• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Crop circle debunking help needed

And you have a way of avoiding it. Have you microwaved a stalk of corn to see what happens to it, or are you basing your claims on what you imagine what might happen if you did?

I do avoid questions that don't make sense, unless you keep insisting. The answer is no, because my microwave can't replicate the pressure of bending the crop while heating it nor do I wish to try it with my hands. Also doesn't make sense to attempt to replicate alien technology with a common household appliance, and I've tried to express repeatedly that the term "like microwave" is used by the investigators to describe best of what they've found. I now have answered your silly question to wit I'm sure will not satisfy you, nonetheless I have no more interest into the importance you are insinuating.
 
If you are referring to the work of (not a Dr. even though he claims to be one) W. Levengood in reporting increased yield from crop circle samples. It is utter tosh. Furthermore Levengood has patents granted for systems that claim to increase wheat yield through pseudo-scientific means. None of these methods work however as evidenced by his complete failure to make his fortune from the patented ideas.


Yes, they are based upon the same faulty premise as Levengoods work.
We have to simply accept without evidence that there are 'non man made' circles in order to prove that there are non man made circles.
Or to expand on that; He shows a pattern of energy within a crop circle based upon the apparent number and increasing angle of bent nodes located at points though the crop circle. Therefore, we have to accept that 'unknown energy' was responsible for the bent nodes in order to accept the pattern he shows is a sign of unknown energy. And because Haselhoff really does have a Ph.D. some people just think he must know what he's talking about... Because such people couldn't possibly be blinded by a belief.

Why not mention his study and findings were "peer reviewed" by other scientist,accepted as factual, and published?
 
An astronomy professor looks at a crop circle and discovers a fifth mathematical theorem, quote from wikipedia about Gerald Hawkins- "The more Hawkins looked at various crop circles, the more he observed that strict mathematical ratios were often evident (cf. Science News 1 February 1992:76). Eventually, Hawkins found that he could use the principles of Euclidean geometry to prove four of the Greek's theorems derived from the relationships among the areas depicted in crop circles. Hawkins then discovered a fifth, more general theorem, from which he could derive the other four, which he subsequently published in Mathematics Teacher 91(5):441 May 1998 (interestingly, Hawkins tried to get his earlier data published in Nature but the editors declined it). Hawkins' fifth crop-circle theorem involved a triangle and various concentric circles touching the triangle's sides and corners: Different triangles generate different sets of circles and an equilateral triangle produced one of the observed crop circle patterns while three isoceles triangles generated other crop circle geometries. Hawkins challenged readers of Science News and Mathematics Teacher to publish the fifth theorem and he kept it to himself until 1995, when the 'crop circle makers' demonstrated knowledge of this theorem on 6 July in a field near Lithfield, Hamsphire. This glyph consisted of a 250-ft diameter circle with 8 concentric circles currounded by half circles, which not only provided the answer to Hawkins' 5th theorem but it presented a new geometry for concentric circles."
 
Why not mention his study and findings were "peer reviewed" by other scientist,accepted as factual, and published?
Because neither Levengood's nor Haselhoff's peer reviewed papers were ultimately accepted as factual.

Haselhoff's work was based upon that of Levengood from the paper he published. Both works have been rebutted comprehensively and the publication's editor (Physiologia Plantarum) has expressed regret at publishing the papers in the first place.

The rebuttal is: Balls of Light. The Questionable science of crop circles by Grassi et al.
Here you go in case you haven't read it: www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_19_2_grassi.pdf
 
An astronomy professor looks at a crop circle and discovers a fifth mathematical theorem, quote from wikipedia about Gerald Hawkins- "The more Hawkins looked at various crop circles, the more he observed that strict mathematical ratios were often evident (cf. Science News 1 February 1992:76). Eventually, Hawkins found that he could use the principles of Euclidean geometry to prove four of the Greek's theorems derived from the relationships among the areas depicted in crop circles. Hawkins then discovered a fifth, more general theorem, from which he could derive the other four, which he subsequently published in Mathematics Teacher 91(5):441 May 1998 (interestingly, Hawkins tried to get his earlier data published in Nature but the editors declined it). Hawkins' fifth crop-circle theorem involved a triangle and various concentric circles touching the triangle's sides and corners: Different triangles generate different sets of circles and an equilateral triangle produced one of the observed crop circle patterns while three isoceles triangles generated other crop circle geometries. Hawkins challenged readers of Science News and Mathematics Teacher to publish the fifth theorem and he kept it to himself until 1995, when the 'crop circle makers' demonstrated knowledge of this theorem on 6 July in a field near Lithfield, Hamsphire. This glyph consisted of a 250-ft diameter circle with 8 concentric circles currounded by half circles, which not only provided the answer to Hawkins' 5th theorem but it presented a new geometry for concentric circles."
Apart from none of Hawkins' geometrical coincidences being 'theorems', I have always given him credit for noticing them.
However, knowledge of them is not required for plotting or constructing the formations they were found in. Now Hawkins has identified these coincidences, it is possible to look at geometry through the ages and see these same mathematical ratios in many man made designs.
For instance, the Yamaha logo:

2yamahalogo.jpg


Which is shown here with Hawkin's' 1st Theorem overlayed.

