Talk:Crop circle

Archives
– April 2006 some archives appear to be missing – August 2006 – October 2006

Mythology and TV

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)

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)

I'm fairly sure that's advocate, not hall monitor... Addhoc 13:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Darn, now everyone knows...

Tommy Mandel 06:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets work on this together

Bill and Bob, I don't feel right doing this all alone. I really would like to work on it together with youse guys. I've got a lot of ideas, but I would feel better if you felt the same about them as I do. For example I got permission to upload a good picture, I think we can state the 25 primary observations in one sentence, and go into detail about just a few of them. I'd like to outline the extraordinary observations such as Hawkins theorems, and maybe create a good resource center, ALL the websites for example. Let me say again that I think the official scientific POV is a big question mark. Even Peter Sorensen, the videographer who eventually changed his mind on the whole thing tempers his conclusion with "they PROBABLY are all hoaxed," which is probably the closest we can come to a conclusion, and it does leave the door open just enough so that there is a question still to be answered. I don't see why this couldn't be handled just like a court trial, where one side introduces evidence for, and then the other side introduces evidence against and then the jury (the reader) decides for himself. One thing tho, those balls of light. Seems like everyone, even the hoaxers, has seen them...

Tommy Mandel 03:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I editied out the POV holding that mainstream science believes crop circles are of human origin. The comment without a source is original research and violates NPOV. This was tagged requesting a source bu none has been received. If "mainstream science" is that group of certified scientists knowledgeable about a field, then the mainstream view is that the cause has not been determined. Tommy Mandel 04:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! You edited out the NPOV, you mean! Guy 12:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me repeat myself "I editied out the POV holding that mainstream science believes crop circles are of human origin. The comment without a source is original research and violates NPOV. This was tagged requesting a source bu none has been received. If "mainstream science" is that group of certified scientists knowledgeable about a field, then the mainstream view is that the cause has not been determined.

Tommy, I would like to give you a hypothetical scenario, and I would like you to comment on it. Let us say that the vast majority of scientists (or for that matter, members of the public) consider that Father Christmas is a myth, a story made up by parents to tell their children. After all, there is good evidence that at least some parents make up the story. However, let us imagine that there is one scientist (let's call him Doctor X.) maintains that there is a Father Christmas, and that he has the evidence to show for it. His work, however, receives little to no attention in journals such as Scientific American, New Scientist, Nature, or the Proceedings of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics. Dr. X seems to be the only person researching Father Christmas. Perhaps we can grant him supporters by imagining that Dr. X is not on his own: Mr Y BA and Ms Z (BSc Hons) support his conclusions. By extension of your reasoning above, we can comfortably state that 'mainstream science believes in Father Christmas', as the only persons knowledgeable about the field all say he exists. --BillC 13:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Note also that in this scenario, it would be very difficult to source the statement about mainstream science's belief concerning Father Christmas, because it's so obvious that nobody prints it. A similar situation exists with crop circles - their man-made-ness is so evident that you can't find papers in legitimate journals discussing it; who's going to devote part of their career to proving the obvious, unless there's a reason to doubt the obvious (which there isn't, no matter how many bent straws are pointed to). - DavidWBrooks 15:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

To begin with the analogy does not merit discussion, we are not talking about subjective evidence, we are talking about objective evidence. Secondly, it is clear that you have not researched the topic, otherwise you would be able to telll me about the journal articles which do exist. Levengood was a biophysicist who devoted part of his life, he has two articles in journals about crop circles and has fifty others. Gerald Hawkins was a famous astronomer who has devoted part of his life to the study. Elitjo Haselhoff is a physicist who has devoted part of his life to the study. Can you name one scientist/study which males the testable claim that ALL circles are manmade? There isn't even a book out saying that. 205.188.117.13 21:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say they are all man-made, it says that scientific opinion is that they are of either human or natural origin. If you can find me any references from a reputable journal supporting the idea of anything other than human or natural origin I'd be pleased to read them. Guy 11:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the mainstream science argument is not verifiable, even though I believe that mainstream science does in fact believe that circles are all man made. I would like to ask this question, though: "Are there any works regarding crop circles published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals?" iamthebob 21:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Not that I have been able to find, through public online sources. It's not someting that a legitimate scientist is going to spend much time or money on, apparently. - DavidWBrooks 21:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If you weren't already aware of it, you might find this of interest: Grassi F, Cocheo C, Russo P: Balls of Light: The Questionable Science of Crop Circles Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 159–170, 2005 --BillC 23:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that could really be considered a peer-reviewed journal, in the usual meaning of the term. We'd really love a couple in Science or Nature or something like that. - 23:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

PHYSIOLOGIA PLANTARUNI 92: 356-363.1994

ISSN 0031-9317

Anatomical anomalies in crop formation plants

W. C. Levengood

Levengood. W.C. 1994. Anatomical anomalies in crop formation plants. - Physiol. Plant. 92: 356-363.

205.188.117.13

Both of you are making statements supporting your position that are false.

There is no such thing as "mainstream science" I don't know where that word comes from, but it is not a scientific term by definition.

It is, by definition incorrect. Any scientist worth his salt will not form opinions on subject matter that he is ignorant of. A biologist is not qualified to state conclusions applying to physics. Science is not a doctrine, rather it is a methodology. Opinion is not one of those scientific methodologies. So if a scientist states his opinion on something that he is ignorant of, then he is not using the scientific method and has no more "authority" than any other member of the public. Scientific papers do not get published which uses data such as "the majority of others believe this or that." I( wouldn't be surprised if "mainstream science" came from Wikipedia editors.

So your scenario has a flaw in it by presupposing "mainstream science" actually exists. It cannot exist in the scientific sense. Nor should we present it as if it does.

Obviously all three of you are presenting a POV by your comments. Stating that mainstream science, when no such science exists, without providing a scientific source for your statements, as an opinion held by knowledgeable scientists sounds like pseudoscience to me. - 205.188.117.13 22:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record...From Wikipedia NPOV page

Explanation of the neutral point of view

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

In review:

It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one.

At any rate both sides are to fairly presented without any WikiTalk slanting the article one way or the other.

Well, I give up with arguing with you Tommy. There really is no use—I'm obviously not going to convince you of anything. iamthebob 22:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That comment is regarding your views towards "mainstream science" and whether crop circle is considered a science; thank you for the journal article though. iamthebob 22:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you please buy a book on crop circles and read it? May I suggest Haselhoff's book because you can read that in one evening. You can see how science operates from his book and you wil be able to tell the difference between fantasy and fact. The irony of this discussion, you say that science believes all crop circles are hoaxed, but are unable to provide any scientific study with that conclusion. You say that mainstream science...but you completely ignore the three mainstream scientists who have studied the phenonmenon.

What is it that you are trying to convince me of? That most people believe that crop circles are all hoaxed? Even if that were true it would only be your original research/synthesis and clearly violates NPOV which states that the editor must not slant his writing one way or the other. The article must not decide for the reader what is true or not. As editors, we can only report what has been reported elsewhere. For sources we can only depend on the literature that exists in the field. For reliable information we can only dekpend on those who have studied the phenomenon. We cannot step outside and take a poll and based on that poll slant the article whichever way. If there in fact was a poll taken, and that poll was reported in the literature, then and only then could an editor report that the poll was taken and the results are such and such. I doubt that a scientist dunded and conducted a poll of "mainstream science" and the "public" and reported his results in a peer review journal.

You guys must think I am stupid. We are not talking about bent straw, we are talking about the measurable crystalline structure of clay found inside the circle which when compared to the clay found outside the circle indicates a replicable and significant difference, a difference that cannot be produced by any known technology. The increase in the atomic order is accomplished by nature with intense heat and high pressures and a long time. The changes found are an objective fact. They are not Santa Clause stuff. What caused them is an open question with no scientific answer. THe scientists report honestly that they do not know what caused them. They have ideas, and Doug and Dave are not among them.

You must think I am ignorant, but it is clear to me that all of you have not studied that which you are claiming to know so much about. In science it is called prior research. You know so much because you apriori dismiss the counterview. You ignore the evidence and then say there is no evidence. And then you say that, because there is no evidence, I don't know what I am talking about. At least I have read the literature as much as I could find. Funny, but if you would have read the leterature you would find for yourselves the inconsistencies on both sides.

You must think I am dumb. There is no so called "Mainstream science" it would be called scientism. Maybe scientism is what you really are talking about. Hmmmm?

You must think I am a fool, because I would spend so much time on this article. But it is not the circles that fascinate me, but how they are made. I would be a fool if I paid attention to those who don't know what they are talking about.

Not you Bob, our new armchair philosopher. I understand what you want to say Bob, but in all honesty, mainstream science is not aware of what is going on. And attempts to silence the participants does not help scientific research a single bit.

"It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one".

It should also not be asserted that a view which is unsupported by peer-reviewed evidence is anything other than fantasy. Feel free to cite the evidence published in reputable peer-reviewed journals for crop circles being of paranormal origin. You are familiar, I take it, with the old adage that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?" This is a textbook example. The only "evidence" presented in favour appears to come from people who had already made up their minds that the origin is supernatural. How many previously sceptical scientists have they convinced with this evidence? Thus far it looks to me as if all this gets an official "yeah, right". Guy 11:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not true that a view which is unsupported by peer-reviewed evidence is anything other than fantasy. Verification and reputable sources are all that s required. It is not up to us to decide what is true and what is not true. Clearly, Guy, you haven't read the literature, if you had you would not be saying things like you do. The papers which do appear in peer reviewed journals do not claim paranormal origin, they claim not by mechanical means. I would like to see your peer reviewed journal article which proves your point, whatever that might be. If you can't come up with one, then what you are telling us is just your opinion which you have every right to hold any way you want to. But if you use your opinion to tell me it is a fact, that is not science. Tommy Mandel 01:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

309 kilobytes!

If this Talk gets any bigger, it's going to make my screen fall off the table ... - DavidWBrooks 23:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Archived. Guy 10:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

We have to understand that if these crop circals were not man made then it should be some intelligence entity involved.. these designs are quite intresting and complex, so why when it comes to Ball of Light theory, Tommy restrict hisself admiting that either these Balls of lights are also man made, or some unknown not yet declared allien force is.. and if he do not have any proof to present that aliens do exists then he should atleast say that these circals are man made.. untill he finds something against it.. phippi46 15:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Science of Crop Circles

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) Principle investigator/sources/reference

(Aa)

Colin Andrews

Amamiya Kiyoshi

Dr. Jean-Noel Auburn

Robert Boerman

Andrews Colins

Pat Delgado

Dr. Eltjo Haselhoff

Gerakd 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)

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)

WikiProject Paranormal

I've re-added the rudely removed project tag. Our project isn't required to 'prove' something is paranormal (which would be rather impossible, I believe), but rather that a topic has been associated with one of the subjects of our project scope (UFOlogy, in this instance). --InShaneee 13:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

HAARP

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)