You could have just said "mostly cloudy with a chance of thunderstorms." No need to get all mystical 
Ancient Civilizations, SETI, and Crop Circles
- Thread starter Kirk Gaulden
- Start date
Wrong, it's cannot.
We cannot do this either.
http://www.swirlednews.com/article.asp?artID=645
MIT tried and they failed.
First, you're mixing apples with oranges. I thought we were talking about pyramids. On that subject, please feel free to cite any credible reference that suggests that pyramids cannot be constructed. I'm confident that you cannot. I'm sure you'll find some book that mentions this, but it will not be grounded in any tested hypotheses. Point of fact is, pyramids can be constructed with minimal technology. They cannot, however, be constructed with minimal manpower and resources. These conditions were all met in ancient Egypt: limited technology, abundant manpower, and sufficient resources.
Now on to the crop circle nonsense. It amazes me the gulibility of people even after so many hoaxers have come forward and described their methods. The two primary culprits, Doug Bower and Dave Chorley, fooled cereologist Pat Delgado. He declared a pattern they had produced for a tabloid to be authentic, insisting it was of a type no hoaxer could have made.
The link you provided in turn provides two links as references (not journal papers as one might expect from an MIT experiment). One link is non-existant and the parent page of it shows no references that appear to have any connection with crop circles.
The second link is to BLT, which is an alleged research organization that includes Nancy Talbot and Dr. W.C. Levengood. Talbot appears to rest all of her hopes on the work of Levengood, however, his research has some holes in it. Particularly, he finds a correlation between certain deformities in plants and their locations within crop-circle-type formations, but not control plants outside them. In addition, he appears to discount or not consider simpler hypotheses such as compressed moist plants steaming in the hot sun as methods of some of the plant morphology he examined. He also ignores the fact that green wheat will exhibit some of the characteristics of "bending" that he examined.
Levengood offers no satisfactory or even compelling, much less conclusive, evidence that a single crop circle was produced by anything other than man. He discounts entirely the statistical relevance of hoaxes, which many cereologists admit exist in high numbers. This to the point that none of the crop circles he examined were proven false.
In short, Levengood's methods are flawed. His hypotheses are irrefutable (proper scientific method dictates that a hypothesis must have the potential to be proven wrong), he fails to consider all the data (relying only on the data sets which support his hypothesis), and does not consider alternative hypotheses for testing.
But I suppose the crop circle mythology will not go away. People like to be fooled...
You tell'em Skins!
However.even if there was a thousand hoaxes,it only takes one of them to be real.
Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
However.even if there was a thousand hoaxes,it only takes one of them to be real.
Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
True, but correlation does not imply causation!
I don't discount that something might naturally cause a crop circle... or that (assuming they are here) aliens might like to screw with our heads....
I just say that there is more evidence that points to hoaxes than not.
Not that I would know personally...
Nonchalantly pulls tarp over 2 x 4's and ropes...
I don't discount that something might naturally cause a crop circle... or that (assuming they are here) aliens might like to screw with our heads....
I just say that there is more evidence that points to hoaxes than not.
Not that I would know personally...
Nonchalantly pulls tarp over 2 x 4's and ropes...
I think that was Carl Sagan in Dragons of Eden, but he also used it in A Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. The latter text I recommend highly. You can probably pick it up for $5.98 at Half Price Books.
On pyramids:
We have very detailed knowledge of how to build pyramids - and how not to! The building of large pyramids in Egypt happened over a couple of centuries, and we can easily trace the development of the technique, through trial and error. One pyramid actually collapsed because of structural deficiencies (whether this happened catastrophically during building or later is still debated). The apex [sic] of pyramid building is represented in the Ghiza complex, then it fell into disuse (probably becoming too costly), and later constructions are more primitive and smaller.
I repeat my offer: If anybody will provide the funding, I will do the engineering for building a replica of the Great Pyramid. Of course, I can make this claim in perfect safety, as nobody is likely to put a few billion bucks on the table, but this is not important. What is important is that the knowledge is available. A pyramid is basically a quite simple structure, and there is absolutely nothing, except cost, that could keep us from building one today. With modern technology, we might even build it from more durable materials than lime-stone, and with building-blocks machined to greated precision, thus creating an even more durable structure.
