Scientific Research on Crop Circles

[Gravy]

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.

This is what comes of putting your faith in crackpots. Again, gs21stc, it's your choice.

Please pay attention to the bolded words, which you missed the first time around:

In general, cell wall pit enlargement appears to be the result of an expansion of the cell wall, possibly due to a very rapid heat input which would cause the cell cytoplasm to expand....

If microwave heating is involved in the crop formations, the amount of heating would depend on plant water content.

The crackpot put some plants in a microwave oven and heated them with a fixed frequency. He didn't report on control subjects and didn't report on alternate explanations for what he observed.

This man is the opposite of a scientist. Do not put your faith in crackpots.

 

[gs21stc]

Wrong, the Sun emits microwave radiation just fine.

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

I was mistaken. The Sun should emit all the different types of radiation in the Electromagnetic spectrum. However, the vast majority of the Sun's rays that reach the Earth are in the visible spectrum. I would't expect the Sun's rays to have a very high intensity of microwave radiation.

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.

I should try this to see whether or not I will see expulsion cavities. Thanks for the suggestion.

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.

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.

I understand that there will be variations in receiving the Sun's radiation, but how would you explain the node lenghtening pattern which are consistent with a ball of light 7.8m directly above the centre of the formation, in terms of exposure time, incidence angle, and atmospheric conditions in the context of the Sun's radiation? I could not think of one, so will greatly appreciate it if you can describe it to me.

 

[gs21stc]

In general, cell wall pit enlargement appears to be the result of an expansion of the cell wall, possibly due to a very rapid heat input which would cause the cell cytoplasm to expand....

If microwave heating is involved in the crop formations, the amount of heating would depend on plant water content.

The bolded words are there because he wasn't sure whether or not microwave heating was involved. He proposed that there was rapid heating. He later found another support for this hypothesis in the third paragraph in the same section.

The crackpot put some plants in a microwave oven and heated them with a fixed frequency. He didn't report on control subjects and didn't report on alternate explanations for what he observed.

This man is the opposite of a scientist. Do not put your faith in crackpots.

I think you mean he should have compared the microwave heated plant to non-microwave heated plants which exhibits cell wall pit changes, and see if he can detect some similarities. I agree with you on this point. He was constantly trying to get support for the rapid heating hypothesis.

Thanks for pointing this out. I think my faith for rapid heating of the plants is dwindling.

 

[The Atheist]

You're getting there; or, you're claiming to, which is positive.

Let's break a couple of these things down:

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.

Well, no you wouldn't, and for exactly the same reason that I won't get sunburned if I stay in the sun all day today - being winter, while if I try it in six months' time, I will be burnt to lobster. Not to mention clouds.

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.

Has every single one been tested, or are you seeing only results which conform to the hypothesis? A hell of a lot of people make or have made crop circles, worldwide and I'd find it scarcely believable that Dr Frankenstein and his cohorts in crime have measured them all.

As to the Ball of Light - I'd more accurately describe that as a Ball of Crap. I could also state how big and what distance from source a Ball of Something Made Up needs to be and nobody can refute me.

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.

Covered. Without testing data on almost all crop circles, it's absurd to try to create a hypothesis. All you're seeing are some desperately bad attempts to explain a non-existent phenomenon.

I understand that there will be variations in receiving the Sun's radiation, but how would you explain the node lenghtening pattern which are consistent with a ball of light 7.8m directly above the centre of the formation, in terms of exposure time, incidence angle, and atmospheric conditions in the context of the Sun's radiation? I could not think of one, so will greatly appreciate it if you can describe it to me.

See above.

A Ball of Light?

What kind of light? What intensity? What colour? How did Dr F test the details of his Ball of Light without a working model to measure the output? You must be able to see that he just pulls this stuff straight out of his arse.

Thanks for pointing this out. I think my faith for rapid heating of the plants is dwindling.

Well, that's a couple of times you claim to be being swayed away from the charlatans and you've now had plenty of fairly hard to show that the stuff you're reading are fairytales made up by crackpots.

I'll be interested to see where you're at now.

 

[gs21stc]

A Ball of Light?

What kind of light? What intensity? What colour? How did Dr F test the details of his Ball of Light without a working model to measure the output? You must be able to see that he just pulls this stuff straight out of his arse.

That wasn't Dr F who came up with that ball of light hypothesis, if Levengood is who you were referring to. This hypothesis came from another crop circle researcher, Dr. Haselhoff who attempted to explain Dr Levengood's data with an alternative hypothesis to the plasma vortex.

He presented an equation (which is a slight modification to the one Levengood had), and a ball of light model. The Levengood data fits well with his model, so he concluded that an electromagnetic point source directly above the centre of the crop circle is a good description to explain Levengood's data (node elongation of the crop formation plants).

I have encountered yet another possibility in this forum, the sunlight hypothesis. I suggest the person who proposed this theory to construct a formal quantitative model with sound predictive power to explain Levengood's data if possible. Then, this finding should be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal for everyone to see.

The same goes for anyone who has their own theory to explain Dr. Levengood's data particularly node elongation of the plants. You can bet on it that I will definitely read your publication.

As for the proponents of the false data hypothesis, you cannot expect me to completely believe in that unless there is strong evidence. For example, if Dr. Levengood is prosecuted in a court of law for committing scientific fraud, then there would be no reason for me to believe in the validity of his data anymore.

 

[Cuddles]

Haselhoff

Now that explains a lot.

 

[Hokulele]

I have encountered yet another possibility in this forum, the sunlight hypothesis. I suggest the person who proposed this theory to construct a formal quantitative model with sound predictive power to explain Levengood's data if possible. Then, this finding should be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal for everyone to see.

I can send you a quote including my standard daily rates.

 

[DavidS]

These guys have figured out how to cross almost immeasurable distance, using technology light-yeras advanced from ours and they come here to cut up cows?

Oh, that was Carl's fault. He's new.

 

[The Atheist]

That wasn't Dr F who came up with that ball of light hypothesis, if Levengood is who you were referring to. This hypothesis came from another crop circle researcher, Dr. Haselhoff who attempted to explain Dr Levengood's data with an alternative hypothesis to the plasma vortex.

Who made it up doesn't really matter. It's your evidence, why not look more closely at it? Ask yourself - is a 2 m³ ball of light 10 m from the ground going to cause more or less damage than a 12 m3[/sup 50 m from the ground?

I have encountered yet another possibility in this forum, the sunlight hypothesis. I suggest the person who proposed this theory to construct a formal quantitative model with sound predictive power to explain Levengood's data if possible. Then, this finding should be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal for everyone to see.

Now, you see, posting like this makes me think you're just a troll. Why would any scientist bother spending the time and money disproving something which is so extraordinarily unlikely that it's supported by a tiny fraction of people and scientists? Check out why Richard Dawkins refuses to debate with IDiots - pseudoscientists would love for a real scientist to try to propose a theory of why the pseudoscience is ridiculous; the study in itself is used to lend credence to the pseudoscience! That's how this stuff works, and if you fail to acknowledge that, then you're either very naive or a troll.

The same goes for anyone who has their own theory to explain Dr. Levengood's data particularly node elongation of the plants. You can bet on it that I will definitely read your publication.

Again the silliness creeps out. This is your plan, Dr Frankenstein's data and a load of old cobblers. If there wer any truth in any of it, these people you so admire would be funding those studies themselves. This is more trolling behaviour.

As for the proponents of the false data hypothesis, you cannot expect me to completely believe in that unless there is strong evidence. For example, if Dr. Levengood is prosecuted in a court of law for committing scientific fraud, then there would be no reason for me to believe in the validity of his data anymore.

