Talk:Crop circle/Archive 5

message: i made an edit as the Percy Hobbs (D&D drinking hole) is just out side winchester not in southampton, a small edit but one that had been bugging me when i read the page --Mark Barnes 22:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Location of pub

message: I'd like this page to go more in-depth with the difference between manmade and authentic crop circles, namely, the damage to the crops that are not caused by a wooden plank, but by some microwave radiation, causing the nodes inside the stalks to pop and the plant to lie limp on the ground. Also, a link to that one video that showed a flying saucer creating a crop circle in a manner of seconds would be helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.166.203.91 (talk) 09:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Microwave Processes

message: I think we could get some nice TV clip? or picture of a UFO making a crop circle! --CyclePat 14:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only video I know of showing a UFO making a crop circle was a cleverly hoaxed video, as pointed out in Colin Andrew's book. I've heard of another video showing a ball of light hovering above a circle and then moving toward an approaching tractor and as it passes over, the farmer turns his head to follow it. The farmer says his family thought he was nuts until the videographer showed up two days later with the video. There is one TV recording of a crop circle being made, but the fotage was stolen and never has been found since. Most TV footage is on hoaxing the researchers, pseudoscientists like to take these hoaxing of researchers as proof that they are all hoaxed.
Aren't you the admin I wrote to asking for help? He never even replied. Then I wrote to your group, and they never replied. No one helped me until Addhoc, the hall monitor, came along. So why are you here now? Mythology and TV...oh, I get it now.
Tommy Mandel 23:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fairly sure that's advocate, not hall monitor... Addhoc 13:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Darn, now everyone knows...
Tommy Mandel 06:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythology and TV 

message: If this Talk gets any bigger, it's going to make my screen fall off the table ... - DavidWBrooks 23:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Archived.  Guy 10:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The last time I tried to explain what I thought was going on, they called it mumbo jumbo. What I think has not been published anywhere, so it is just my original research and that should not be in the article. The only thing I am convinced of is that not all of the circles were made by the hoaxers. And that's as far as I go. Personally I would love to know who is pushing those balls of light around. I think I know how it could be done in principle.
There is a big difference between saying "crop circles = aliens, look for the evidence of aliens, here is an anomaly, how do we use that to prove it's aliens", and saying "crop circles = something to look at, mostly hoaxes, let's see if there are any which can be proven not to be hoaxes, and find out what natural phenomenon might have caused them" or words to that effect.  The arguments in favour of paranormal or extraterrestrial origin all violate Occam's razor. Guy 15:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Who said anything about aliens? Occam's razor is a guide, not a law. What are you saying?Tommy Mandel 01:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  309 kilobytes! 

message: A study of the scientific evidence
This is an attempt to incorporate within the crop circle article those observations which have been reported by serious investigators in the field and the results of scientific analysis of those observations, using the scientific method. We will use the prevailing literature base for our domain of knowledge.
Scientific Investigators
Dr. Eltjo Hasellhof, a practicing physicist, once employed at Los Alaamos and several Dutch Institutes, presently the senior scientist at a medical imaging company in the U.K., has rigorously investigated the crop circle phenomenon. His findings are published in "Deepening complexity of Crop Circles:" by Eltjo H. Hasellhoff, Ph.D. The title of his dissertation was "Aspects if a Compton Free-Electron Laser". Also published in Physiologia Plantarum 111, vol. 1 (2000): 124. Dispersion of Energies in Wordwide Crop Formations" (Opinions and Comments)
As a good introduction to the phenomenon from the scientific perspective, Dr. Heselhoff writes: Page 128,
"The Facts:" 
"In the last twenty years. there has been much speculation about different aspects of crop circles. But it takes more than just a little reading to understand where the facts end and where the fiction begins. Personal involvement and investigation, field work, discussion with many people, crucial questions, and much thinking are needed to reveal the true character of the crop circle phenomenon. Unfortunately, much of the public infrmation is not very accurate or even is completely wrong, as a result of ignorance, lack of accuracy or objectivity. or simply evil intent. Although many alleged crop circle properties cannot bear the scrutiny of an objective analysis. some relativly simple observations seem to defy any trivial explanation. Biophysical anomalies, in terms of node leghtening and germination anomalies, are probably number one on this list. The lack of any indication of human presense or mechanical flattening, observed many times in even the most fragile and delicate species of crop, is perhaps somewhat less objective but still good for a second place. The awesome complexity and particularily the hidden geometry in many pictograms at least indicate that this cannot be the result of a simple joke. Even fantastic and extraordinaty observations, in the form of a radient balls of light hovering above a field and creating a crop circle, can fulfill the requirements that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." This extraordinary evidence was delivered in Chapter Three. The node-length measurements unambiguously showed a perfect symmetry in three different cross sections through the circular imprint, in perfect correlation with the radiation pattern of an electromagnetic point source. This is indeed the required extraordinaty evidence, which at least ought to open our minds to the dozens of other, similar eyewitness accounts, and of course the video material of the flying balls of light. Moreover, since identical findings were accepted for publication in the scientific literature, it is quite legitimate to say that the involvement of balls of light in crop circles formations has by now become a scientifically accepted fact. (3) And there is much more extraordinary evidence, in the form of burn marks on the bird box, delicately draped, undamaged carrot leaves; a virgin circle in a frozen field of snow, dead flies, and much more. Anyone who takes the time to explore and verify all of these findings personall find that the facts are plain: Something very strange is going on." 
At the conclusion of his report, Dr. Hasehoff presents his own 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.
Conclusion Two: The crop circle phenonmenon is often erroneously ridiculted and much undersestimated in its complexity.
Conclusion Three: The true nature of the crop circle phenonmenon is unknown to the general public.
Conclusion Four: "Those who are unqualified to judge should refrain from comment." (D.G. Terence Meaden)
Conclusion Five: Small radiation sources with an electomagnetic character ("Balls of Light") are directly involved in the creation of crop circles. (Their origin and exact character remain yet unknown.)
Conclusion Six: Something very strange is going on.
(A) Principal investigator/sources/reference
(Aa)
Colin Andrews
Amamiya Kiyoshi
Dr. Jean-Noel Auburn
Robert Boerman
Andrews Colins
Pat Delgado
Dr. Eltjo Haselhoff
Gerald Hawkins
Dr. Simeon Hein
Michael Hesemann
Ron Jones
Wiliam Levengood
Maki Masao
Terence Meaden
Lucy Pringle Archie Roy
Peter Sorensen
Freddy Silve
Nancy Talbott
Busty Taylor
Andy Thomas
Paul Vigay
George Wingfield
James Withers
(1)Internet reference/source
(1a)Website of organization using scientific methods/analysis:
http://www.bltresearch.com/index.html
Quoting directly from the website, this is their introduction:
BLT RESEARCH TEAM INC.
PURPOSE: The BLT Research Team Inc.'s primary focus is crop circle research - the discovery, scientific documentation and evaluation of physical changes induced in plants, soils and other materials at crop circle sites by the energy (or energy system) responsible for creating them and to determine, if possible, from these data the specific nature and source of these energies. Secondly, our intent is to publish these research results in peer-reviewed scientific journals and to disseminate this information to the general public through lectures, mainstream articles and the internet.
Their reports include ---
Reported Observations
A great variety of observations in crop circles have been reported. Some are typical of a class of crop circles, while some are isolated instances. These are characteristics of crop circles that have been reported/found.
History - The earliest reference to a crop circle is a 1678 wood cut which depicts a circle of crop being cut down by a figure of the Devil. They have appeared since the turn of the Century and esitmates of 100 to 300 circles have been found prior to 1980. Some say as much as 10,000 since 1970. Many farmers tell of their fathers talking about crop circles.
Distribution - worldwide, with the majority in the southern UK. Have been found in most other countries including U.S., Canada, Hungary, BVewlgium, Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Turkey, JPuerto Rico, New Zealand and Australia.
Location - most often in fields of grain. But also have been found on ice, dried lake beds and snow. It is believed that the natural aquifiers found in England contribute much to their occurance there.
Size - Early crop circles were of modest size, 15 to 60 feet in diameter. Recent circles can stretch as much as 900 feet
Visible Nodal Changes - One of the most prominant features of a crop circle is the bending of the plant usually at the node. Often the nodes have burst. Typically, the length of one side of the node increases up to 200% thereby bending the plant over. (See picture) While the heigth of the bend from the ground is usually close to the ground, a set of three circles had nodes which were bent at different heights as one progressed toward the center forming a pattern which was then repeated over and over until the center was reached. The pattern was identical in each of the three circles. Haselhoff was able to take plants from prescribed positions, measure their nodes using compouter hardware and software, and determine a correlation between distence from center to edge and a hypothetical EMF source above the circle. This is "hard" evidence that the circles were created by an EMF of some sort.
Magnetic Anomalies - In many cases compasses are affected severely, metal becomes magnetized. In one video, Dr. W.C. Levengood, a professor and biophysicist, moves a magnet toward a seed taken from inside the circle. The magnet attracts the seed and holds it off the table.
Battery depletion - In many cases the battery of an electronic device taken into a circle becomes depleted. This has happened even to batteries known to have been fully charged before taking it into the circle.
Energy lines - Usually found by dowsing, confirmed by electronic sensors, the circle's geometry is usually found to line up with these natural lines.
Intricate Lay - The crop is laid down in woven and interwoven patterns. As many as four layers of stalks each layer flowing in different directions have been found. In the Julia set circle, a different pattern of lay was found in each of the hundred circles. In one circle, a single standing stalk was found in every square foot of the circle.
vertical patterns - in one circle the bent of the plant varied in a repeatable pattern as they were laid down toward the center. This became obvious when the plants grew upward at these different hieghts.
Eye/ear Witnesses - Most circles being created are not witnessed. There are instances that the circle was observed during it's formation by an eyewitness
Bent Rape Stems - Oil seed rape or canola has a stem structure like celery, it breaks easily. Circles are found in canola fields with bent stalks, here just below a node. One photograph shows a canola plant bent 180 degrees.
Cellular Changes - Laboratory analysis shows several kinds of changes in the cellular structure.
Carbon Blackening - Interestingly, when the node of a stalk bursts, a black ring is often found. Originally thought to be due to charring, it was shown to be a opprotunistic fungus.
Balls Of Light - Lights in the form of a circle or sphere have been seen hundreds of times. In one video two balls of light are seen circling a field and then a crop circle appears in a matter of seconds. It is commonly accepted that these BoL's as they are called, are responsible for making a genuine circle. Heselhoff states that because of the many sightings, and appearence in two journals, the balls of light can legitimately be reagarded as a scientific fact.
Germination Changes - Depending on when the seed is laid down, the germination rate can slow down or speed up, confirmed by laboratory tests of the growth patterns. (Leavengood is now making "super" seeds modified by a similar process...)
Perimeter Stalks - The division of inside to outside is very sharp. (In some circles, bent stalks are found interspersed with standing stalks.)
Crop Selectivity - In the U.K., corn, wheat, carrots, barley. Circles have been found in other environments. A huge "flower of life" was seen in an Oregon dried lakebed. The total length of the lines, 4 inches deep, 18 inches wides with beveled edging, measured 13 miles. After a survey, the lines were bowed out eight inches at the center, duplicating the effects of a point source directly above the design.
Rapid Daylight Appearance - A circle, the Julia Set appeared at Stonehedge in a field in clear view of guards and tourists during a 45 minutes time frame. Consisting of ---circles, each circle with a different pattern of downed plants.
Geometrical theorems - The circle atructure is not random. Precise measurements show that many geometrial relationships can be found in each of the circles. Five new geometrical theorems have been found.
Nitrogen / Nitrate Ratios - The level of nitrates is higher in a circle compared to outside the circle.
Clay crystalization - THe crystaline structure of clay has increased
Time Dilation - Reports of unusual time changes have been made
Electro/mechanical Failures - Almost all electronic equipment brought into a circle will fail due to depleted batteries. Sometimes tractors will stop when driven into a circle
Radiation Anomalies - The presence of radiation with a short half life has been found.
Photographic Anomalies - Balls of light appear in photographs. Some of these have been attributed to reflections from the flash hitting dust particles.
Molten metal imprint - In a shipment of grain staks sent to a laboratory, pieces of metal fell from the stalks during the unpacking . The metal was shaped according to the structure of the plant.
Trilling Noise - A high frequency trilling sound is often heard
Dead Porcupines And Decapitated Dogs - A flattened dad porcupines was found in one circle.
Scared Horses & Howling Dogs - Dogs seem to get excited around circles.
Menstrual Disruption -
Endocrine Effects - THe levels of melatonin, a natural hormone found in the body increase. Melatonin production is inhibited by light ans should only increase during darkness.
From Wikipedia... "Normally, the production of melatonin by the pineal gland is inhibited by light and permitted by darkness. For this reason melatonin has been called "the hormone of darkness". The secretion of melatonin peaks in the middle of the night, and gradually falls during the second half of the night."
Miracle Cures =
Insects Stuck To Crop - In one circles hundreds of insects were found with their wings fuzed to the stalks.
Underground Water - The UK has natural aquifiers
White Substance -
Magnetic substance -
Perpetrators - Non/super-human? This is the subject of extensive speculation. No scientific evidence has been found which would point one way or the other.
Deception - The modern history of crop circles is replete with attempts by various media to deceive and discredit scientists. Haselhoff tells of one time he was asked in an interview if a particular circle could have natural causes, his reply was no, it is too complex. Then he was asked if it could have been man made and he replied that it was possible. When the interview aired, the question asked was could the circle have been man made, and the reply edited in the tape was no, it is too complex, then they panned to the hoaxers laughing.
http://www.cropcirclenews.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=148
They write
Crop Circles : A Field Report of the Howell, Michigan Crop Circle Formation
On July 29-31, 2003, a private scientific research team documented physical evidence revealing that the Howell Township, Livingston County, Michigan crop circle formation was not made by hoaxers.
The team consisted of Jeffrey Wilson, Todd Lemire, and Dr. Charles Lietzau of Michigan, and Roger Sugden of Indiana. Arriving at the field on July 29, 2002, we discovered and photographed the presence of several anomalies that cannot be duplicated by hoaxers. Conclusions
Our research team had at this point in our investigation enough conclusive scientific evidence as well as a body of supporting contextual detail to show that the Howell crop circle formation had not been hoaxed by people using mechanical means, and that the evidence uncovered supports the conclusion that this is an authentic formation. There are other anomalies that were detected in this formation, but until our lab studies are concluded, and we are certain of our findings, we will refrain from reporting those at this time.
Sources
(1a)Website of organization using scientific methods/analysis: BLT RESEARCH TEAM INC. http://www.bltresearch.com/index.html
(2b) The Deepening Complexity of Crop Circles: Scientific Research and Urban Legends. (2001) Eltjo H. Haselhoff, Ph.d. Frog Ltd. Berjekey Ca. ISBN 1-58394-046-4 (2ba) Dr. Haselhoff is a practicing physicist specializing in optical imaging. quote: "Anyone claiming that all crop circles can be easily explained as the work of human pranksters, or hoaxers as they are usually called, reveals that he does not know what he is talking about."
(2c) Secrets in the Fields: The Science and Mysticism of Crop Circles. (2002) Freddy SIlva Hampton Roads, Charlottesvile VA. ISBN 1-57174-322-7 (2ca) Silva has written perhops the most comprehensive book on all aspects of crop circles. Quote:"The astronomer David Darling expresses this elegantly in his Equation of Eternity" 'The conscious mind is crucially involved in establishing what is real. That which reaches our senses is, at best, a confusion of phantasmal energies - not sights, not sounds, or any of the coherant qualities that we project outward onto the physical world. The Universe as we know it is built and experienced entirely within our heads, and until that mental construction takes place, reality must wait in the wings.'"
(2d) The Hypnotic Power of Crop Circles (2004) Bert Janssen. Frontier Publishing, Netherlands ISBN 1-93182-34-7
(2da) Janessen focus on the construction of crop circles, specifically how the geometrical elements hang together. Quote "Crop curckes. One of the biggest mystery of our times. They are obviously not the works of pranksters and practical jokers. They are also not a natural phenomenon. Nature doesn't think. But the thought, whoever or whatever is thinking it, has a very strong resemblance to the way in which we humans think. It is very much as if the phenonmenon is just another part of ourselves. One the one hand we are not responsible for the shapes in the crop, on the other hand we are." (p99)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommysun (talk • contribs) 
Tommy, you're hammering this poor talk page to within an inch of its life. There is no need to add this much material to it, and to keep doing so comes close to violating WP:POINT. Anyway, to begin to address some of the things you have mentioned:
*Dr. Eltjo Hasellhof, a practicing physicist, Okay so far.
*once employed at Los Alaamos and several Dutch Institutes, His past employment history is not of importance.
*presently the senior scientist at a medical imaging company in the U.K., Nor really is this statement.
*has rigorously investigated the crop circle phenomenon. POV. Who says his investigation was rigorous?
*His findings are published in "Deepening complexity of Crop Circles:" Okay, but this is properly done by citation, not in this manner.
*by Eltjo H. Hasellhoff, Ph.D. Well, it would be. You've already said it's his book.
*The title of his dissertation was "Aspects if a Compton Free-Electron Laser". Totally irrelevant to this discussion.
*Also published in Physiologia Plantarum 111, vol. 1 (2000): 124. Dispersion of Energies in Wordwide Crop Formations" (Opinions and Comments). Again, cite material rather than copy titles verbatim into the body of the text.
That's as far as I got. Someone else can tackle the rest. Oh and please sign your posts. --BillC 01:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, could you shorten it a bit? Skimming over it, I don't see anything that added to your argument (whatever that happens to be). In addition, I don't really know how much of it you wrote and how much of it you just copied from another website... and I don't see how all of this could possibly be relavent to the article. We already know your POV. And no, no matter how hard you try to convince me, I will not be convinced that it is a fact that there are crop circles that are not man made. And I don't think you will convince other people who think the same way as I do. Things don't just magically become true when you say them on talk pages over and over again. iamthebob(talk|contribs) 01:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on guys, this is my working copy, stuff that could go into the article. It took some doing to collect it together, and I don't wnat to lose it in the archives. This is what we got to work with. What do you think should go into the article? Better yet, which single item, taking this one by one, shuld not be in the article? Tommy Mandel 23:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I will revise my statement. "Unless if you provide evidence that is of quality many times better than what you have now, I will not be convinced that it is a fact that there are crop circle that are not man made." I will, however, concede that there exist people that believe that there are non man-made crop circles. However, you take it as a fact that there exists crop circles are not man made. Does that mean that your mind is closed? iamthebob(talk|contribs) 22:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I am not trying to convince you or anyone else that there are crop circle that were not made by the hand of man. What I am trying to do is to present all the meaningful evidence so that the reader can decide for himself - you included. And I do not take it as a fact, several times during this overall discussion I have changed my mind. It is a rather unsettling experience to conclude that my conclusion is wrong. There is more to it than what is presented above - the crystallization of clay, for example. There is absolutely no way stomping on clay can do that Tommy Mandel 03:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: My primary field of research is general system theory. Tommy Mandel 15:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Science of Crop Circles

message: It has also been suggested that HAARP may be the cause although this seems unlikely and has been refuted by scientists working in the field. (no pun intended)
:Citation, please? iamthebob(talk|contribs) 22:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HAARP 

message: User:Tommysun and, more recently, 209.244.42.20, have of late been dominating this talk page with what seems to be their sole purpose on Wikipedia: getting various dubious 'evidence' into the article (neither has contributed to any other articles).  Their postings here are lengthly, at times obviously violating WP:COI  and WP:C (this has been noted several times).  I use the term Flaming in the broader definition of long, emotionally charged posts.  Certainly their frequent regressions into ad hominem arguments are not helpful.
I have previously asked Tommysun to moderate his tone and exercise some level of restraint, as have several other editors.  There are currently several Requests For Investigation relating to his edits.  However, he and now 209.244.42.20 continue to flame.  I predicted that this would probably happen, but hoped it would not.  I appreciate the zeal of these editors, but their work follows a pattern that is precisely what I have come to expect of fanatics advocating one form or another of pseudoscience.  I have had occasion to reference the majority of my user page in this respect.  So I will ask one final time: cease your ranting.  I suspect that this will not help, but ignoring repeated requests to restrain editing would not be good for Tommysun in the outcome of the Investigations.
Both Tommysun and 209.244.42.20 have contested my debunking of their original arguments.  Their references at that point consisted of one author who had published much good research, but for the last twenty years of his life alienated himself from the scientific community by making outrageous and frequently disproven claims, and two more recent writers in a journal that, while nominally peer-reviewed, is known for publishing dubious results.  One of these writers has not written any main-stream publications since he finished school, so his work has never been subjected to proper scrutiny.  The other, and his work on crop circles, was investigated by the CSICOP and the result was that his results were almost entirely bunk.  Now, the CSICOPs are at times abusive and holier-than-thou, but when they debunk something, it is very much debunked.  If nothing is left after the debunking, then the work was bunk.  Tommysun contests this point, but if he wants to support it he has a lot of work to do.  I realize that I am making use of something like an ad hominem argument for the first two sources: the scientific community has ostracized these people, therefore their work is most likely invalid.  This is based on the assumption that the scientific community is a good judge of science.  I suspect that these two will contest that point.  See my user page, Objection 1.
I'm afraid that this post will only led to more flaming, but I have to try to stop this.  To that end, here follows what a crop circle zealot should have to be convincing in saying that something other than pranksters is at work.  Any work proporting to support this should be peer-reviewed by an established institution.  I very much doubt that this evidence exists, but if it does, the process will take some time and cannot be done here.  I would feel quite justified removing any attempt to do so.
*Proported differences in soil structure between 'genuine' and other crop circles: provide independent definition of what consitutes a 'genuine crop circle', test structure of a large variety of soils outside circles using the same techniques to establish controls, test soil structure in several areas before and after crop circle construction by you and by others to establish what human activity can do (this last was a major criticism in the CSICOP report []), conduct double-blind tests of soils to determine if the proported soil structure can be recognized without any additional information, have these results duplicated independently by other groups.  Nothing in the above relates to the techniques used to analyze the soils.  They may be standard or completely new, but the way that the techniques are applied is what matters.
*Proported effects on plants.  As above when it comes to testing for human activity, with the added note that 'cerealogists' often refuse to subject themselves to either single- or double-blind tests.  Their reasons for this are various, but blind testing is the only way to insure that the evidence being presented is the actual evidence being used.
*Proported mysterious lights over crop circles: this one is a little tricky.  At the moment, it is strictly ancedotal.  To support it at all requires detailed recordings of many crop circles being formed, having those recordings pass careful examination by experts at spotting fakes, demonstrating that the lights concerned were not being carried by a human, and providing an explanation for the lights.  To do this properly would require wide-area, IR & visible monitoring of a large area of cropland with something like a spysat.  For what it is worth, the civilian and scientific satellites have not seen anything like this.