On crop circles:
Look here: www.circlemakers.org . These people are MAKING crop circles. Here you can see examples of the most complex types of patterns, provably man-made. It is true that even one not man-made crop circle would change the whole picture, but it is not the job of skeptics to disprove it. Skeptics have provided evidence that most crop circles ARE man-made and that all CAN be made by humans. It is the task of proponents of other theories to provide evidence for their ideas.
Hans
We have very detailed knowledge of how to build pyramids - and how not to! The building of large pyramids in Egypt happened over a couple of centuries, and we can easily trace the development of the technique, through trial and error. One pyramid actually collapsed because of structural deficiencies (whether this happened catastrophically during building or later is still debated). The apex [sic] of pyramid building is represented in the Ghiza complex, then it fell into disuse (probably becoming too costly), and later constructions are more primitive and smaller.
I repeat my offer: If anybody will provide the funding, I will do the engineering for building a replica of the Great Pyramid. Of course, I can make this claim in perfect safety, as nobody is likely to put a few billion bucks on the table, but this is not important. What is important is that the knowledge is available. A pyramid is basically a quite simple structure, and there is absolutely nothing, except cost, that could keep us from building one today. With modern technology, we might even build it from more durable materials than lime-stone, and with building-blocks machined to greated precision, thus creating an even more durable structure.
On crop circles:
Look here: www.circlemakers.org . These people are MAKING crop circles. Here you can see examples of the most complex types of patterns, provably man-made. It is true that even one not man-made crop circle would change the whole picture, but it is not the job of skeptics to disprove it. Skeptics have provided evidence that most crop circles ARE man-made and that all CAN be made by humans. It is the task of proponents of other theories to provide evidence for their ideas.
Hans
The debate is not if the PATTERNS of the crop circles can be duplicated, it is whether the ABNORMALATIES can. Since the skeptics
refuse to acknowledge the links provided, here is some text.
An hour-long special, ?Crop Circles: Mystery in the Fields? was shown on the ?Discovery Sci-Trek Channel? (now ?Discovery Science?) for the first time in October 2002, and has been repeated several times so far this year. Apparently the idea for the film was put forward by producer John Tindell of Termite Art Productions, in Studio City, California, USA.
The documentary follows five MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) students as they plan and carry out a project, designed by John Tindell, of making a crop formation in a field in Ohio. A mobile home, turned into a lab, was rented by Termite Art Productions to house and transport the students. Three undergraduate engineering students, all in aeronautics and astronautics, were assigned the task of making a crop formation in four hours - replicating three precise plant and soil changes documented in "genuine" crop circles. The remaining two students, graduates at MIT's Media Lab, were assigned the job of analyzing the undergraduates' final results.
Nancy Talbott, president of the BLT Research Team Inc. (which has sponsored scientific plant and soil analyses in crop circles worldwide for the last 10 years), was asked by the TV production company to outline for the students three precise plant and/or soil abnormalities documented regularly in crop circles around the world. She agreed, and parts of her meeting with the three undergraduates are shown in the film.
The three plant/soil changes chosen by Talbott and presented to the students as reliable characteristics of the genuine phenomenon were:
1) Elongated apical plant stem nodes (the first node beneath the seed-head)
2) Expulsion cavities in the plant stems (holes blown out at the nodes)
3) The presence of 10-50 micron diameter magnetized iron spheres in the soils, distributed linearly
After having shown to the students (in close-ups, on camera) actual samples of plants with elongated apical nodes and expulsion cavities, as well as photomicrographs (photos taken through a microscope) of the iron spheres, Nancy was left with the impression that it was these three criteria which the students would then attempt to replicate. Although the issue of the design of the crop circle was raised, Ms. Talbott expressly pointed out that the design element of crop circles had NOT been scientifically evaluated and was not, therefore, of any particular significance insofar as the established science was concerned.
Ms. Talbott was told that the MIT crop circle was to be made in an Ohio field in the dark (nothing was said at the time about night-vision goggles or the use of flashlights in the field), that the students would try to accomplish their goal within a four-hour time span, and that they would build a portable microwave unit to try to replicate the elongated and exploded plant stem nodes and a ?particle shooter? of their own design to create and distribute the iron particles, as per the outlined protocol above.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS:
Unfortunately, the criteria which the MIT students actually attempted to replicate in the field differed substantially from that which had been agreed upon with Ms. Talbott. Additionally, it was nearly impossible for anyone watching the final product to evaluate what the students had achieved, because the TV cameras failed to show any close-up photos of the plants or the iron particles, and there was no demonstration at all to indicate that the iron particles, at least, had become magnetized.
