, never take direct credit for official circles. Informally Rod Dickinson is credited with the Mandelbrot and Julia set circles. If you look at the backdrop for circlemakers.com you can see the geometric instructions for one of the most complex circles. So its basically an open secret. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 17:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Trueffort, "It seems to me that you could both be inadvertently tilting the article" - possibly because we are sticking with known facts, and not concerned with frankly wild speculative theories. As for your assertion that the more complex designs of recent years could not possibly have been made by humans, I put it to you that crop circle design has evolved. I'd also like to let you know that humans have designed rockets capable of taking people to the Moon. However, I wouldn't be surprised if you were to leave a comment here alluding to the conspiracy theory that man never actually walked on the Moon. --Mal 17:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Working on the Article (References)

I have made some additions to the design section, I notice that we are not using the inline <ref> system for citation. We should probably convert over. I have made my additions using it, but a </reference> section still needs to be added, and the existing references need to be inlined. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 22:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Contending beliefs

Could we get some cites for people who belief the various 'theories'? As it is this section seems a bit too much like a forum where people just add and critique any theory they've heard or dreamed up. WP:Verifiability & Reliable Sources. Not that the individual theories have to be true or likely, but that belief in them is a significant phenomenon.

Also the word 'pseudoscience' is being used incorrectly to mean 'wrong'. Pseudoscience is a specific way or thinking and/or arguing and is different to religious belief or just believing because you like the idea. Ashmoo 03:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What Pseudo science is and why it is used are different things. It is usually used in the service of a personal belief argument, which cannot be proved via real science/fact or logical argument argument. In this Argument from ignorance and Anecdotal evidence are used quite often. Both are logical fallacies and in a broader sense when claims are taken individually demonstratably wrong. So its not a huge leap to go from Pseudoscience to wrong. The term was not invented by Pseudo scientists to describe work they considered correct, they still think of themselves as real scientists. Plus Ceriology (sp) is perfectly defined by pseudo science. Some of these people do literally believe that they are scientifically investigating UFOS. Although this belief is more faith than fact they still do consider themselves scientists. They are labeled pseudo scientists not because they lack scientific methadology but because they have already arrived at a conclusion and seek only evidence which supports it. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 13:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"However, backed by their allies in the media, they set up a false impression to the world which lasts to this day."

CATCH A GRIP!!! --Mal 06:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You've got a point. Teenagers vandalizing corn fields doesn't sell newspapers does it? (at least no in the UK) Now Ufos and aliens, those move papers. The "media" (in quotes because serious papers don't cover crop circles anymore) is more interested in how to get batboy involved then in disproving the "cereologists". :) ... --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 15:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I should like to contend that 'Doug and Dave'have since been shown to be awful hoaxers (see for instance 'Secrets in the Fields') and this point has not been made. ----Gx1032

Irony doesn't come across well in written form i think. The point of this particular thread is so lost that I have no idea what you mean, or even what you thought I meant. But I certainly wasn't agreeing with mal when I originally wrote this. :) --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 19:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

non-sense?

"Proponents of the belief that crop circles are either naturally caused, or are formed by as yet unknown entities, often support their viewpoint with this old tale. It is worth noting, however, that this is little more than a tale—the circular formation supposedly caused by the creature may be coincidental, or may have been caused by any number of natural or human processes."

Cutting out parts...."Proponents of the belief that crop circles are... naturally caused...often support their viewpoint with this old tale. ... the circular formation supposedly caused by the creature ... may have been caused by ... natural processes."

The statement seems to be arguing against the proponents using (partly) the same argument.

Max.

What about the farmers?

Maybe need some info on the farmers' issues - trespass, vandalism, loss of crops, extra income from sightseers, etc EdX20 05:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

neutral point of view not followed

It is clear that a neutral point of view is not being followed in this article. Unless the editors here have privilaged information, it is scientifically unknown what or who is causing the formation of authentic crop circles. Apparently there is some sort of resistance to producing the scientific evidence in this article. It is well known that there are counterfeit circles, but that by no means invalidates those that are authentic. The scientific evidence indicates aspects of crop circles which are inexplicable, unexplainable by our inown physics. Observational evidence indicates that plasma "balls of Light" are often seen at or near crop circles. There is no evidence of who or what is controlling the Balls of Light. The article as it stands is misleading. My attempts to correct it have been reverted, apparently by an editor who has not studied the evidence. Tommy Mandel 04:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What scientific evidence are you speaking of? Did you add this new evidence to the page? No? You just deleted stuff you didn't agree with? I see... All of the top portion of this article is well referenced. If you have some study or reference which refutes it then please tell us. So far your changes have amounted to what might be considered vandalism. You have removed points you did not agree with despite references, you have added no new information and you have gone against the concensus discussed here on the talk page. I don't want to be a jerk about this. You probably think that you genuinely have seen irrefutable evidence. What you see on TV is "entertainment news" with the goal of intriguing viewers. This is an encyclopedia with the goal of presenting what information is known to be factual. That said we welcome any new sources of information you can present. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 14:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have not seen the TV productions, I have read the books written by serious researchers. The website I usually reference is http://www.bltresearch.com/. It is not up to you to decide what is actually happening. There is very little if any scientific results reported in this article. How come? Some of it can be found in the discussions...Tommy Mandel 15:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As a start, let's look at the stems of those plant which have been laid down. Let us assume that all crop circles are made by the hand of man or nature. I say nature to cover the so called natural causes. If we adopt the assumption, then all we need is one falsification after which we can no longer accept the statement as true.

There are several reports of EMF fields in crop circles, with some adverse effects to electronics. I can't find an online source, but several acclaimed television shows, such as ones on the BBC and The History Channel have measured these EMF fields and other strange phenomenon in the "authentic" cop circles. Chilledsunshine 17:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If this was really how scientific debate worked then the one falsification we need is proof that any crop circle was man-made. There is a huge body of proof of this, many items linked and referenced in the article. But this is not how scientific debate goes, it is difficult to proof a non exclusive negative. The way this article works is that if you can find referenced credible evidence it will be included in the article. So far noone has been able to come up with any real scientific evidence on the kookier theories, but if you do come back and add it. As for the rest Please see my complete reply at the end of the section labeled PLANT ABNORMALITIES. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 15:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As usual in wikipedia, POV is too scientific. A pitty.

results of scientific experiments

If we examine the stems which are inside a crop circle, we observe two states. In one case we observe the stem being physically bent. In the other case, the stem appears to have grown to a bent position, a result of measurable elongation of the nodes of the stem.

Is it safe to say that there is no known physical cause for the elongation? We then could say that elongation of the node with the subsequent bending over of the plant constitutes a falsification of the assumption that all crop circles are man made.

Therefore, it follows that the only truthful statement we can make about crop circles is that there are some which we cannot explain by any known physical process.

Strictly speaking, this elongation evidence is all that is needed to move us to the next question, "what is causing this to happen?" But we could also look for additional evidence which would collaborate our new assumption that "some crop circles are not man made." There is a listing of those inexplicable observations in this discussioe above. Canola plants have been found to have bent, but like celery, they can only be broken by a plank. The cellular structure of the plant has changed. The seeds of the plant have changed resulting in measurable changes in subsequent growth.

Allow me to bring back from the archives those specific observations made by the scientific investigations. I have removed all comments after the original statement to make a fresh start. My intent is to reverify each one of them. Tommy Mandel 21:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not evidence it is spam of undocumented bs. There isn't a single source here. How could we possibly verify this, for all we know you just made up this junk! And it was completely debunked the first time you spammed it (well at least laughed at for being pointlessly unprovable). But I will have a shot at it *sigh* --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 21:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have confidence in what has been outlined because I have done my own research and can speak about any of them without going back to the books so I know just how truthful they happen to be. There is a great deal of controversy in crop circle research, even among the researchers themselves. But we need to talk about observations and not theories. Observations supercede theories. All theories. Keep in mind that it is no great advance of science to work with an area of knowledge that is replete with deception. And it is not a valid argument to assume all crop circles are hoaxed just because most of them are hoaxed. Scientifically, all we need is ONE (1) authentic crop circle to falsify that assumption. Tommy Mandel 04:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources can be found in 'Secrets of the fields' as well as online evidence,which should be enough to convert skeptics.God knows,it converted me. -------------gx1032

scientific observations

See /Archive 1#How do you consider these "scientific" facts?
It is very bad wikiform to repeat arguments but cut out opposing viewpoints, so lets leave individual point discussion in the Archive.

Please, I can't do it alll in one day. What I have done is provide a summary of all the points of significance using a list which had already been on the discussion page. I included only the original statement so as to start fresh. My intention is to find the source of the observation and include it here. This will take some time. Tommy Mandel 04:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have done a little research on my own in hopes of not having to reply to any more of these points.

This list appears to mainly reference research written by Nancy Talbot, W.C. Levengood, and John A.Burke, in various pairings. These three run a small UFO/Crop circle business and are rarely published but occasionally in Journal of Scientific Exploration. This is a paranormal "science" journal and seems to be considered the last resort for nuts who can't get published in actual scientific journals. They are also published in the prestigious MUFON UFO Journal, a magazine dedicated to pictures of UFOs and Physiologia Plantarum which is a Pay for publish journal with no peer review. As we already have an exact copy of this section in the Archives I am replacing it with a link. You can view it there with its comments intact. If you want a good laugh you can find more of their "Original Research" at [1]. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 22:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Original discussion: /Archive 1

Your historical account is misleading. BLT was formed to investigate crop circles in a scientific way, it is not a business which happens to use crop circles. Levengood is a highly regarded biologist who was called in to investigate the elongated nodes. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the difference in nodal length when inside and outside circle crop is looked at. It took a scientist to establish the protocall and examine nodal length in a rigorous way. Levengood also conducted the germination tests, also in a rigorous way. Tommy Mandel 04:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No no it isn't. Levengood may be a real scientist, and he acts like one. BUT this research is bogus, he has been unable to get it passed by even the cursory review of pay for publish journals. This means that other scientists don't agree, that is he has been unable to find any other plant biologists to vet his expirements. It is sad when a real scientist walks off the deep end, but it looks like this is what happened. He simply refuses to consider alternate sources for the changes he detects. Like the fact that the field could have been wet when it was originally bent. His entire detected changes could have been caused simply by wet bends then continued growth after the bend. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 14:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I am finding it difficult to believe you. Perhaps you could supply reference material from now on.

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

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

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

Tommy Mandel 20:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You do not state your arguments, instead merely saying in effect "No, no, no." Why do you say "this researdh is bogus"? How do you know he has been unable to get it published? Then you conclude that because it wasn't published, it means that other scientists do not agree. If you look at the pictures, it doesn't take a scientist to see the differences. What other alternative cause for nodal lengthening is there? You claim that "His entire detected chantges could have been caused simply by wet bends." Actually he is talking about hundreds of investigations. Also, who put you in charge? I have as much a right to edit as you do. At least I refer to scientific studies while you seem to relish hand waving. By the way, he does mention an alternative cause, all you have to do to duplicate the effects is put the plants into a microwave oven. Tommy Mandel 17:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Noone put me in charge, in fact i am not even the one who has been reverting you. Many different editors disagree with you I am just the only one dumb enough to try to engage in a rational debate.--Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 20:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, to counter an observation that radios fail in a crop circle by introducing observations that radios fail outside of circles too is not debatable. Nor is it proof of anything.

What are all these people who believe that crop circles are ALL hoaxes doing here? And how come the people they do believe in are admitted criminal hoaxers? Are you saying that is the smart thing to do? Tommy Mandel 20:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Second, if you had known about him in the first place you would have posted his real research rather than that BS list. Keep in mind that I found his page and posted his research. I am more than willing to include a blurb on this in the article. However it must mention that his research has never been peer reviewed in this field, and his primary outlets are alternative science magazines and the web. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 14:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I knew about him years ago, and the reason I used the discussion list was because it accurately lists the anomalies which have been documented. How much of the article reports on these findings and how much rebuttal is offered? It looks to me like ALL the real evidence has been culled out, leaving behind only strange stuff. Why is that? Tommy Mandel 17:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It may be simply because his research is uninteresting to the average person. He does not posit any new spectacular theory or evidence for anything in particular. This is a guy who has dedicated his life to examining differences between varietys of bent grass. And the only explanation he could come up with was either Heating, short microwave pulses or Balls Of Burning Plasma, He of course prefers Plasma :). --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 20:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that you culled out research data simply because it is uninteresting to the average person? Are you sayihg that research data is not valid unless an explanation is also provided? Are you saying that scientists who observe something new must also have a spectacular explanation? Levengood stated that he was able to duplicate the effects by placing the plant into a microwave oven for 30 seconds. Isn't that evidence of something? And what do you mean by "the only explanation he could come up with is heating..."? Isn't the cause what he is supposed to come up with? I think that you are twisting everything around so as to support your personal opinions. For example, can you point me to one paper which disputes nodal changes? Just one will do. Very interesting your technique of eliminate all evidence, refuse to consider new evidence, and then claim there is no evidence. Of course you are telling the truth.

Tommy Mandel 04:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

PLANT ABNORMALITIES

Observational evidence. Nodal length. When compared to crop found outside a crop circle, a difference of nodal length from samples taken from inside the crop circle is found. This difference can be as much as 200 percent. In many cases the nodes have burst. These effects are consistant with induced high tempratures and have been replicated by placing them in a microwave oven for 30 seconds.

The research can be found at

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

A short excerpt:

PLANT ABNORMALITIES

"The physical changes (listed below) documented in crop circle plants by Michigan biophysicist W.C. Levengood have been determined by evaluating hundreds of sample plants -- both downed and standing -- taken from inside the overall perimeter of each formation against hundreds of control plants taken at varying distances outside each formation, in several directions. More than 250 individual crop formations from multiple countries, over a 10-year period were examined in-depth. Although many of the formations studied were relatively "simple" in overall design and/or relatively "small" in overall size (primarily because of BLT's financial and/or personnel limitations, particularly in Europe), many larger and more "complex" formations -- those whose overall design included intricate geometric shapes with multiple design elements of varying sizes -- are represented here. "

Tommy Mandel 05:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOR this is the offical policy of wikipedia. See the Reputible publications and verifiability sections. Levengood does not meet either of these criteria. This should answer Tommy's questions earlier about "why I say this research is Bogus". I don't know if it is bogus, but if research fails these litmus tests it certainly isn't considered valid by encyclopedia standards. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 20:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see your evidence that the research is bogus. Here is mine indicating it is not.

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.

The paper you keep quoting has never been published, therefore it does not meet the criteria. Stop being dense. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 22:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you read this - "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." Tommy Mandel 03:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have read this. However the article you quoted above has not been published. Therefore it doesn't meet the criteria. Neither do the articles he published in MUFON for the record. Please stop confusing the issue. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 14:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Darkfred. There's at least one prolific true believer "publishing" material about every topic under the sun; that doesn't mean each has to be incorporated into the main body of belief about that topic. - DavidWBrooks 17:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

WHere are the published articles proving all crop circles are hoaxed? Far as I can tell, the only evidence is what the hoaxers are telling us. That is ironic, "We are the deceivers telling the truth."