*Explain distribution of crop circles by something other than human activity.  What else respects fencing, is biased to a relatively small number of countries, happens only in cropland (i.e. why no circles in forests, on plains, in deserts, in mountianous areas, etc.), occurs only in the dead of night, is strongly correlated to news reports of previous crop circles, and can be readily replicated to high accuracy by a few slightly drunk men?  The distribution is generally ignored by zealots, because it is the strongest evidence against their arguments.  If you are going to be convincing, you must explain all of the evidence.
Tommysun will now want to say that pranksters do not explain all of the evidence.  But because proported mysterious lights, effects on plants, and effects on soil have not been properly tested, they are not good evidence.  I have given the most likely source of lights in a field: a prankster wanting to be able to see.  In the absence of good evidence to the contrary, that explains the lights.  The effects on plants can be explained by human action, if the CSICOP report may be trusted.  Certainly that and any changes in soil chemistry must be rigorously tested to show that human activity or normal variation cannot produce similar effects. Michaelbusch 21:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: End the Flaming

message: Is this protection still necessary? Anyway, I just randomly wandered across the article. My intial impressions:
'Despite the evidence that crop circles are of human origin various paranormal theories continue to enjoy some currency, although these violate Occam's Razor'
While this statement is true, I also don't think it particularly belongs in the opening. It should probably be tacked onto the end of the previous paragraph without the reference to Occam's Razor, and with a mention of some of the associated groups. e.g.
'Despite the evidence that crop circles are of human origin various paranormal theories continue to enjoy some currency in some circles, including a number of UFOlogists.'
This strikes me as a lot fairer treatment. As UFOlogists are the most prominent group advocating these supernatural claims, I think they merit mention in this manner.
Also, the section "Unidentified Flying Objects" is mislabeled; they are claimed to be alien spacecraft, so it should be labeled as such. If they are not claimed to be such, then they should be left as UFO in the text and not relabeled as "flying saucer", as there's a difference between the two.
Finally, is the BLT Research Team notable? I've never, ever heard of them before and have no reason to believe they're considered to be an authority in the field amongst paranormal believers. If not, then I think its an example of undue weight or someone trying to insert their own group in as a means of advertising of sorts. They don't even have an address, just a PO box, so seem like they're not likely to be a prominent or important group. Their site seems to draw very poor conclusions. For example:
"This formation was found by the farmer (who subsequently reported that he had observed multiple circles the previous year in an adjacent field, which he had thought might be caused by deer bedding down) at harvest, and was not visible from the nearest roads. The fact that the field was infested with Canadian thistle, which made it almost impossible to walk in the field without high protective boots, tended to further rule out the possibility that this formation had been mechanically produced."
This is a very poor conclusion for a great number of reasons, foremost among them that –they- managed to go out there and extensively photograph it, and the farmer went out there to find it – there's no reason to believe random persons could not go out there. Moreover, what kind of harvestable field has that much Canadian thistle in it?
Their node analysis is thoroughly bunk – I've seen that many times, after walking through weeds. What causes it? The plant being squished/run over/whatever. Heck, I often play around with grasses and cause damage identical to that which is pictured.
The group doesn’t seem reputable, I've never heard of them, and unless there is some reason to believe they're well-known, I can't see justifying their inclusion under the principle of undue weight.
Anyway, yeah. Just my two cents while passing through. Titanium Dragon 20:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The protection was necessary because of the flaming above.  It may be time to loosen it to a partial lock.  I do agree that the BLT group seems most non-notable. Michaelbusch 21:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: * I agree.  Following Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, Tommysun (one of the worst offenders) may not edit this article any more.  I have also removed the NPOV dispute, since I think it was largely Tommy who disputed the neutrality on the grounds that the article stated that crop circles are not widely believed to be of paranormal origin. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection