Talk:Crop circle/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title: Working on the Article (References)

message: 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)
thread_title: What about the farmers?

message: See /Archive 1#How do you consider these "scientific" facts?
<BR> 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 
Levengood, W.C. (1994) 
Anatomical anomalies in crop formation plants
Physiologia Plantarum 92:356-363 
Tommy Mandel 20:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: scientific observations

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Crop circle anomalies

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Balls of Light

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title: Cereology a pseudoscience?

message: Eltjo H. Haselhoff, Ph.D. The Deepening Complexity of Crop Circle; Scientific Research and Urba LegendsTHeoretical and experimental physicist. 
::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)
thread_title: The science of crop circles