Tommy Mandel 05:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the burden of proof lies with you in this respect. We can prove that many crop circles are man made. Noone has presented any proof of other methods which is admissible by encyclopedia standards. And this is exactly what the article says! The man-made instances are well documented and referenced. We have no further duty to prove anything. The preponderance of evidence does suggest to rational minds that there are no alternative sources of crop circles. But as far as the article is concerned the conclusion is entirely in the mind of the reader. We should strive to only present valid verified information and allow the reader to make up their mind.

I have even gone to a considerable personal effort to track down the sources for the "information" you have repeatedly quoted without reference here. I have tracked down the authors and read their published work. I assure you if I had found something which qualified as evidence It would be in the article already! So far you have asked others to do the work of proof and research while the only thing you bring to the debate yourself is hearsay and conjecture. You are perfectly welcome to research this yourself, find articles which support your point of view and are admissible by encyclopedia standards and use them as sources for your own additions to the article.

There is no conspiracy to keep your viewpoint silent, this is a freely editable encyclopedia. Therefore any lack of information supporting your personal viewpoint must be caused either by there being a lack of enclopedic facts supporting it or an unwillingness of those holding this viewpoint to research and write about it themselves. QED --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 19:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Crop circle anomalies

The term "anomaly" is being used here to denote those observations which cannot be explained by ordinary physics. They are inexplicable. The presence of powdered magnetic material can be explained by using ordinary physics (such as throwing around), the presence of molten metal molded to the structure of the plant cannot be explained by any known physics. The creation of a crop circle could be done with ordinary physics, the presence of a ghost circle the following year cannot be done by any known physics. The distribution of strange material around a crop circle could be ordinary physics, the change in clay crystallization cannot be done with ordinary physics.

to be continued

Tommy Mandel 04:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Combine blades are made of iron, they are sharpened frequently because they pit during harvest. Where does all this magnetic material go? I wonder. You can do this little trick anywhere with a powerful magnet and some patience. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 14:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The point to be grasped is that there are aspects of crop circles that cannot be explained by ordinary physics. Of course anyone could scatter stuff around, in one case investigators were able to analyize the particles and determine what they were used for and who made them. But what about the molten metal hardening to assume the biological cellurlar structure of the plant it is coating? And what about the impressions of circles made the previous year showing up the following year, the ghost circles? And to increase the crystalization of the clays, great heat extreme pressure and long periods of time can do the job, so how was that done? What about the insect wings fuzed to the stalks of a crop circle? What about the interweaving of stalks? Let's say they invented that too, why four interwoven layers? Your arguments Fred, are baseless and very telling. They reveal at least that you have not done the prior research and isn't that something that Wikipedia is based on? For example where in the article are plasma balls of light discussed? The article borders on ridicule of one viewpoint over the other. A true scientist doing a true invesitigation will arrive at the conclusion that there are events occuring which cannot be explained. He will end by saying "I don't know." His advantage is that he places himself at the brink of discovery. Those who say they know, and probably believe it too, will never make that discovery.

Tommy Mandel 16:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention Santa Claus, either; a certain element of choice is involved in writing these things. Some ridiculously obscure and wildly unlikely possibilities have not been rigorously tested because true scientists only have so much time and don't want to spend it on every wild idea tossed out in life. Lack of disproof by the uninterested is not evidence in support of an argument. - DavidWBrooks 21:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"A wild idea" is much different from an observation. The wild ideas that are tossed around concerning crop circles is about who is making them. Science has no answer to that. Wild speculations by the press and interested parties are theories, not observations. An uninterested party unwilling to rigorously test his hypothesis has no right telling others what is right or wrong. Observation supercedes theory, regardless if it is pro or con. So before the conclusion is reached about crop circles, what are the observations? The observations are that to a degree a crop circle can be duplicated by the hand of man. And to a degree, the observations are that there are aspects of a crop circle that could not have been created by the hand of man.

Tommy Mandel 05:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hardly mentioned in the article, are the "Balls of Light" often seen in conjunction with crop circles. Varying in size from soccer ball to beach balls, they appear to look like light. A video captured a BoL, as they are called, hovering above a crop circle. In the video a farmer on a tractor approaches in the back ground. The Ball of light is seen in the video to veer of and head toward the farmer. Nothing unusual so far, aut as the Bol passes over the farmer, he turns his head to follow it. No one knows what the Balls of Light are. But similar objects have been seen in the form of ball lightening, swamp gas, and balls of light coming from earthquake fizzures. All of these are known to be plasma balls. Plasma s a fourth state of matter, ions and electrons freely flowing together at high temperatures. A plasma ball would explain the heating effects associated with the crop circles, and it would explain the magnetic and electrical disturbances. Obviously, the BoL's are being controlled. Because Plasma is associated with the ZPE, the natural way to control the BoL is through the ZPE. So far all of this is plausible, but then the next question arises - who or what is controlling them?

Tommy Mandel 05:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This is how the article answes the question:

"Various scientific and pseudo-scientific explanations were put forward to explain the phenomenon, which soon spread around the world. In 1991, more than a decade after the phenomena began, two men, Doug Bower and Dave Chorley, revealed that they had been making crop circles in England since 1978 using planks, rope, hats and wire as their only tools. Many other people around the world are also openly making crop circles, notably Circlemakers.org. Although the commonly accepted view today is that crop circles are a man-made phenomenon, paranormal explanations, often including UFOs, are still popular."

If you are going the cereology route, then it ought to be well written. The paragraph above is misleading and does not reflect the actual view of those who are involved in the investigation of the causes of the crop circles. For example "who" is it that has this so-called "commonly accepted view"? Does it matter here what the world thinks? Most of the world hasn't even heard of crop circles. A great portion of those who have heard of them hold to a naive view, they are not informed enough to have a position. Closer to the circle are those observers falling into either the pro or the con including the media. Then there are the participants, the circlemakers and the investigators. The official accepted view of the investigators is that 80% of the circles are manmade, the remaining 20 % cannot have been made by man. Tommy Mandel 14:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Merging in Cereology

Hiya, I suggested a while ago that the cereology page be merged into this one as it doesn't have any content that's not already covered in this article. Does anyone here have any comment on this? Why not redirect cereology to crop circles as is done for other scientific/common name pairs. (P.S. Also, is anyone willing to help me do this? I'm not quite sure how.) 207.107.246.20 12:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's now done. If you look at this edit, you can see what I did. BillC 13:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Very cool - thank you! I'll be bolder next time. Off to delete note on proposed mergers page. Thanks again 207.107.246.20 16:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

inconsistant reporting

If we were to go to that link, we would find this --

"Cereology is the study of Crop circles. The term appears to come from Ceres, the Roman god of Agriculture and the Greek root -logein, meaning "to study". However, like many things regarding crop circles, this definition is also unclear as the term may come from the word Cereal instead of Ceres since most crop circles are found in fields with crops that are or can be made into cereal, such as corn. However, "cereal" also derives from Ceres."

BUT is we go to the article, we find this ---

"People who study crop circle phenomena sometimes humorously call themselves "cerealogists", after the usually known name for the pseudoscience that studies crop circles: cereology. Cerealogists call these designs agriglyphs."

I would like to see the peer reviewed papers which establish that cerealogists view their title humorously, and that it is classified as a pseudoscience a priori. When I read this statement, I have the impression that cerealology is funny science. Ironic, because it is the opposing view that depends on funny science - like taking the words of deceivers as truth, which is all they have to present as evidence.

Tommy Mandel 13:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that the definition of cereology presented in Crop circle does not meet Wikipedia's policies, including WP:NPOV, then the place for changes to be made is in this article. The only reason for making the merger was that there was no meaningful content in Cereology that would not be better placed in Crop circle. Wanting to get a different slant on a topic is not a valid reason for opposing a merger or creating a new article, it is a POV fork instead. BillC 15:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What I feel is that the two definitions I cited above are obviously different. The first definition is well written and accurate. The second definition, presumbably the one being used in the article, is childish. It reads:

"People who study crop circle phenomena sometimes humorously call themselves "cerealogists", after the usually known name for the pseudoscience that studies crop circles: cereology. Cerealogists call these designs agriglyphs."

The sentence is tautological to begin with, over generalizing, and misleading. Not all peopke who study crop circles laugh at themselves,cerealogy is not a pseudoscience a priori "after the usually known name" implies without basis that it is.

Tommy Mandel 04:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I can only repeat: if you feel that the description given in this article is not a proper one, change it. BillC 13:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fractals!

I couldn't find any info on the article about Fractals related with Circle Crops. There should be something of that, 'cause a very big amount of mathematicians from all over the world recognized fractal figures on many circle crops. I would like to have an authorization from anybody for improving the article by myself with that topic. --Walter Humala 02:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Be careful, though. Fractals are one of those scientific topics that appeal to us laymen, and so a lot of gibberish has been draped around them. If you're going to cite somebody, make sure they're somebody who actually understands the mathematical structure of fractals, not just somebody who likes the way they look. - DavidWBrooks 11:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

there was one which was a crude version of the M-set[2].Geni 13:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly the sort of thing we need to be careful about. Because crop circles are most easily made in circular patterns (d'oh!), fractals are a relatively easy "complex pattern" to make. (You'll notice that nobody creates Sierpinski triangles in corn fields, even though they are the same mathematical concept.) We don't want to have this photo in the article, and then say that because fractals are mathematical entities, this pattern somehow connotes deep truths that could only have been made by space aliens, or whatever ... - DavidWBrooks 14:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well the rope and fulcrum crop circle method lends itself well to making fractals. Much like you would with a compass on paper. And secondly we DO have information on specific fractal crop circles in the article, the Julia and mandelbrot sets in england and thirdly these are NOT TRUE FRACTALS in any mathematical sense. They are approximations of one or two levels of a well known fractal, they share none of the actual characteristics of fractals other than a similarity to the layman. So there is really nothing more to say except that some patterns look like certain popular fractals. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 16:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully the intent of this encyclopedia is to present the facts which by themselves are self-authorizing. But, the question is, what is a fact? Apparently we cannot simply accept anybody's classification and are forced to resort to reputable sources. But what is a reputable source? If you are able to answer these questions then no one can say you can't put the facts into the article. Having said that, I have in my library, a book written about crop circles. It is written from the slant of geometrical forms. Not only are the circles formed, they are formed in special ways. So in fact the literature does reference geometrical attributes and obviously then an encyclopoedia would report these facts. There are two aspects to be considered, the observation and the theory. The observation is a fact, the theory is an interpretation. So we have in fact geometrical forms, and we have theory which describes how these facts formed. My reading of the literature indicates that there are inexpicable facts about crop circles, That crop circles are geometrically formed can be explained many ways, that five new geometrical thorems were discovered in another story.

Tommy Mandel 04:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

In the book "Secrets in the Fields" graphic professional Freddy Silva writes: "Not far from Cambridge University, where Frech mathematician snd fractal theorist Benoit Mandebrot had taught earlier in the Century, another showpiece crop glyph made it's mark. Unmistakable to the mathematicians, it appearded to be a representation of the Mandelbrot Set, a fractal pattern discovered by the Frenchman as a part of a mathematical model explaining Chaos Theory. In fact, it was unbelievably perfect for some of the University's mathematicians, who were suddenly drawn into the debate. Responses abounded, "Corn circles are either hoaxes or formed by vortex movement of air" claimed prominant scientist Steven Hawking." Other scientists put the whole thing down to a student prank. But the New Scientist, Britain's respected science weekly, brought some balance and objectivity to the drama snd admitted that it was impossible to construct this, the most complicated object in mathematics., without the aid of a computer and a great deal of time. The precision of the Madelbrot Set, New Scientist wrote," was carefully studied on the ground by a local agronomist and biologist named Wombwell. "It was incredibly precise. Each circle was perfect, the wheat flattened clockwise, and at the base of the heart-shape it tapered down to a single stalk of wheat. Every stalk had been flattened one quarter of an inch above the ground, There were no footmarks and no sign of machinery."

You see, this is how the professionals write. It leaves a questionable situation as a question. This article as written does not express this question, instead it leaves us with the conclusion that it is all a hoax, ironically, based wholly on the testimony of a hoaxer.

Tommy Mandel 02:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"brought some balance and objectivity to the drama snd admitted that it was impossible to construct this, the most complicated object in mathematics., without the aid of a computer and a great deal of time" LOL, of course we must ignore the actual mathmaticians and focus instead on the opinion of a journalist. *sarcasm*. If you think this helps your case you should actually read through the quoted text first. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 14:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I take it you are the expert here. Of course you have researched the subject in order to qualify yourself as a critic.

Tommy Mandel 19:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I know an ad hominem attack when i see one. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 19:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

And furthermore I was refering to your own quote which indicates that scientists and the journalists disagreed with one another, then goes on to advocate the journalist view. The paragraph you quote simply makes no sense. Shouldn't we assume that the mathematicians are more qualified to determine if something is a fractal then a reporter? And I quote "...scientists put the whole thing down to a student prank. But the New Scientist, Brita...".

Do you actually read the stuff you cut and paste into here? --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 19:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

STOP FIGHTING ALL YOU!!!--207.218.8.13 23:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

With extraordinary mathematical precision

No scientist who has faithfully studied the phenomenom can say that it is alll a hoax.

The gist of Silva's book, obvious if one to read it, is that some of the circles exhibit an extraordinary mathematical precision which transcends that which Doug and dave would conceive of. In fact five new geometrical theorems have been found in the circles. Silva's book is replete with example of the mathematical relationships that have been found in some circles.

As far as what scientists say, and there are sicientists on both sides of the fence, is something like this --

"Crop circles, like the paradxes of Zen, cannot be colved by logic. To uncover their truth,an awareness based on feeling has to be applied. As Symbols, crop circles are comparable to classical Chinese word, which does not represent a well defined concept but rather a sound symbol of strongly suggestive power that elicits a library of images and emotions, the point being not so much to express an intellectual idea but affect and influence the listener (Capra 1986)

It is this mathematical precision that is anomalous, inexplicable given what it would take to create it in a field of grain without leaving a trace.

205.188.117.13 05:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok I will bite the bait mr. troll. This argument is filled with huge logical holes and does nothing to actually further knowledge of what crop circles are. See Argument from ignorance a classical Logical Fallacy for an explanation of why. Why are crop circles too complex for humans to build or understand? Fractals are well understood. Even non-scientists could produce near perfect fractals with nothing but a straight edge and compass. In fact I could give you less than half a page of instructions from which would could immediately draw a view of the mandelbrot set. How can people claim that this is impossible for humans to do. HUMANS INVENTED FRACTALS! Sure some plant structures resemble fractals, but fractals of the mandelbrot and julia types are an entirely human invention, they are named after their respective inventors, Benoît Mandelbrot and Gaston Julia. They were invented over 100 years ago without the aid of computers or drafting systems. They used simple straight edges and compasses. The same tools used by crop circle designers today. Do you think aliens or energy vortexes are big fans of turn of the century french mathematicians? --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 20:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you are not speaking from a position of knowledge, instead you are speculating, and what you have said is nothing more than your opinion. Which is alright, everyone is entitled to his opinion. But it would be wrong to assume that your opinion is scientific fact without knowing what the scientific facts are. If a significant mathematical relationship was found in a few crop circles, then it could be attributed to chance or whatever. But the mathematical relationships of crop circles of the real kind are found in every one of them. Every one of them is mathematically precise. For example, a crop circle done on a hill will reflect faithfully, the slope of the hill.

205.188.117.13 04:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any real sources for this? If that is so, it is amazing, then we should definately include it in the article, but if in fact you have no real sources stop wasting our time. In fact because real scientific evidence on this topic is so scarce and because you are obviously a scientific expert of great credibility. All of us lesser scientists will probably give you some sort prize when you present this earth shattering evidence. Don't thank me, thank alfred nobel. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 13:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Amazing is exactly what one thinks when one actually studies crop circles. Real crop circles are unreal. The Julia set circles at Stonehedge, was not only created in daylight, within a time frame of 45 minutes, it took a surveying team of several surveyors eleven hours just to survey it. And it was found to be dead on. It doesn't take a scientific expert to know that the argument "Batteries go dead outside crop circles too" is ludicrous. A scientist would establish a protocol and compare inside to outside. Batteries work outside, but walk in and they go dead...

Tommy Mandel 16:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The Julia set was a stunt set up for television, it was created by Rod Dickinson. He copied the design from the work of an 1850's french mathematician (yes human even). If you had bothered to google it you would know all of this. Your ignorance is astounding. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 17:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

==It would be amazing if that were true. Ignorance of that fact does not surprise me, this is the first time I heard that, even more amazing is that Rod created it in 45 minutes. And had a different pattern of laydown in each circle. All the stunts set up for television ended in a mess as far as I know. Are we talking aboutthe same one? The one across the road from Stonehedge"

Tommy Mandel 00:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I went to Google, and here is what I found at http://www.lovely.clara.net/circlemakers.html

Excerpted

"REPLY TO DICKINSON CRITICISM.

Since this report was uploaded, Rod Dickinson of Team Satan/ the circlemakers has responded with a number of accusations and observations on his web site, which he is perfectly entitled to do since I have taken the trouble to dissect his claims. Here is my reply:

DICKINSON: claims NOT to have made the Julia and Triple Julia Set crop circles.

REPLY: Judging from the way Mr. Dickinson exhibits these colossal formations on his web site, one is led to believe he did, after all if you are claiming to be 'England's circlemakers' why would you display work that does not belong to you? Unless, of course, the intention is to claim through association, a technique often used to great effect in advertising. Secondly, the original allegation was made to researchers by another well-known hoaxer Rob Irving, a friend of the team. Mr. Dickinson now claims that he knows who really made these formations. And frankly, I would love to know- given how a number of very reliable eyewitness place the 'Julia Set' as having materialized within a fifteen minute window, and beside a busy tourist site during daylight, the perpetrators would have mastered the ability of invisibility and levitation alone to do the work."

Well, there you have it. Master deceivers will continually deceive, don't ya know? Turns out that Dickinson DIDN'T make the Julia circles after all. So who was ignorant here...Here's the rub about Stonehedge,each of the circles had a different lay. And what about the lay of the downed crop? How does one interweave it with a board? And that board, seems that when the plants are pushed down, they in turn push plants ahead down, bending in the process, splitting the thin stalk. This is not observed in a real crop circle.

So, what does a scientist think? A scientist is bound by observations. But observations are rooted in theory. Korzybski says that to abstracft first, then observe is unsane. He argues that this reversal should be itself reversed, that observe first then abstract is more sane. When we observe some crop circles, we find observations that are inexplicable. At this point the wise scientist stops and admits "I don't know." The scientist remains silent about that which he does not know. This is called an open mind. Open to what comes next.

Tommy Mandel 02:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

About the Julia fractal. Rod Dickenson stated in an interview that it was not created in 45 minutes, it was created the night before in a hollow, the pilot simply did not see it on his first overflight because of the angle. He also said that this happens a lot with their circles, people simply don't notice at first. Even if dickenson didn't make it it is obvious that he was there when it was made. He plays the media quick adroitly, dropping information only the maker could know one minute then playing coy the next.

Tommysun, I think I have been too kind to you before. You are either too delusional to contribute anything of value to the encyclopedia or you are trolling for an argument, so once again I will discontinue responding to your spam. I spend far more of my time responding to your ignorance then I do editing articles now, I will quote Larry Sanger --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 14:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

 "To attract and retain the participation of experts, there would have
 to be little patience for those who do not understand or agree with
 Wikipedia's mission, or even for those pretentious mediocrities who
 are not able to work with others constructively and recognize when
 there are holes in their knowledge (collectively, probably the most
 disruptive group of all). A less tolerant attitude toward disruption
 would make the project more polite, welcoming, and indeed open to
 the vast majority of intelligent, well-meaning people on the Internet." 
                                            --Larry Sanger

It seems to me DarkFred, the excerpt "pretentious mediocrities who are not able to work with others constructively and recognize when there are holes in their knowledge" Describes your behavior on this page quite accurately. There have been many interesting, pertinent points raised by others on the topic of crop circles, that you have largely dismissed with rudeness and a mask of 'scientific' rigor.

The holes in your thesis that *all* crop circles are man made are widespread and quite obvious. To hold that any investigation or working thesis other than your own is worthy only of derision is un-scientific in the extreme.

I personally was very disappointed by the article on crop circles. I have only a passing knowledge of the topic, but I was aware of many things not covered in the article that should have been, and was further disappointed to find willing wikipedians with valid contributions, being hindered by a small group of individuals demanding that all phenomenom be explained 'scientificaly'(from their POV).

We are not here as wikipedians to provide answer or explanation, we are here to provide information. I think it is important that issues such as eye-witness accounts of lights, stem deformation, lack of construction points and radiation levels be included in the article. They are well documented and influencial in the understanding of the phenomenom, however unexplainable. I think the admission that our science lacks an adequate explanation for much of it at this stage in human development, rather than try to uphold one of the many ridiculus thesis on the matter would be a mature and progressive one.

--Everyunitone 13:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC) p.s. what a brilliant google maps link!

When have I ever stated that ALL crop circles are man-made? Do you really support tommy-sun in wanting man-made crop circles added to the article as "mysteriously complex". I have said it before, if and when tommy-sun finds any actual first hand or journal sources (which qualify under the rules given by wikipedia at WP:NOR), he can immediately include them in the article. He continues to claim that there are "scientific studies", but he has not been able to support these with any sort of references. This is an encyclopedia, and tommy-sun has never made a contribution to the encyclopedia which was not immediately reverted. I am not even the one who has been reverting him. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 15:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of comments, writings and reports in this very talk page that I think qualify for a mention on the article. My personal feelings are that -Verified- Human Crop circle's (those that have been observed to have been human made) should be included in the article. But as a Subset of the wider phenomenom. There are distinct differences that can be observed between human-made and other crop circles, and it is grossly unscientific ('against observation') not to have this pointed out most strongly in the article.

Once again, I reaffirm my point that we are not here to be providing explanation or answer to the phenomenom. We are here to provide a representation of the corpus of knowledge that our species currently has on the matter. To exclude and dismiss so many observations and valid contributions because they fall outside the realm of comfortable explanation and answer (within our current science) is not productive, and in many ways remenicent of the support for geocentrisim in the time of the Rennaissance.

As mentioned, I do not possess sufficient knowledge to form an article on this matter. However an internet search has turned up a well known author on the topic living in the next town over to me. I will attempt to contact him to see if he would be willing to contribute.

I also do not wish to 'take sides' between contributors. I think both yourself and tommysun have valid contributions to make. But have been unnessicarily polarised by your viewpoints. My recommendation would be for you to discontinue your exchanges and instead work on text for inclusion, that can then be reviewed by all the contributors currently lurking this page. I'm sure some of tommy's material will be suitable, as with yours. I'm also sure that, inevitably (given a single author of a text), there will be some POV issues raised by others that we can resolve amicably and positively. --Everyunitone 11:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Balls of Light

Taken from http://www.greatdreams.com/crop/hoax/hoax.htm

Crop circles are usually explained as the handiwork of creative pranksters. `Not true,' says Dr. Eltjo H. Haselhoff, Ph.D., former employee of Los Alamos National Laboratories. `The complexity of the crop circle phenomenon is tremendously underestimated, because its true nature is unknown to the general public.' `Obviously, there are people trying to imitate the real thing, but the suggestion that all of these crop formations are made by men with simple flattening tools is by far insufficient to explain the well-documented observations, like unambiguous and consistent biophysical anomalies in the flattened plants, inside the circles, all of which have been published in peer-reviewed scientific literature,' according to Dr. Haselhoff.

About ten thousand crop formations have been reported world wide since the late seventies, of which several hundreds throughout the USA, where the first one was reported in 1964. Along with the increasing number of crop circle events, there is also a growing number of eyewitnesses, who claim to have seen how crop circles appeared before their eyes in just a few seconds. Several of these people say that bright, fluorescent balls of light hovered above the fields at the time the circles were formed.

`Such a story sounds unbelievable, of course,' Dr. Haselhoff admits, `but after some straightforward research, it was discovered that the plant stems inside these formations had increased in diameter, as an effect of intensive heating, with an astonishing circular symmetry.' `Moreover,' says Dr. Haselhoff, `this effect perfectly matched the radiation pattern of an electromagnetic point source at a height of four meters and ten centimeters above that field. Unbelievable as it may seem to the layman, this is solid physical evidence that these eyewitnesses speak the truth!' Dr. Haselhoff employed his analysis to other crop circles, investigated by others, and obtained identical results. However, the analysis failed dramatically on several man-made crop circles. He concluded that 'balls of light' must indeed be involved in the creation of crop circles, and submitted his findings to the international and peer-reviewed scientific journal Physiologia Plantarum, in which the article was recently published (Phys.Plant. 111 (1), pp. 124).

`This has important consequences,' says Dr. Haselhoff. `The hypothesis that these balls of light are involved in the creation of crop circles is now no longer just a hypothesis, but a scientifically accepted fact, until someone proofs the opposite. Moreover, it promotes all further discussions about this to a scientific level.' Dr. Haselhoff's findings are in perfect agreement with the opinion of the American researchers Burke, Levengood and Talbott, who suggested earlier in two other scientific articles that the plant alterations in crop circles may be described to electromagnetic effects. `Not one of these clearly anomalous plant alterations had been mentioned - much less explained - by the proponents of the vandal theory, nor can they be accounted for by the supposed methods employed to create crop formations through claims made by the self-described vandals,' according to the American researchers. 'The BLT team has been attacked by skeptics several times, but without good reason. Their conclusions are correct,' according to Dr. Haselhoff.

`I am not performing rocket-science or esoteric experiments, but trivial experimental physics,' says Dr. Haselhoff, `and the results are crystal-clear: something very strange is going on. No-one can deny this. Anyone who claims the opposite, clearly does not know what he is talking about, whereas I consider it the duty of every scientist to figure out what on earth is going on.'[David Castelluccio, PhD]

Tommy Mandel 04:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Eltjo H. Haselhoff, Ph.D., former employee of Los Alamos National Laboratories, is a scientist writing about crop circles. Has any hoaxers written an equivalent text? No, none of them has. Dr. Haselhoff's book is a beautifully produced book from the scientist's perspective.

He says the results are crystal clear, something strange is going on.

That is what we do know. It is precision that differentiates the real from the not real. Real crop circles are unreal. At this point we can ask the real questions who and what are making them? Personally I am interested more in what is making them. What do we observe? They call them BoLs or Balls of Light. Plasma,,,

Plasma is typically called the fourth state of matter, solids, liquids and gases being the other three. It is a superheated mixture of atoms whole electrons have been stripped away now flowing along with the ionized matter or ions. It is like an electricity made of not only electrons but ions as well, flowing through sjpace without a conductor. The Sun is considered a ball of plasma, as are all stars.

A ball of plasma has been observed, during the switching of battery contact in a submarine, a ball of polasma would emerge from the contacts and float down the passageway. A similair ball of plasma has been seen in an airplane, also drifting down the aisle. Balls of plasma have also been seen emerging from earthquake fissures.

A ball of plasma is not impossible to do.

There have been hundreds of reported sightings of what they call balls of light. Usually around the size of a basket ball, the balls of light can be many different colors. In one video, a ball of light is recorded hovering abouve a crop circle. In the distance, a farmer is approacing on his tractor. The video captures the ball of light move toward the farmer, and clearly shows the farmer moving his head to follow the ball of light as it passed over him.

It is very likely that the crop circles of the real kind are formed using balls of plasma just as it is said. A plasma could account for all the anomalous effects found in the circles, the changees in the plant, the changes in the soil and by virtue of ligering magnetic effects, the changes in the people.

If we go ahead and sssume the balls of light are balls of plasmam, and these balls of plasma are doing the crop circles of the real kind, then the next question is who or what is controlling them? Tommy Mandel 02:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Cereology a pseudoscience?

How can cereology be a pseudoscience when it is just the study of crop circles? 70.66.9.162 13:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It would have to be how the subject is studied. A true pseudoscience such as astrology does not apply the scientific method of conjecture, test and verify. Indeed, it was the observation of the movement of the stars, which when recorded by Tacho Brahe, enabled Kepler to surmise that the earth moved around the sun and not the other way around, which, incidently, was believed by all of science at that time. So much for all scientists holding to a belief.... If one looks at the report by Dr. Haselhoff, his methodology is evident. For example, he was able to make measurements on the plants within a circle at different locations. With these measurements he was able to show how a point source above the circle would account for the measured differences.

Tommy Mandel 03:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from the article about four fifths of the way down...

"Crop circle enthusiasts claim that there are other features of crop circles that undercut the hoax theory. They say that bends in the corn in many circles occur just below a joint, while the flattening of the corn by hoaxers produces a crack at any point in the stem, and some scientific studies on apical nodes bear them out.[citation needed] Also they say that flattened corn often lies in groomed layers, rather than random crushings. While there have been cases in which believers declared crop circles to be 'the real thing', only to be confronted soon after with the people who created the circle and documented the fraud[citation needed], the bending issue remains in dispute."

To start, the bending of the plant is the most obvious undisputed feature of authentic crop circles. It occurs most often at the nodes, not just below them. Why is this statement of the fact at nearly the end of the article? There is no dispute over the bending, even a six year old child can tell the difference from plants with elongated nodes and those that have been broken. This has been investigated by a University of Michigan biology professor and the results have been published in peer reviewed journals as well online for anyone to see. I think the article should start out with something like "crop circles are formed by the bending of the crop..."

Insofar as those who have duped researchers into claiming a hoaxed circle was authentic, did so by deception. Early on a famous researcher was told that a crop circle appeared and was video taped. On the way to the circle he was asked what he thought of such an event, before he actually saw the circle. He said it would be astounding, only to realize that once he got there, it was obvious that it was man made. The press, however, went with his original comments and worked to ridiculle him. This behavior is not even ethical and we are to believe these kinds of people?

Also, it is evident without saying that the layers of authentic crop circles are woven, sometimes interwoven to as much as four layers. The Julia set crop circle at stonehedge had circles with different pattern in each one. Try to lift these layers up, and they resist the movement.

The distinction should be made between what is said and what is seen.