As we shall see, Ms. Talbott was not impressed by the so-called "scientific" results claimed by the two graduate student ?judges? in the film. At our request, Nancy responded to our questions about the film in a long e-mail, and gave us (The Norwegian Crop Circle Group) ?carte blanche? to quote from it as we wished.
Here are her comments:
*
?MOST IMPORTANTLY? We (BLT) had NOTHING to do with the analyses of the students? performance. None of us were shown ANY of the plants from their man-made formation, nor were we shown any of the soil samples.?
?It was MIT graduate students who ?judged? the undergraduates' achievement ? and these graduate students clearly didn?t have any idea of what the original three scientific criteria were which the undergraduates were supposed to replicate. Much to my surprise and dismay, the TV producer had removed all reference to elongated nodes as a major criterion, inserting instead the idea that the "geometry" of the circle was of major importance - this in spite of the fact that, while discussing the scientific parameters with the undergraduates ON CAMERA, one of the students clearly says he understands that the geometry of the circle does not matter.?
?The finished film does show the audience a good close-up of BLT?s example of an expulsion cavity (the second scientifically-determined plant change which the students were to try to replicate) - however, the film DOESN?T show even one close-up of any of the plants from the Ohio crop circle. The shot they do show is of one plant (which the announcer says has an expulsion cavity) but it is from a DISTANCE... so the viewer cannot see if there is an expulsion cavity or not.?
?Insofar as the 10-50 micron-diameter magnetized iron spheres are concerned, the film shows the iron filings (which can be bought at any scientific supply outlet) used by the students in their "particle projector" - but they DON?T show you even one iron sphere, magnetized or otherwise. Although clear photomicrographs of such magnetized iron spheres were provided as an example of what the students were to try to replicate, NO photomicrographs of the results were taken. The iron filings which were shown are hundreds of times larger than the tiny spheres in the protocol and, of course, they are neither magnetized nor spherical. And, although the "particle shooter" built by the students (including the two graduate student "judges") looked like an idea which might have produced the protocol results, it appears that the iron filings came out of the MIT gizmo in more or less precisely the same state as they had gone into it. There was no mention whatsoever in the film of these particles being distributed linearly, as outlined in the protocol.?
*
And so it appears that, once again, Hollywood's love of theatre and commitment to "entertainment" over any factual information has guided the hand of this producer. There were a number of interesting things about the film, though, not least of which was the fact that, on camera, we observe that a malfunction of the microwave projector (the wave-guide failed and the microwaves leaked out in all directions) knocks out the professional camera. This show clearly demonstrates that microwaves CAN, and DO, cause massive camera malfunction... something we now have demonstrated for us clearly.
Additionally, it is amusing to hear the announcer making various statements about how "some crop circles are man-made, but not all of them are", while the MIT students are busy congratulating themselves on their "success" and stating that, yes, they think this is how all crop circles must be made. (This bit really makes one wonder about the overall intelligence level of the "best and brightest" as students of MIT are generally thought to be.)
But the best part of the film is the really marvellous fire-show which accompanies the "particle shooter" (a ring of fire surrounds the end of this gizmo which could easily be seen from quite a distance away) and the huge plume of fire and smoke from a bomb-like device, which is set off at the very end in an attempt to produce a linear distribution of the iron particles. The pyrotechnics are terrific. Good theatre. Ridiculous, if you happen to know anything about crop circles.
Clearly, the producer is counting on the fact that most people either don't know much about crop circles, or don't care. And, further, that nobody will wonder where the power came from to run the portable microwave unit and the "particle shooter" (a very loud generator, off camera). Or think at all about the possibility of a really good field fire (there were two large fire trucks stationed next to the field, off-camera also). Or wonder why field-watchers in crop circle areas wouldn't notice any of this, not to mention the farmers and land-owners.
Yep, this is apparently how crop circles are made. And you might think twice about sending your kids to MIT.
References:
Nancy Talbott:
refuse to acknowledge the links provided, here is some text.
An hour-long special, ?Crop Circles: Mystery in the Fields? was shown on the ?Discovery Sci-Trek Channel? (now ?Discovery Science?) for the first time in October 2002, and has been repeated several times so far this year. Apparently the idea for the film was put forward by producer John Tindell of Termite Art Productions, in Studio City, California, USA.
The documentary follows five MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) students as they plan and carry out a project, designed by John Tindell, of making a crop formation in a field in Ohio. A mobile home, turned into a lab, was rented by Termite Art Productions to house and transport the students. Three undergraduate engineering students, all in aeronautics and astronautics, were assigned the task of making a crop formation in four hours - replicating three precise plant and soil changes documented in "genuine" crop circles. The remaining two students, graduates at MIT's Media Lab, were assigned the job of analyzing the undergraduates' final results.
Nancy Talbott, president of the BLT Research Team Inc. (which has sponsored scientific plant and soil analyses in crop circles worldwide for the last 10 years), was asked by the TV production company to outline for the students three precise plant and/or soil abnormalities documented regularly in crop circles around the world. She agreed, and parts of her meeting with the three undergraduates are shown in the film.
The three plant/soil changes chosen by Talbott and presented to the students as reliable characteristics of the genuine phenomenon were:
1) Elongated apical plant stem nodes (the first node beneath the seed-head)
2) Expulsion cavities in the plant stems (holes blown out at the nodes)
3) The presence of 10-50 micron diameter magnetized iron spheres in the soils, distributed linearly
After having shown to the students (in close-ups, on camera) actual samples of plants with elongated apical nodes and expulsion cavities, as well as photomicrographs (photos taken through a microscope) of the iron spheres, Nancy was left with the impression that it was these three criteria which the students would then attempt to replicate. Although the issue of the design of the crop circle was raised, Ms. Talbott expressly pointed out that the design element of crop circles had NOT been scientifically evaluated and was not, therefore, of any particular significance insofar as the established science was concerned.
Ms. Talbott was told that the MIT crop circle was to be made in an Ohio field in the dark (nothing was said at the time about night-vision goggles or the use of flashlights in the field), that the students would try to accomplish their goal within a four-hour time span, and that they would build a portable microwave unit to try to replicate the elongated and exploded plant stem nodes and a ?particle shooter? of their own design to create and distribute the iron particles, as per the outlined protocol above.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS:
Unfortunately, the criteria which the MIT students actually attempted to replicate in the field differed substantially from that which had been agreed upon with Ms. Talbott. Additionally, it was nearly impossible for anyone watching the final product to evaluate what the students had achieved, because the TV cameras failed to show any close-up photos of the plants or the iron particles, and there was no demonstration at all to indicate that the iron particles, at least, had become magnetized.
As we shall see, Ms. Talbott was not impressed by the so-called "scientific" results claimed by the two graduate student ?judges? in the film. At our request, Nancy responded to our questions about the film in a long e-mail, and gave us (The Norwegian Crop Circle Group) ?carte blanche? to quote from it as we wished.
Here are her comments:
*
?MOST IMPORTANTLY? We (BLT) had NOTHING to do with the analyses of the students? performance. None of us were shown ANY of the plants from their man-made formation, nor were we shown any of the soil samples.?
?It was MIT graduate students who ?judged? the undergraduates' achievement ? and these graduate students clearly didn?t have any idea of what the original three scientific criteria were which the undergraduates were supposed to replicate. Much to my surprise and dismay, the TV producer had removed all reference to elongated nodes as a major criterion, inserting instead the idea that the "geometry" of the circle was of major importance - this in spite of the fact that, while discussing the scientific parameters with the undergraduates ON CAMERA, one of the students clearly says he understands that the geometry of the circle does not matter.?
?The finished film does show the audience a good close-up of BLT?s example of an expulsion cavity (the second scientifically-determined plant change which the students were to try to replicate) - however, the film DOESN?T show even one close-up of any of the plants from the Ohio crop circle. The shot they do show is of one plant (which the announcer says has an expulsion cavity) but it is from a DISTANCE... so the viewer cannot see if there is an expulsion cavity or not.?
?Insofar as the 10-50 micron-diameter magnetized iron spheres are concerned, the film shows the iron filings (which can be bought at any scientific supply outlet) used by the students in their "particle projector" - but they DON?T show you even one iron sphere, magnetized or otherwise. Although clear photomicrographs of such magnetized iron spheres were provided as an example of what the students were to try to replicate, NO photomicrographs of the results were taken. The iron filings which were shown are hundreds of times larger than the tiny spheres in the protocol and, of course, they are neither magnetized nor spherical. And, although the "particle shooter" built by the students (including the two graduate student "judges") looked like an idea which might have produced the protocol results, it appears that the iron filings came out of the MIT gizmo in more or less precisely the same state as they had gone into it. There was no mention whatsoever in the film of these particles being distributed linearly, as outlined in the protocol.?
