From: rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski)
Subject: Re: skeptic-faq V 0.1
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 21:16:58 GMT

Since e-mail to Paul Johnson has been bouncing every time I tried, I am
posting these corrections/suggestions directly to this group. 

I thought his work was a good start, but I thought the UFO and crop
circle sections needed a bit of fleshing out:


UFOs and Flying Saucers
=======================

3.1  What are UFOs?
-------------------

UFOs are, simply, Unidentified Flying Objects, no more, no less.  This
means that if you are out one night and see a light moving in the sky
and cannot immediately identify it as a certain star, planet or other
object, then it is by definition a UFO.  THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE
SEEN AN ALIEN SPACESHIP.

A better question would be:

3.1.1  Are UFOs alien spacecraft?
---------------------------------

Probably not.  The vast majority of UFO reports, when investigated by
competent researchers (and that is a problem all by itself), can be
easily explained as natural or manmade objects misidentified for one
reason or another.  The actual percentage is around 95%.  A very few
reports are provable hoaxes.  The remaining few percent (some skeptics
argue that there are no remaining reports) are not explained AT THIS
TIME.  Again, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE OBSERVATIONS OF ALIEN
SPACESHIPS.  All we can say is that, given the information presently
available, some cases don't appear to be stars, balloons, airplanes,
aurorae. etc.  Given a great deal more time and effort, many more could
likely be identified.  It's possible that the witness(es) were in
error, or are very good liars.  And the remaining few cases?  Well, the best we 
can say, as true skeptics, is that we don't know what they were, but there
is NO proof that they were alien spacecraft.  

3.1.2  Are UFOs natural phenomena?
----------------------------------

Possibly.  A number of theories have been proposed, suggesting that
some UFOs are "plasmas" or variations of ball lightning or earthquake
lights.  Unfortunately, the theories seem to change to fit observed
data, rather than predict the observations.  Also, studies designed to
support the theories have used newspaper articles and raw, unsifted UFO
case lists for data, and therefore the studies do not appear to be
completely unbiased.  Perhaps time will tell.  Until then it is safe to
say that SOME UFOs are probably ball lightning or other rare natural
phenomena.

3.1.3  But isn't it possible that aliens are visiting Earth?
------------------------------------------------------------

Yes.  But it is also possible that there is an invisible snorg reading
this over your shoulder right now.

Basically, astronomers such as Carl Sagan are generally convinced that
there are other habitable planets in our galaxy, and that there may be
some form of life on them.  Assuming that parallel evolution occurred
on these other planets, there MIGHT be intelligent life forms there.
It is possible that some of these life forms could have an advanced
civilization, and perhaps have achieved space travel.  BUT - there is
no proof that this is so.  SETI programs such as those Carl Sagan is
involved with are "listening" to other stars in the hope of detecting
radio signals which might indicate intelligent life - kind of listening
for the equivalent of "Watson, come here, I need you!", or "I love
Lucy" in the infancy of our early communications.  Such searches have
been fruitless, so far.

IF there are aliens on distant planets, then it is possible that they
might have found a way to travel between stars in their lifetimes.
According to our present understanding of physics, this is not likely,
given the vast distances between stars.  Even travelling at the speed
of light (which cannot be done), a round trip to the NEAREST star would
take about ten years.  So, either the aliens have made a breakthrough
in physics, or they're not visiting Earth.

3.2 Is it true that the US government has a crashed flying saucer?
------------------------------------------------------------------

[ask Bob Sheaffer to write this one]

3.2.1  What is MJ-12?
---------------------

[note this should be a separate topic; again, ask Sheaffer]


3.3 to 3.6  acceptable answers for this FAQ list

3.7  Are crop circles made by flying saucers?
---------------------------------------------

There is no convincing evidence that crop circles or any other kind of
UGM (Unusual Ground Markings) were made by aliens.  There are some
reports of lights being seen in and around crop circle sites, and a few
videos showing objects flitting over fields.  The lights are hardly
proof, and the objects in the videos seem to be pieces of foil or paper
being tossed about by the wind.

In a deliberate attempt to test crop circle "experts", a crop circle
was faked under the watchful eyes of the media.  When cerealogists were
called in, they proclaimed it genuine.

3.7.1   Are crop circles made by "vortices"?
--------------------------------------------

Probably not.  There are a number of meteorologists who believe that
crop circle formations are created by rare natural forces such as
"ionised plasma vortices".  Basically, winds blowing across rolling
hills sometimes form eddies which in some circumstances (that have
never been quantified) become strong, downward spiralling drafts which
lay down the crop.  Cerealogists claim to have over two dozen witnesses
to such events.  Unfortunately, many more have said they have seen
flying saucers do the same thing.

If natural phenomena are the culprits, then why would the formations
occur mostly in southern England?  In one year, as many as 2000 (!)
crop circles were claimed there, with negligible ones elsewhere in the
world.

Scientific articles arguing for the reality of these vortices have
appeared regularly in the Journal of Meteorology.  But its editor is
the leading proponent of the theory, Dr. Terence Meaden.

Winds can lay down crop in patches known as lodging.  But geometric
patterns in fields can hardly be attributable to natural phenomena.
Meaden has changed his theory to first accomodate complex circles,
ovals and even triangles (!), but now admits that most circles are
hoaxes and the theory can only explain simpler patterns.

3.7.2  Are crop circles made by hoaxers?
----------------------------------------

Of course.  Although most people have heard only of two, Doug Bower and
Dave Chorley of England, many others have been caught, not only in
Britain but in other countries such as Canada.  Their methods range
from inscribed circles with a pole and a length of rope to more complex
systems involving chains, rollers, planks and measuring devices.

And as a further note: just because you can't prove a crop circle was
made by a hoaxer, you should not assume aliens were involved.  Remember
Occam's Razor (Section 1.5).

3.7.3   Are crop circles radioactive?
-------------------------------------

This is a claim that has received wide circulation in UFO/cerealogy
circles (pardon the pun).  It is also untrue.  Examination of the data
from spectral analyses of soil taken from crop circles has shown that
there were no readings above the normal background levels.  The
proponents of this claim are debating this, however.

3.7.4   What about cellular changes in plants within crop circles?
------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, what about the changes?  Although this is another claim that is
widely circulated among ufologists and cerealogists, the evidence is
simply not very good.  A few photographs of alleged changes in the
"crystalline structure" of wheat stems were published in some
magazines and UFO publications, but inquiries about the actual
methodology and testing procedure by the lab that produced the results
have not produced any satisfactory information.  It is not clear what
devices were used, what controls were employed, which samples, etc.

-- 
Chris Rutkowski - rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Royal Astronomical Society of Canada
University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada