Scientific Research on Crop Circles

[Fnord]

... I would appreciate it if someone can comment on their data, not theory...

Not possible. Every crop-circle image and its data seems to be be under such stringent copyright protection as to make the RIAA look like a sleeping watchdog.

I've tried to collect data (date, dimensions, location) from the owners, but they either ignore my requests, or they want me to agree to say nothing against their authenticity.

I say fuggeddabowdit. Chasing woo only makes them run faster. Better to ignore them so they'll drop dead.

 

[leonAzul]

Ibid

Among their conclusions:

Based on the physical, chemical and meteoritic nature of this iron oxide coating, the conclusion was reached (Levengood and Burke 1995) that clouds of meteoritic material from the August 1993 Perseid meteor showers had inter acted with a precrop formation, plasma complex.

(my emphasis)

No need for the "thermodynamically unstable ionospheric, nonmeteorological, plasma systems", whatever that could possibly mean in an English wheat field.

ETA link to source

 

[leonAzul]

Allow me to withdraw this, I misread something

oops

 

[geni]

Problem with crop circles is just post WW2 most the UK was photographed from the air. The photos still exist (well rather a lot of them are on film). No one has ever found a crop circle on them.

 

[gs21stc]

Sure thing. Their data tells you nothing except that plants flattened in crop circles are different than plants not flattened in crop circles. No effort was made to determine if this difference exists in crop circles which are known to be man-made (ie, hoaxes). Without such a control, their data is meaningless.

They declare that without any evidence, and without having done the very simple test which could have disproved that claim (namely, test some plants which were flattened mechanically). When you don't try the most obvious and most likely means by which your hypothesis might be falsified, that's bad science.

They have made a comparison with a known mechanically flattened formation (They even made one themselves according the methods of Doug and Dave). That is the first thing I looked for. Their results will be meaningless otherwise. Please read the papers carefully before you make a statement like that.

 

[gs21stc]

That is exactly the expected result of a meteor shower whose particles have been subjected to the heat generated by atmospheric friction.

You are probably right. I think that is why this particular work can only be published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

 

[gs21stc]

More "just asking questions". How many woo threads are you going to start? Is there a record you are trying to break? Seriously.

I have always thought that all paranormal phenomena are not real. However, when I encounter evidence presented in the form of scientific research it got my attention. I am in doubt about the validity of these scientific results, that is the main reason I join the JREF forum, to discuss this matter that is bothering me with other knowledgeable people.

P/S: I am not aware that people who are not interested in intellectual discussions are hanging around in this forum.

 

[gs21stc]

Good grief. Let's see what their data suggests, the plants that are lying down expose more of their stems to electromagnetic radiation than the plants standing up. The more exposure they get, the more their cell walls show faults (rupturing or whatever). In order for this to be the case, there needs to be some source of EM radiation. So far, this is all plausible.

Where they go wrong is to assume that the source of the radiation is also what knocks the plants down. Let's instead assume the plants were knocked down mechanically, and then lay there on the receiving end of a blast of EM radiation.

Hmm, what could possibly generate that much EM in one day . . .

That is definitely a valid assumption based on their data. However, there is still mystery as to the origins of this Electromagnetic source.

 

[gs21stc]

Good grief. Let's see what their data suggests, the plants that are lying down expose more of their stems to electromagnetic radiation than the plants standing up. The more exposure they get, the more their cell walls show faults (rupturing or whatever). In order for this to be the case, there needs to be some source of EM radiation. So far, this is all plausible.

Where they go wrong is to assume that the source of the radiation is also what knocks the plants down. Let's instead assume the plants were knocked down mechanically, and then lay there on the receiving end of a blast of EM radiation.

Hmm, what could possibly generate that much EM in one day . . .

That is definitely a valid assumption based on their data. However, there is still a mystery as to the origins of this Electromagnetic source. I will be glad if someone can explain it to me what it is. Then you will see me stop believing that there is a mystery to the crop circle phenomena.

 

[gs21stc]

Not possible. How is it possible to comment on flawed data?

Try asking me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. That's exactly what you're doing. As to real data, like traces of the meteors - you've had that self-explanatory reason given to you.

Again, you are believing data from a known charlatan as opposed to the known fact that they're man-made.

I am not prepared to believe that they are liars yet. If they are, I definitely would want them to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

 

[The Atheist]

That is definitely a valid assumption based on their data. However, there is still a mystery as to the origins of this Electromagnetic source. I will be glad if someone can explain it to me what it is. Then you will see me stop believing that there is a mystery to the crop circle phenomena.

Ok, let me be the first to congratulate you on your finally seeing the light - so to speak. If all you need is an explanation for EM radiation, voila:

You know that big, round, really hot, bright thing in the sky during the daytime? It is a star and called "the sun". It releases enormous amounts of EM radiation every single day!

 

[luchog]

That is definitely a valid assumption based on their data. However, there is still a mystery as to the origins of this Electromagnetic source. I will be glad if someone can explain it to me what it is. Then you will see me stop believing that there is a mystery to the crop circle phenomena.

You didn't bother to click on the "spoiler" button in that post, I bet.

 

[godless dave]

I am not prepared to believe that they are liars yet. If they are, I definitely would want them to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

There's no law against lying.

 

[The Atheist]

You didn't bother to click on the "spoiler" button in that post, I bet.

I've made it even easier - maybe that'll work.

The funny thing is, if the pseudo-scientists claimed they found no trace of EMR, it'd be a lot more interesting.

 

[Gravy]

I have always thought that all paranormal phenomena are not real. However, when I encounter evidence presented in the form of scientific research it got my attention.

You have not encountered scientific research here.

I think you need to take a step back. You're not seeing the forest for the trees. Whatever their motives are, the people who promote this stuff can only sustain their fantasies by getting lost in (and getting others to be lost in) the minutia of their "research." They can't afford to have anyone look at the whole picture, because the only conclusion is that these ideas are are absolutely, utterly, moronic. They are a litmus test for credulity in nonsense.

Remember, Levengood is the guy who said the "Mandelbrot" formation could only have been created by these plasma vortices...and then two guys perfectly duplicated it in a few hours at night for a BBC TV show, by stomping on plants.

Please try to see what's going on here. These clowns want you to believe that a natural, gaseous phenomenon creates perfect, complex geometric designs, only in farmer's fields, only unseen at night, and only where hoaxers are known to operate. This "natural" phenomenon doesn't happen on golf courses or beaches or in wild grasslands that cover much of the earth or in desert sand or in the snow.

When it was demonstrated how these things are created, honest researchers adjusted their beliefs to fit the evidence. Others, like Levengood, wouldn't or couldn't, and delved further into nonsense. Please don't follow them.

Dude.

 

[arthwollipot]

P/S: I am not aware that people who are not interested in intellectual discussions are hanging around in this forum.

Oh, they are. They are. Believe it.

 

[gs21stc]

There's no law against lying.

There is definitely a law against scientific fraud. I remember there was a Korean Scientist who claimed that he has cloned a human embryo and was arrested for that because he wasn't honest about his scientific results.

 

[godless dave]

That was in Korea. I don't think the UK has a law like that. In the US, generally, it's only fraud if you cheat someone out of something of value.

 

[gs21stc]

You didn't bother to click on the "spoiler" button in that post, I bet.

The Sun is a very tempting explanation for the electromagnetic source. If this is the case, you have to assume the magnitude of the Sun's radiation can and will heat the plants internally and make it burst from the inside (expulsion cavities). These expulsion cavities can only be replicated by subjecting the plant to 600W microwave radiation (See the first link). The radiation from the Sun ranges only from Infrared to Ultraviolet. There is no microwave radiation from the Sun's rays.

If the Sun is the cause of the electromagnetic radiation, you would expect to see the same node elongation pattern in all the crop circles. However, there is clearly a difference between the 'genuine' and man-made crop circles (See Ball of Light.pdf). The node elongation pattern in the 'genuine' crop formation is consistent with an electromagnetic point source directly above the centre of the circle. If the Sun can do that, then you will also see it in the man-made formation. However, the man-made formation clearly lacks this property.

The Sun is a very obvious and tempting explanation for the electromagnetic source. However, by comparative analysis alone, this hypothesis can be rejected unless there is a good reason as to why the Sun acts differently in the 'genuine' and man-made crop formations. There is also the difficulty in explaining the expulsion cavities as a consequence of the Sun's radiation as discussed above.

 

[Hokulele]

The Sun is a very tempting explanation for the electromagnetic source. If this is the case, you have to assume the magnitude of the Sun's radiation can and will heat the plants internally and make it burst from the inside (expulsion cavities). These expulsion cavities can only be replicated by subjecting the plant to 600W microwave radiation (See the first link). The radiation from the Sun ranges only from Infrared to Ultraviolet. There is no microwave radiation from the Sun's rays.

Wrong, the Sun emits microwave radiation just fine.

http://solar.physics.montana.edu/ypop/Spotlight/Today/microwave.html

And as far as your cavities are concerned, leave anything sitting out in the sun long enough (without sunblock), and you will see plenty of heating and bursting. Try it on a sunny day in Las Vegas.

If the Sun is the cause of the electromagnetic radiation, you would expect to see the same node elongation pattern in all the crop circles. However, there is clearly a difference between the 'genuine' and man-made crop circles (See Ball of Light.pdf). The node elongation pattern in the 'genuine' crop formation is consistent with an electromagnetic point source directly above the centre of the circle. If the Sun can do that, then you will also see it in the man-made formation. However, the man-made formation clearly lacks this property.

All of the variance can be attributed to how long has the material been exposed to sunlight, what is the angle of incidence, and what were the atmospheric conditions at the time. If the experiment did not control for all of these factors, you cannot make this claim.

The Sun is a very obvious and tempting explanation for the electromagnetic source. However, by comparative analysis alone, this hypothesis can be rejected unless there is a good reason as to why the Sun acts differently in the 'genuine' and man-made crop formations. There is also the difficulty in explaining the expulsion cavities as a consequence of the Sun's radiation as discussed above.

All of this can be explained by poor collection methods. If someone stomps on a blade of wheat, calls it a man-made artifact, then does not allow it to sit in the sun very long, they have already skewed the data.

In other words, not only do the conclusions sound fishy, but the source data sounds fishy as well.