*
And so it appears that, once again, Hollywood's love of theatre and commitment to "entertainment" over any factual information has guided the hand of this producer. There were a number of interesting things about the film, though, not least of which was the fact that, on camera, we observe that a malfunction of the microwave projector (the wave-guide failed and the microwaves leaked out in all directions) knocks out the professional camera. This show clearly demonstrates that microwaves CAN, and DO, cause massive camera malfunction... something we now have demonstrated for us clearly.
Additionally, it is amusing to hear the announcer making various statements about how "some crop circles are man-made, but not all of them are", while the MIT students are busy congratulating themselves on their "success" and stating that, yes, they think this is how all crop circles must be made. (This bit really makes one wonder about the overall intelligence level of the "best and brightest" as students of MIT are generally thought to be.)
But the best part of the film is the really marvellous fire-show which accompanies the "particle shooter" (a ring of fire surrounds the end of this gizmo which could easily be seen from quite a distance away) and the huge plume of fire and smoke from a bomb-like device, which is set off at the very end in an attempt to produce a linear distribution of the iron particles. The pyrotechnics are terrific. Good theatre. Ridiculous, if you happen to know anything about crop circles.
Clearly, the producer is counting on the fact that most people either don't know much about crop circles, or don't care. And, further, that nobody will wonder where the power came from to run the portable microwave unit and the "particle shooter" (a very loud generator, off camera). Or think at all about the possibility of a really good field fire (there were two large fire trucks stationed next to the field, off-camera also). Or wonder why field-watchers in crop circle areas wouldn't notice any of this, not to mention the farmers and land-owners.
Yep, this is apparently how crop circles are made. And you might think twice about sending your kids to MIT.
References:
Nancy Talbott:
Sounds as if they were having honorable fun on somebody's expense account. Undergraduate students? In aeronautics and astronautics?? Very scientific indeed
And the whole scope of the "investigation" is flawed, no totally baseless. Is that how US universities operate? I'm appalled.
Let me sum up:
Based on allegations about properties of crop circles, undergraduates in totally irrelevant fields set out to .....what? Have a good time? What were their allocations of beer?
IF somebody were to undertake a serious investigation, the first step would be to verifiy the alleged characteristics of crops within crop circles, the so-called abnormalities. In none of the reports of abnormalities I have read, are there any useful data on conditions OUTSIDE crop circles. To be able to point out abnormalities, you need to know what is normality. This requires study of a large number of fields, to establish a baseline on which phenomenon do and which don't occur on a normal field. Only then can you set out to look for causes of any abnormailites inside crop circles.
Hans
Yes, both soil samples and plant samples are taken from different
locations within the circles, and soil samples and plant samples
are taken at various distances OUTSIDE the circles. Control groups of seeds are also taken both inside and outside the circles.
These samples yielded the highest concentration of magnetic
material ever reported by the BLT Team in a crop circle,"
Talbott reported. While normal soils seldom exceed 0.4
milligrams of magnetic material per gram of soil, the soil at
Knobel measured 30.29 mg, the report stated.
The BLT report indicated that the high magnetic concentrations
found at the Arkansas site are similar to trends found in a
large number of crop formations worldwide.
"The fact that under the microscope we can see both spherical
and partially ablated particles here, the fact that there were
no magnetic particles found in the control soils, and the fact
that the concentration in the circle samples was so great, all
indicate that this formation was not mechanically-flattened"
Talbott reported.
She said a paper published by William C. Levengood, a
biophysicist from Michigan, and John Burke, a New York
businessman, may shed some light on what happened. Levengood and
Burke, who are co-founders of BLT Research, hypothesized that
microscopic particles of meteoric iron which are entering the
earth's atmosphere constantly as meteors burn up in the upper
atmosphere. Those particles get drawn into a descending plasma
vortex system.
"The idea is that the meteoric debris is both drawn into the
descending plasma vortex by its strong magnetic field and then
heated to a molten state by the microwaves emitted by the
spiraling plasma," Talbott wrote in the report. "The molten, and
now magnetized particles then form spheres and particles with
partially rounded surfaces as they cool on the way down to the
earth's surface and are left in the soil in the crop circle area
as the plasma vortex impacts the field.
"This theory is the most reasonable yet offered to explain the
presence of these magnetic particles in so many crop circle
soils, all over the world."
http://www.jonesborosun.com/archivedstory.asp?ID=5302
locations within the circles, and soil samples and plant samples
are taken at various distances OUTSIDE the circles. Control groups of seeds are also taken both inside and outside the circles.
These samples yielded the highest concentration of magnetic
material ever reported by the BLT Team in a crop circle,"
Talbott reported. While normal soils seldom exceed 0.4
milligrams of magnetic material per gram of soil, the soil at
Knobel measured 30.29 mg, the report stated.
The BLT report indicated that the high magnetic concentrations
found at the Arkansas site are similar to trends found in a
large number of crop formations worldwide.
"The fact that under the microscope we can see both spherical
and partially ablated particles here, the fact that there were
no magnetic particles found in the control soils, and the fact
that the concentration in the circle samples was so great, all
indicate that this formation was not mechanically-flattened"
Talbott reported.
She said a paper published by William C. Levengood, a
biophysicist from Michigan, and John Burke, a New York
businessman, may shed some light on what happened. Levengood and
Burke, who are co-founders of BLT Research, hypothesized that
microscopic particles of meteoric iron which are entering the
earth's atmosphere constantly as meteors burn up in the upper
atmosphere. Those particles get drawn into a descending plasma
vortex system.
"The idea is that the meteoric debris is both drawn into the
descending plasma vortex by its strong magnetic field and then
heated to a molten state by the microwaves emitted by the
spiraling plasma," Talbott wrote in the report. "The molten, and
now magnetized particles then form spheres and particles with
partially rounded surfaces as they cool on the way down to the
earth's surface and are left in the soil in the crop circle area
as the plasma vortex impacts the field.
"This theory is the most reasonable yet offered to explain the
presence of these magnetic particles in so many crop circle
soils, all over the world."
http://www.jonesborosun.com/archivedstory.asp?ID=5302
You obviously didn't read my post (second of mine from the top of this page) where I addressed that very site that you cut and pasted. (which, btw, is against the rules here.)
The alleged MIT study never made it to publication at MIT. Or if it did, it was removed. Click the link. It goes nowhere. It either used to point to an actual document, which was removed. Or it never did, and the false link was provided to add credibility. I doubt the latter was true, but the former, if true, means that someone felt the research was flawed enought to remove the paper.
Click on the MIT link, then place your cursor on the address bar. Backspace to the next level of the link then hit return. You'll see a list of documents, but none seem to do with crop circle research.
Also, on this alleged "research site" (BLT), there is a list of Laboratory Reports, but no access to them. Though we are promised they will be "available soon." The earliest report is dated 1996 or 1997 and the latest in 1999 (I'm unsure of the actual dates off the top of my head, suffice to say they were all in the late nineties). How long do they need to prepare a laboratory report? More spurious evidence.
Also, read my critical review of the good Dr. Levengood's "research" methodology.
As to the plant/soil abnormalities, these have been shown to exist in known hoaxes as well. Crop circles in which the circle makers planned and executed hoaxes with fantastic designs then admitted to them latter. Plant/soil abnormalities have not been sufficiently proven to occur only with non-hoaxes.
The Discovery Science channel production is just that. A production. Many of the pseudodocumentaries that exist on these channels are done with one purpose in mind: to get paid. It is very likely that the whole BLT website was thrown together at the time of the initial release of the show, so that when viewers clicked on the website (that was undoubtedly mentioned on the show several times), there was some corroborating "evidence." Spurious, but corroborating.
This type of marketing did wonders for the Blair Witch Project.
The alleged MIT study never made it to publication at MIT. Or if it did, it was removed. Click the link. It goes nowhere. It either used to point to an actual document, which was removed. Or it never did, and the false link was provided to add credibility. I doubt the latter was true, but the former, if true, means that someone felt the research was flawed enought to remove the paper.
Click on the MIT link, then place your cursor on the address bar. Backspace to the next level of the link then hit return. You'll see a list of documents, but none seem to do with crop circle research.
Also, on this alleged "research site" (BLT), there is a list of Laboratory Reports, but no access to them. Though we are promised they will be "available soon." The earliest report is dated 1996 or 1997 and the latest in 1999 (I'm unsure of the actual dates off the top of my head, suffice to say they were all in the late nineties). How long do they need to prepare a laboratory report? More spurious evidence.
Also, read my critical review of the good Dr. Levengood's "research" methodology.