Why must he break the law? Scientists are capable of being mistaken, or operating on flawed data. That may well be the case with your bloke, but those of us accusing him of fraud have probably seen enough scientific fraud to just catalogue it without the benefit of thinking Leavenbread is just suffering from early-onset Alzheimers and is just mistaken. Nobody's really asking you to just say, "Oh, it's all lies then" and walk away. What we expect - if you're not a troll - is that you'd consider the evidence available and presented to you and make an informed choice about the whole thing. I've seen no evidence that that's your intention as every time you've stated you will accept evidence to the contrary, you have immediately switched off on the evidence. Look back and use the sun as an example: G - "if you can show me another EMR source, I'll believe it" H - the sun G "if you can prove that the sun causes the damage in exactly the way Levenbrain says, I'll believe it - but only if you publish it in a scientific journal!" Can you see why I doubt your real intentions?

 

[The Atheist]

Oh, that was Carl's fault. He's new.

Teasers!

Damn - I should've known that.

 

[I Ratant]

They are alien spaceship landing sites.

.
I've been to one of the two spaceship landing sites on the planet.
One of them is a dusty dry lakebed, the other a concrete runway.
Not a bent stalk of cereal grain in sight.
Alien landing sites also tend to be dusty lakebeds, used mainly at night, due to diligent monitoring of illegal border crossings.

 

[I Ratant]

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.

.
Yes, but the Nazca Lines! These were the beacons the aliens used the last time they came to visit the Face On Mars and Earth.
Agriculture not being as widespread then, they couldn't leave the "Kilroy Was Here" graffiti so easily.
Imagine traveling a bajillion light years and having to scuff dirt or stomp on grass to communicate your presence.
If those guys have "intelligence and technology beyond human", who needs it if that's the way they do the inter-office memo thing?

 

[gs21stc]

Who made it up doesn't really matter. It's your evidence, why not look more closely at it? Ask yourself - is a 2 m3 ball of light 10 m from the ground going to cause more or less damage than a 12 m^{3[/sup 50 m from the ground?}

Please clarify that post. I could not understand what you are trying to say.

Look back and use the sun as an example: G - "if you can show me another EMR source, I'll believe it" H - the sun G "if you can prove that the sun causes the damage in exactly the way Levenbrain says, I'll believe it - but only if you publish it in a scientific journal!" Can you see why I doubt your real intentions?

I never said that I don't believe in the sunlight hypothesis. I just want to see how the sunlight hypothesis explains Levengood's data. I kept thinking about it, but couldn't figure it out.

Why would any scientist bother spending the time and money disproving something which is so extraordinarily unlikely that it's supported by a tiny fraction of people and scientists? Check out why Richard Dawkins refuses to debate with IDiots - pseudoscientists would love for a real scientist to try to propose a theory of why the pseudoscience is ridiculous; the study in itself is used to lend credence to the pseudoscience! That's how this stuff works, and if you fail to acknowledge that, then you're either very naive or a troll.

That is how science works. If you don't agree with another scientist's conclusion, you are welcomed to propose your own conclusion. The reason why I suggest you publish in a peer-reviewed scientific journal is so that everyone can see how one conclusion made by one scientist is refuted by another. Levengood's data are just a bunch of length measurements. It is real and very simple to analyse that. The plasma vortex theory to explain that data is challenged by the Ball of Light theory. You can do the same to challenge the Ball of Light theory. Intelligent Design is just a theory, nothing more. You cannot do anything to prove or disprove that theory.

Why must he break the law? Scientists are capable of being mistaken, or operating on flawed data. That may well be the case with your bloke, but those of us accusing him of fraud have probably seen enough scientific fraud to just catalogue it without the benefit of thinking Leavenbread is just suffering from early-onset Alzheimers and is just mistaken.

The node length data is a very basic and simple data. They are just measurements in the units of length. Everyone has done it in their science lab at school. He was even blinded to the identity of the samples when he measured it. If he was mistaken, then it is in his conclusions, not in his measurements. The measurements are a fraud? Then you will have to show strong evidence to support that. He has Alzheimer's disease so that he can't measure properly? Then you will have to show a doctor's diagnosis. What exactly did you experience to conclude that Dr. Levengood's data is flawed or mistaken? What is your basis for believing in that? Where is the evidence?

 

[shadron]

The plasma vortex description is just a hypothesis and by no means proven. I do not see any reason to believe in this conjecture. The most compelling part of the papers are in the data, not theory.

Two points here - first, the theory is the thing you are trying to discover (such as, some crop circles are caused by geologic outventing...). The data is just data - measurements, simple analysis, no invention involved. No reasoning needed to assimilate data, as long as the sources of the data can be trusted. Secondly, what kind of scientist would use an imaginary or undefinable hypothesis (like "plasma vortex") to explain observations? That's not science, it is woo, perhaps the best sort of definition I can imagine. You might just as well say, "God dun it; case closed."

 

[gs21stc]

Secondly, what kind of scientist would use an imaginary or undefinable hypothesis (like "plasma vortex") to explain observations? That's not science, it is woo, perhaps the best sort of definition I can imagine. You might just as well say, "God dun it; case closed."

I agree with that. Levengood seems to be the person who like to propose crazy and wild theories. However, that alone does not invalidate his data.

 

[gs21stc]

Who made it up doesn't really matter. It's your evidence, why not look more closely at it? Ask yourself - is a 2 m³ ball of light 10 m from the ground going to cause more or less damage than a 12 m³ 50 m from the ground?

I think I know what you mean now. I shall make that comparison with a simple calculation.

The intensity of an electromagnetic point source decreases as 1/r² where r is the distance from the source. Lets assume that the intensity of the ball of light is proportional to its volume.

1)The intensity of the 2 m³ ball on the ground will be 2/10² = 0.02.

2)The intensity of the 12 m³ ball on the ground will be 12/50² = 0.0048.

The intensity of the smaller ball is higher than the bigger ball on the ground. Therefore, I will expect the smaller ball to cause more damage on the ground. I think that is why the Sun will cause less damage on the ground if compared to a ball of light very close to the ground. The intensity of the Sun might be much higher than the ball of light, but it is too far away.

I can assure you that the 1/r² decrease of the Intensity of Electromagnetic Radiation is not pseudoscience. You can look it up in any physics textbook.

 

[Iamme]

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

Woo and reality may be intertwined, and we are not smart enough to realize. We think we are too smart (the ego), and fail to realize our brains are like a trillion trillionth the size of the universe, yet we think we can figure everything out. Ever do internet research on coincidences?, as just one subject where woo could come into question?

 

[balrog666]

I have always thought that crop circles are all man-made. That is simply the best and easiest explanation of the crop circle phenomena. Recently, I am starting to have some doubts about the man-made hypothesis. I discovered that there are actually scientific research going on studying about crop circles which shows that not all crop circles are made via mechanical flattening. They have even published a few papers on this subject.

I have attached one of them in this post. The others can be accessed through:

http://www.bltresearch.com/anatomical.pdf
http://www.bltresearch.com/semi-molten.html
http://www.bltresearch.com/dispersion.html

The results presented in these papers (including the attached one) are compelling. They all suggest an electromagnetic origin for the formation of crop circles and rule out the man-made (or woman?) hypothesis at least in the crop circles they have studied.

I am aware that some people might say this is pseudoscience. If you are of the following opinion, can you please state specifically what is wrong with their methodology and exactly where they are in the papers so I can check it myself? I am really puzzled by this, and would like to get advice from someone who is very knowledgeable in this field.

Is that you, FormerLurker? Are you going to bring up Sacred Geometry and bogus vaccinations now?

 

[gs21stc]

Is that you, FormerLurker? Are you going to bring up Sacred Geometry and bogus vaccinations now?

I guess FormerLurker is someone who has posted in this forum about crop circles. No, I am not FormerLurker. I can see the relationship between Sacred Geometry and crop circles, but what have bogus vaccinations got to do with crop circles?

 

[arthwollipot]

I was mistaken. The Sun should emit all the different types of radiation in the Electromagnetic spectrum. However, the vast majority of the Sun's rays that reach the Earth are in the visible spectrum. I would't expect the Sun's rays to have a very high intensity of microwave radiation.

I believe this to be wrong. As far as I know, the sun puts out radiation in all parts of the spectrum from radio to x-ray. What we see is filtered by the atmosphere.

Can anyone correct me?