Tommy Mandel 07:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

However much I dislike the moniker 'PseudoScience' (being more a fault of the practitioner than the field) I have attempted to provide a less vitriolic account of 'Cereology' in both the introduction, and side box within the article. Comments welcomed...

--Everyunitone 21:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

My Edit to the side box hasn't worked for some reason... Will be back to edit it when i return from europe in a couple weeks time, if it hasn't been done by someone else. The current entry is shockingly bad..

--Everyunitone 11:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The science of crop circles

Eltjo H. Haselhoff, Ph.D. The Deepening Complexity of Crop Circle; Scientific Research and Urba LegendsTHeoretical and experimental physicist. ISBN 1-58394-046-4

Dr Haselhoff talks about the deception that occurs durng the investigations of crop circles. In one instance he was interviewed and asked if a particular crop circle was caused by natural causes. The Doctor replied "impossible, the circle is too complex". Then he was asked if it could be man made and the doctor replied that it could be. When the article came out the questioning went like this "Is it possible that the circle was man made?" The doctor's reply according to the media was "Impossible, it is too complex" and in the backgroud the man circle makers were laughing.

The deceivers would not have to resort to contrived deception of all crop circles were man made.

Tommy Mandel 06:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

But All the circle made by human hand ?

Is there any one share with me that the possibility of making all recorded circle can be explained in a way that the humans were involved and not any ET entity. I am not an expert on subject, but atleast, some of them are little complex for humans to make in short period. If we can explain 70% of them, what about the rest 30%. Some body made them, the question is who ? phippi46 14:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Question on crop circle background -

Shouldn't this article mention that although crop circles became well known to the public recently, they actually have been documented since the 1700's and on various continents?

Colen Andrews, a long time principle investigator of crop circles, recently estimated that 80% of the circles were made by the hand of man. That leaves 20% that cannot be explained. The figure denoting the total number of crop circles found is around ten thousand, that tells us that 2000 crop circles could not have been made by man. All we need is one...

Dr. E.H. Haselhoff wrote the book "The Deepening Complexity of Crop Circles in which the evidence was subjected to exhaustive scientific analysis and presented beautifully therein. Here are his 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.

Concusion Two: the crop circle phenomenon is often erroneously ridiculed, and much underrestimated in its complexity.

Concusion Three: The true nature of the crop circle phenomenon is unknown to the general public.

Concusion Four: "Those who are unqualified to judge should refrain from comment" (Dr. G.T. Meaden)

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

Conclusion Six: Something strange is going on.

Haselhoff is senior physicist at a medical imaging company, has worked at Los Alamos as a physicist,

Tommy Mandel 13:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Tommy Mandel

Tommy, have you prepared any versions of the article as you would like to see it? A lot of the information you are displaying should be represented on the page... If you have done so already, could you provide a link to your draft page?

Cheers

--Everyunitone 20:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have a couple paragraphs that could be called a draft:

Crop circles are circular formations of laid down crop found typically in a field of grain most often in Southern UK. Usually appearing during the night, one crop circle appeared within view of Stonehedge, around five PM within a forty five minute time frame, guards at Stonehedge stated

Crop circles have been rigorously scrutinized using scientific methods and protocols which indicate that some crop circles have features which cannot be hand made. At the same time "hoaxed" crop circles have also appeared demonstrating what can be hand made. Hoaxing a crop circle is in most cases criminal activity and has done little more than confuse the issue. The scientific studies clearly show that there are significant and measurable differences between a hoaxed and an authentic crop circle.

A “real” crop circle is “unreal.”

“In Conclusion:: Something strange is going on: ” writes Dr I Haselhoff in his book The Deepening Complexity of Crop Circles” And in his book “Vital Signs,” Andy Thomas subtitles it as “A Complete Guide to the Crop Circle Mystery and Why It is NOT a HOAX. Over 10,000 crop circles have been found since the 1970’s writes Freddy Silva in his book “Secrets in the fields.” “Eighty percent of those are man-made,” announced Colin Andrews, prominent researcher of crop circles..

What they are saying, if we do the math, is that the physical evidence revealed in scientific studies identifies at least 2000 creop circles that have features that cannot be man made or even explained by known physics. There are abrupt biological changes that are found in the downed crop There are analmalous chemical changes found in the soils within the circles. There are electro-magnetic/static fields measured and felt in and around a crop-circle. There are significant differences in moisture inside compared to outside the crop circle. And of course there are precise geometrical crop circle formations from which five new geometrical theorems have been derived. Some of these features cannot be explained with “our” ordinary physics or technology. The stalk of grain are bent, not broken. Excess nitrites found in the soil occur through great heat. Crystalization of clay only occurs from great heat and pressure. These features cannot be replicated by the hand of man. Hence, 2000 circles are inexplicable. After years, even decades, of investigation by biologists and physicists, the general concensus seems to be summed up in one sentence - "we do not know what is causing them."

OVERVIEW

Crop Circles are not so new, they were written up in the literature as far back as the 1600’s, when a a farmer declared he would rather let the Devil cut his crop than accept the price given to him to have his crop cut for him. Then awakening the next day to discover a crop circle in his crop. An estimated 300 were observed up to 1970.

Crop circles have been found in many countries and can take different forms. They have formed on water, snow, sand and dry lake beds. In a dry lake bed in Oregon, a thirteen mile long series of trenches three inches deep with beveled edges was carved in the shape of the Hindu (find name) On a plain in Australia, seen plainly from satellite photos, a naked figure of an aboriginie (sic) appeared. Circles have been found on one quarter inch thick ice

Crop circles sightings proliferated during the 80’s with global interest peaking in 1991 -92. But then the infamous Doug & Dave team admitted they had hoaxed the crop circles. Curious events would follow. A disinformation effort by the media and “government” to discredit researcher Colin Andrews by talking him into validating a hoaxed circle before he even saw it. The ruse worked, his authority was ridiculed from then on. Andrews also writes of being offered “a Swiss bank account” if he would only dismiss all circles as hoaxes. That didn’t work.. Dr I Haselhoff tells us about an interview in which he was asked. (insert quote here) Nevertheless, the disinformation effort is mainly successful even today. It appears the rest of the world outside researchers and “croppies” still believes that ALL crop circles are hoaxed..

However, once the cop circle is accepted as “real”, and “real” means not man-made, then we can ask the real “what” and “how” questions that would never get asked otherwise.

There is a lot more going on than just plants being bent over in a circle. And thanks to BLT Research, Dr Levengood and Dr Haselhoff, replicative analysis and scientific studies of the phenomenon has taken place. There are crop circle made by the hand of man, and there are crop circles that do not exhibit properties of man made circles. Instead they have measurable and replicable properites of their own, properties not found in the man made circles.

Here is what an authentic non-hand-made crop event looks like. These are typical features found inside a circle compared to outside the circle in standing crop.

BIOLOGICAL CHANGES

Perhaps the one singular feature of a real crop circle are the bent stalks. The stalks are not broken, which happens when a board is drawn over it, but instead are are literally "bent" ninty degrees. Some bends have been 45 and sixty debrees. Ten foot corn stalks have been found laid down bent in a curve. Canola, or oilseed rape, has a structure like celery, and like celery will shap if bend past 45 degrees, are found bent over ninty degrees unbroken. In one circle, the canola had flowered, with hundreds of flowers on each stalk, all undamaged in the downed crop. Plants have been found bent over interspersed within standing crop bent stalks between standing stalks, at the edges of some circles. The bent of the plant is at the nodes or filia, some low to the ground, some just below the seed head. The nodes or knuckle like knobs in the smooth stalk are measurably changed—they are found elongated as much as 100 per cent when compared to standing crop. . The nodes are also found often to have burst. Growth such as this is never found in a man made circle.

It appears the bending agent is extreme heat – similar effects can be produced in a microwave oven. The effects of heat have been found in the soil and the plants.

TEMPERATURE CHANGES

They have found flies with their wings welded to the plant. They have found metal fuzed to the plant – the iron molded to the cellular structure of the plant. Microspheres of magniite arte typically found with the metal found on the plants and in the soil. They have found nitrate in the soil inside the circles which only heat can produce. They have found increased crystallization of clay inside the circle, increasing crystalization that normally occurs at extreme pressures and time. The soil is typically found to be dryer, sometimes bone dry.

All this is indicative of extreme heat. And judging from the lack of significant damage to the crop itself outside of some local charring around burst nodes, very fast extreme heat at that. Like wetting a finger and touching it to a hot iron. Imagine white hot…

TIME

Usually the crop circles appear in the night from 11- 4 AM. Mainly in southern England. But the circle can appear during the day. Perhaps one of the most complex Windmill Hill July 18, 2002 (See fig one appeared in the afternoon on windmill hill. A pilot flew over in the morning and it wasn’t there. When he flew back in the afternoon it was there. A circle appeared across from Stonehedge, in clear view of it’s guards, a sweeping spiriling diminished curve composed of circles, was done in a time frame of fifteen minutes– “it wasn’t there”, then, “it was there “the guards reported. Some complex designs have taken three or four days to complete.

MAGNETIC FIELDS

There is an electromagnetic/static field around and in a crop circle. The typical crop circle provides many different kinds of experiences with the electro-magnetic/static fields within the circle. It has been reported: A compass will act erratically, sometimes spinning like a top. Cell phones cease to work when carried into a crop circle. Cameras will not work. Disruption of Electrical Power sometimes affects the neighborhood, cars stop running.. People are physically affected when in the circle. Hormones levels change. Thyroid output abruptly changes. Dogs and horses avoid the circle. Birds break formation and fly around the circle. Even smoke has been seen going around a crop circle Effects on humans are mostly initially negative, nausea, confusion, fatigue these initial effects are followed by positive effects later on. . In some cases this extraordinary effect can be detected the following year. Ghost circles from the previous year have appeared in new crop.

Now it gets surreal

BALLS OF LIGHT

or BoL’s, that’s how they get described. These bizarre enigma’s have been observed not just once, or even a few times –, all told there are hundreds of sightings, all describing “a small ball of light, like a football.” One video shows the mysterious BoLs move from a circle it was hovering over-toward an approaching tractor and then you can see the driver turn his head as it flies by him. Synchronous verification? Interestingly, small Balls of Light are mentioned in many other unusual situations as well. Sightings of vertical columns of light have been made prior to the appearance of a crop circle.

GEOMETRY

Crop circles have evolved from the single circle to combinations of circles with up to 13 fold geometry. The relationships between the circles is not happenstance, but reflects old and new geometrical theorems with an accuracy of one percent.

Some circles reflect diatonic ratios, like the music scale. This geometrical order becomes most obvious in the harmony and beauty a crop circle can exhibit. Flawless in its execution, it is clear the circle was made all at once from a single frame of reference. The question is whose frame of reference is it?

Tommy Mandel 01:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanx for information. What you think of the rest 2000 circles, if not made by humans ?, should we take them creation of some kind of intelligent creation from some yet to be known forces.. I mean ET ? It is difficult to come on this conclusion but, we human have ability to creat such things.. and on this planet we are in charge. If we dont know about these things, then it should be came from out side.. If there is no solution of a complex problem, some time simplest explaination is the right answer.. any comments phippi46 21:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Phippi and Everyunitone, dont take Tommy-suns contributions too seriously. There are a couple very active editors but none of them post much anymore on the discussion because of tommy-suns constant spamming. If you want some verified information, follow the links in the article, the are all pretty well referenced and non-contested. Regards, --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 23:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Dark Fred does not believe that crop circles are not man made. Then he conceces that he doesn't believe all circles are man made. He cannot provide us with a scientific paper showing that all observations are man made.

Dr. Eltjo H. Haselhoff Is an experimental and theoretical physicist who titled his dessertation Aspects of a Compton Free-Electron Laser. He has worked at several Dutch research institutes, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and is presently working as senior clinical scientist for a medical imaging equipment provider.

DarkFred supports the deceivers, who are telling us that they did all of them. Interestingly, Dr. Hasehoff caught one of these hoaxers Rod Dickinson, by his own hoaxing. Claiming to have created the Julia Set, and describing how he laid out his reference points, specifically stating that they all lie within the main circle, was in error. A geometric analysis of the Julis Set,(p44) (Said to have been created during the afternoon across from Stonehedge within a time frame of 45 minutes according to several witness.) shows clearly that the reference points lie outside the main circle. A lie will always lie.

Those whom are seriously interested in crop circles would do well to purchase Hasehoff's book, it is short, beautifully illustrated, and extremely well written. ISBN 1 58394-046-4.

Tommy Mandel 01:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question, who is making the circles? little is known. While it can be said almost as a fact, that the so-called Balls of Light are the mechanism by which the authentic crop circle is made, the question becomes who is controlling the BoL? The naive answer is ET. But ET is not the only plausible possibility. New advances in science has shown that there is an Inside of space and which accounts for many of the mysteries science is confronted with. Obviously the Plasma balls, if that is what they are, derive their energy through the ZPE, but the question still remains "who" is doing it? Can Humans work with the ZPE in a physical sense?

One thing for sure, if those BoLs are for real, then whoever or whatever is controlling them controls the world.

Tommy Mandel 03:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok I admit it, it is me. I am controlling those BoLs Tommysun. In addition to my afore mentioned *scary voice* "support of the deceivers" . First the BoLs then the ENTIRE WORLD! Muhahahaha. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 14:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes it is more prudent to remain silent then to speak and remove all doubt...

Tommy Mandel 19:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, its a quote duel then, engarde!

If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.

I never make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect. Edward Gibbon

Nothing is as terrible to see as ignorance in action. Goethe

--Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 20:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

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

There you go man ! we just need little push and in the air we go! ooops.. I think talking about ET getting us mad.. It is just one possibility and mathmatically it is possible to come on this conclusion that we are not alon in this universe. Guys, how and who decide what is foolish, it is relative, we can not decide there is no UNIVERSAL formula on which we can get togehter and settle. Now lets talk about the so called "facts". With our "Current" knowledge, we can explain at least 70% of the circals. With our current knowledge we can not solve the rest 30% of them, ok but we can just suggest with un-certinity that there are some possiblities. But we can not say that it is fact or its 100%. If Police in L.A. solve 90 % of the Murders, the rest 10 % unsolved murders are not claimed that done by ET entities, so there are two possiblities on which I like your attention. The rest unsolved 30% crop crical are made by Humans, but how, we may not able to see yet. Or made by some ET (I say ET because not man made) Entitity. In the middle is nothing, so I personaly think .... humm.. I dont know.. what you think tell me phippi46 22:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Practicing scientist Hasehoff states that the numerous sightings, video tapes, effects, of balls of light are a fact. We know that some of the circles are made by what they call Balls of Light.

"Moreover", Haselhoff writes (p128) "since identical findings were accepted for publication in the scientific literature, it is quite ligitimate to say that the involement of balls of light in crop circle formation has by now become a scientificallly accepted fact."

These balls of light, and the observed effects on the plants, are consistent with plasma. We know that plasma can form balls such as have been described. They have been seen in various configurations. It is clear that thse balls of light act in an intelligent manner. There is no evidence of who or what is controlling them.

A study of plasma physics indicates that it is not impossible for a human to control a ball of plasma. The knowledge to do so however lies beyond the fringes of what we know today. We can only imagine,.,,

Tommy Mandel 23:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)