As to the plant/soil abnormalities, these have been shown to exist in known hoaxes as well. Crop circles in which the circle makers planned and executed hoaxes with fantastic designs then admitted to them latter. Plant/soil abnormalities have not been sufficiently proven to occur only with non-hoaxes.
The Discovery Science channel production is just that. A production. Many of the pseudodocumentaries that exist on these channels are done with one purpose in mind: to get paid. It is very likely that the whole BLT website was thrown together at the time of the initial release of the show, so that when viewers clicked on the website (that was undoubtedly mentioned on the show several times), there was some corroborating "evidence." Spurious, but corroborating.
This type of marketing did wonders for the Blair Witch Project.
As a point of reference, you may want to read what the CircleMakers have to say about the circle they made using fine-grade iron filings. Perhaps not the Arkansas one, but it might be.
Check this link: http://www.circlemakers.org/fe3.html
Also, not all Crop Circle Believers were satisfied viewers of the MIT production. That link is a good example of the rebutal skills of an average "believer."
First of all, SkinWalker, I cannot find any rules that state cut & paste
is not permitted in Pseudoscience. If you or a moderator can show
me where it is unacceptable, I will certainly stop.
I have never stated the Discovery Channel Special was an MIT
"Study". That was your misconception. The article clearly states
that it was an hour long special directed by John Tindall with MIT
undergraduate engineering students assigned the task of trying
to duplicate crop circle abnormalities provided by Nancy Tolbert of
BLT Research. MIT graduate Media students graded the results.
I can't believe with your reliance on the scientific method, that
you would reference the cropmakers site. To start with, the cropmakers never claimed to make the 1993 Yatesbury formation,
they only "claimed" to spread the gray dust on a fresh cropcircle.
No reference was given as to who did it, or how. The cropmakers
website did not come into existance until 1995. Since you do not
seem to be aware of just who they are, I will cut & paste a section
from their "beginner's guide to cropmaking".
___________________________________________
Preparation
1. Choose location depending upon visibility. A field rising up from the road, or a natural amphitheatre in full view of the road, make perfect circles sites.
2. Dowse potential location to establish earth energies. If a formation is located on a powerful ley-line this will satisfy later tests for genuineness, and aid in curative effects, healings, orgone accumulation, angelic visions, benign alien abduction experiences, and feelings of general well-being. WARNING - If the formation is situated contra-directionally to the flow of energy, this may result in the opposite effects; headaches, nausea, temporary limb-paralysis, aching joints, mental illness, deadly-orgone-radiation (DOR) exposure, demonic visions, negative abduction scenarios (memory loss, implant scarring, sore or bleeding anii, navels, and genitals, etc), and general disillusionment. With no condonement by the authors, this may be of interest to satanists.
__________________________________--
Dr. Levengood is a biophysicist with a PhD. These are the people
you use to debunk him.
is not permitted in Pseudoscience. If you or a moderator can show
me where it is unacceptable, I will certainly stop.
I have never stated the Discovery Channel Special was an MIT
"Study". That was your misconception. The article clearly states
that it was an hour long special directed by John Tindall with MIT
undergraduate engineering students assigned the task of trying
to duplicate crop circle abnormalities provided by Nancy Tolbert of
BLT Research. MIT graduate Media students graded the results.
I can't believe with your reliance on the scientific method, that
you would reference the cropmakers site. To start with, the cropmakers never claimed to make the 1993 Yatesbury formation,
they only "claimed" to spread the gray dust on a fresh cropcircle.
No reference was given as to who did it, or how. The cropmakers
website did not come into existance until 1995. Since you do not
seem to be aware of just who they are, I will cut & paste a section
from their "beginner's guide to cropmaking".
___________________________________________
Preparation
1. Choose location depending upon visibility. A field rising up from the road, or a natural amphitheatre in full view of the road, make perfect circles sites.
2. Dowse potential location to establish earth energies. If a formation is located on a powerful ley-line this will satisfy later tests for genuineness, and aid in curative effects, healings, orgone accumulation, angelic visions, benign alien abduction experiences, and feelings of general well-being. WARNING - If the formation is situated contra-directionally to the flow of energy, this may result in the opposite effects; headaches, nausea, temporary limb-paralysis, aching joints, mental illness, deadly-orgone-radiation (DOR) exposure, demonic visions, negative abduction scenarios (memory loss, implant scarring, sore or bleeding anii, navels, and genitals, etc), and general disillusionment. With no condonement by the authors, this may be of interest to satanists.
