zechaeriah
Registered Senior Member
well see, now we're getting somewhere with this debate, so thanks for taking it seriously enough to give a good argument.
my response:
you gotta remember that when someone goes to dispute something, if they're not diplomatic enough, they're gonna get either a cold shoulder or a very defensive response from whom their disputing. we see it all the time on sciforums. so as far as Sofka's personal opinion about Burke goes, i don't view that as a valid argument against the validity of Burke's claims, only blatant defamation, which is expected in a Journal of
The Inquiring Skeptics of Upper New York.
regarding Sofka's comment about Burke not having control groups, if you go to the BLT research team's (which Levengood, Burke's associate, is a part of - he's the 'L') website that i listed, you'll see control groups clearly used, they even have pictures of them. my guess is that Sofka was being belligerent and Burke didn't want to answer his questions anymore, but i'll make an assumption for your sake, Fetus, that at that time, let's say there were no control groups in the experiements. alas, Sofka's JISUNY article is from 1995, 8 years ago.
you raise a good point about the rust, however, you apparently didn't read the 'magnetic material in soil' section on the BLT research page:
Most often these magnetized spherical particles are found clustered around, or just outside, the perimeters of circular crop formations, suggesting that centrifugal force from a spinning vortex is distributing this material to the edges of the formations. We have seen cases, however, where the major deposition of this material is in the soil at the centers of the circles, the amounts then dropping off toward the perimeters. And we have instances where the magnetic material is deposited linearly, usually in increasing amounts as one samples out toward the perimeters of the circles, again suggesting a rotating force as the distribution agent.
so why is the vortex theory so far-off? i personally don't think the particles are from meteorites because the circles are too 'designed', where there is obviously some thought to them. for them to be naturally occuring, like Levengood is trying to say, is like saying the wind causes me to walk down the street.
if you take a look at the particles in the pictures, they are clearly embedded in the plant as well, meaning they coudln't have just fallen off a tool. the particles are also all balled up, which happens when metal is heated so much it liquifies. how do you explain all of this?
also, the formations aren't left unnoticed for weeks, or even days. they are found the very next day. farmers aren't just oblivious to their crops, they pay attention to them. and when formations occur around places like stonehenge, where they often occur and people are always around waiting for them, there isn't enough time for broken plants to heal. nor is that a normal part of plant healing processes. we're talking broken crops vs. bent crops, exploded nodes and elongated nodes that occur over a period no longer than a few hours.
my response:
you gotta remember that when someone goes to dispute something, if they're not diplomatic enough, they're gonna get either a cold shoulder or a very defensive response from whom their disputing. we see it all the time on sciforums. so as far as Sofka's personal opinion about Burke goes, i don't view that as a valid argument against the validity of Burke's claims, only blatant defamation, which is expected in a Journal of
The Inquiring Skeptics of Upper New York.
regarding Sofka's comment about Burke not having control groups, if you go to the BLT research team's (which Levengood, Burke's associate, is a part of - he's the 'L') website that i listed, you'll see control groups clearly used, they even have pictures of them. my guess is that Sofka was being belligerent and Burke didn't want to answer his questions anymore, but i'll make an assumption for your sake, Fetus, that at that time, let's say there were no control groups in the experiements. alas, Sofka's JISUNY article is from 1995, 8 years ago.
you raise a good point about the rust, however, you apparently didn't read the 'magnetic material in soil' section on the BLT research page:
Most often these magnetized spherical particles are found clustered around, or just outside, the perimeters of circular crop formations, suggesting that centrifugal force from a spinning vortex is distributing this material to the edges of the formations. We have seen cases, however, where the major deposition of this material is in the soil at the centers of the circles, the amounts then dropping off toward the perimeters. And we have instances where the magnetic material is deposited linearly, usually in increasing amounts as one samples out toward the perimeters of the circles, again suggesting a rotating force as the distribution agent.
so why is the vortex theory so far-off? i personally don't think the particles are from meteorites because the circles are too 'designed', where there is obviously some thought to them. for them to be naturally occuring, like Levengood is trying to say, is like saying the wind causes me to walk down the street.
if you take a look at the particles in the pictures, they are clearly embedded in the plant as well, meaning they coudln't have just fallen off a tool. the particles are also all balled up, which happens when metal is heated so much it liquifies. how do you explain all of this?
also, the formations aren't left unnoticed for weeks, or even days. they are found the very next day. farmers aren't just oblivious to their crops, they pay attention to them. and when formations occur around places like stonehenge, where they often occur and people are always around waiting for them, there isn't enough time for broken plants to heal. nor is that a normal part of plant healing processes. we're talking broken crops vs. bent crops, exploded nodes and elongated nodes that occur over a period no longer than a few hours.