__________________________________--
Dr. Levengood is a biophysicist with a PhD. These are the people
you use to debunk him.
You do realize that a majority of their site is done with tounge planted firmly in cheek, particularly with regard to the "beginners' guide." I read that just this morning along with a good bit of their site and laughed out loud on numerous occasions.
You should look at the sticky at the top of the list of threads in the pseudoscience section But to make it easy, I'll supply you with this link. There is a section written by Banshee (the mod) that says: "Posting large verbatim extracts of text from other sites is undesirable for several reasons:...." then lists four or five reasons.
Finally it says: "Therefore, we ask that posters abide by the following guidelines:.... Quoted text should be restricted to a few lines or a paragraph unless the poster is quoting the text along with his or her, own detailed analysis (interspersed with the text). "
Not to be picky.... I only mentioned it then because you asked, and earlier because that was the site that I commented on just prior to you posting the whole thing.
And true enough, the production wasn't created by MIT as you point out... I was a victim of "typing without thinking." But I'm sure you were able to infer what I meant, regarding the recorded message of the caller, which, by the way, was very funny.
Just because it presents itself as a documentary, doesn't mean that it is factual or "good science."
You should look at the sticky at the top of the list of threads in the pseudoscience section
But to make it easy, I'll supply you with this link. There is a section written by Banshee (the mod) that says: "Posting large verbatim extracts of text from other sites is undesirable for several reasons:...." then lists four or five reasons. Finally it says: "Therefore, we ask that posters abide by the following guidelines:.... Quoted text should be restricted to a few lines or a paragraph unless the poster is quoting the text along with his or her, own detailed analysis (interspersed with the text). "
Not to be picky.... I only mentioned it then because you asked, and earlier because that was the site that I commented on just prior to you posting the whole thing.
And true enough, the production wasn't created by MIT as you point out... I was a victim of "typing without thinking." But I'm sure you were able to infer what I meant, regarding the recorded message of the caller, which, by the way, was very funny.
Just because it presents itself as a documentary, doesn't mean that it is factual or "good science."
Thanks, SkinWalker, for pointing out the site rules to me. I don't
know how I missed them. I apologize to Banshee and other members
for the long cut & paste posts I have made.
Also on the circlemakers website, John Lundberg, one of the owners,
states he still believes in the genuine phenomenon of crop circles,
but considers his crop circles to be genuine also, since they weren't
"created to deceive."
BLT's website has gone down. It was a free access site with all
information and published papers (not published in the "major"
journals, of course) presented for viewing without subscription.
They did offer Dr. Levengood's book for sale and had a section
where anyone could make donations, but wasn't required. Very
few, if any, grants are offered for crop circle or UFO phenomenon
research. The Arkansas newspaper article linked to above was
from 7/12/2003, so I assume he is still active in crop circle research.
know how I missed them. I apologize to Banshee and other members
for the long cut & paste posts I have made.
Also on the circlemakers website, John Lundberg, one of the owners,
states he still believes in the genuine phenomenon of crop circles,
but considers his crop circles to be genuine also, since they weren't
"created to deceive."
BLT's website has gone down. It was a free access site with all
information and published papers (not published in the "major"
journals, of course) presented for viewing without subscription.
They did offer Dr. Levengood's book for sale and had a section
where anyone could make donations, but wasn't required. Very
few, if any, grants are offered for crop circle or UFO phenomenon
research. The Arkansas newspaper article linked to above was
from 7/12/2003, so I assume he is still active in crop circle research.
A true scientific mind uses critical thinking skills as well as the ability to understand the validity of evidence based on it's ability to withstand scrutiny.
If you click on http://www.bltresearch.com, you'll see that it is indeed up. They have several journal articles written by Levengood, but their publication was in two journals that are receptive to things of the paranormal. The Lab Reports page doesn't appear to have ever had links posted. Looking at the source of the page itself shows that it has no links associated with the lab reports.
Though this is a common problem in even mainstream science.
Actually,IMHO a truly scientific mind would go out and proactively search for all evidence available on any topic he feels is worth validating one way or the other.
Applying critical thinking skills only to what comes across his desk would be more a sign of a simple critic.
Just my "critical" opinion on this matter.
Peace Out
Applying critical thinking skills only to what comes across his desk would be more a sign of a simple critic.
Just my "critical" opinion on this matter.
Peace Out