And another small point to notice is that even though it is commonly reported that Hawkins challenged maths professors to derive the 5th theorem from the first four, there is no evidence of him ever having done so.
 
For a good laugh, you could start here: http://www.bltresearch.com/plantab.php

From the link:

"An important final note regarding these changes to crop circle plants is the fact that non-geometrically-downed crop -- usually called "lodging" by farmers and attributed to over-fertilization of the field and/or subsequent weather damage -- has sometimes been found to show these same changes"

I didn't add the bold or italics. It's there in the original.

Seems like the best evidence to show that these changes are actually ordinary responses to bending, would be to show that the same changes also sometimes occur in naturally bent-over crops.

According to that link, they do.
 
Because neither Levengood's nor Haselhoff's peer reviewed papers were ultimately accepted as factual.

Haselhoff's work was based upon that of Levengood from the paper he published. Both works have been rebutted comprehensively and the publication's editor (Physiologia Plantarum) has expressed regret at publishing the papers in the first place.

The rebuttal is: Balls of Light. The Questionable science of crop circles by Grassi et al.
Here you go in case you haven't read it: www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_19_2_grassi.pdf

yeah I saw that rebuttal, pretty amazing . Your link was dead, so I'll try mine.

http://www.cicap.org/crops/jse_19_2_159-170_2005.pdf

I couldn't find any reference of "publication's editor (Physiologia Plantarum) has expressed regret at publishing the papers in the first place." I'd like to see that in case the editors regrets may be from the amount of responses, and responsibility it carried after publishing. I didn't see anything in Grasi's rebuttal, that dealt with how boards and strings could burn the crops.
 
yeah I saw that rebuttal, pretty amazing . Your link was dead, so I'll try mine.

http://www.cicap.org/crops/jse_19_2_159-170_2005.pdf

I couldn't find any reference of "publication's editor (Physiologia Plantarum) has expressed regret at publishing the papers in the first place." I'd like to see that in case the editors regrets may be from the amount of responses, and responsibility it carried after publishing. I didn't see anything in Grasi's rebuttal, that dealt with how boards and strings could burn the crops.
The editor of Physiologia Plantarum, Dr Vaughan Hurry, expressed his regret not in the pages of the Journal of Scientific Exploration, but in a letter to Dr Grassi, in which he explained why he was not going to publish Grassi's paper. Referring to the earlier publication of Levengood's papers, Dr Hurry wrote:

"The original papers (Levengood's) were submitted to the journal and were subjected to the normal peer-review and were, regrettably in my view, recommended for publication and therefore published."

You can read that letter here

Notwithstanding this, Grassi's paper does a thorough demolition job on Levengood's experimental protocols, methods, sampling procedures and use of statistics, including discarding results that don't support his hypothesis (the File Drawer Effect).
 
yeah I saw that rebuttal, pretty amazing . Your link was dead, so I'll try mine.

http://www.cicap.org/crops/jse_19_2_159-170_2005.pdf

I couldn't find any reference of "publication's editor (Physiologia Plantarum) has expressed regret at publishing the papers in the first place." I'd like to see that in case the editors regrets may be from the amount of responses, and responsibility it carried after publishing.
Yes, for sure: http://www.cicap.org/crops/en/013.htm

I didn't see anything in Grasi's rebuttal, that dealt with how boards and strings could burn the crops.
Boards and string can't burn crops.
The crops have never been burned in a crop circle.
None of the work in the published papers has shown burned crops, just effects that look a bit like burning. Oddly enough, they look exactly like black mold: http://wheat.pw.usda.gov/ggpages/wheatpests.html

The claim that it is signs of 'burning' arises from the misconception that plasma energy or microwaves is involved and as usual neglects totally to take into consideration natural and well known mechanisms.
 
From the link:

"An important final note regarding these changes to crop circle plants is the fact that non-geometrically-downed crop -- usually called "lodging" by farmers and attributed to over-fertilization of the field and/or subsequent weather damage -- has sometimes been found to show these same changes"

I didn't add the bold or italics. It's there in the original.

Seems like the best evidence to show that these changes are actually ordinary responses to bending, would be to show that the same changes also sometimes occur in naturally bent-over crops.

According to that link, they do.

BLT introduced even more illogically formed explanations for this.
They claimed that this was a sign that the same mysterious plasma energies were responsible for lodging. :boggled:
 
I do avoid questions that don't make sense, unless you keep insisting. The answer is no, because my microwave can't replicate the pressure of bending the crop while heating it nor do I wish to try it with my hands. Also doesn't make sense to attempt to replicate alien technology with a common household appliance, and I've tried to express repeatedly that the term "like microwave" is used by the investigators to describe best of what they've found. I now have answered your silly question to wit I'm sure will not satisfy you, nonetheless I have no more interest into the importance you are insinuating.

So what you're saying is that your assertion is based on no evidence whatsoever, then? Rightie-o.
 
Yes, for sure: http://www.cicap.org/crops/en/013.htm


Boards and string can't burn crops.
The crops have never been burned in a crop circle.
None of the work in the published papers has shown burned crops, just effects that look a bit like burning. Oddly enough, they look exactly like black mold: http://wheat.pw.usda.gov/ggpages/wheatpests.html

The claim that it is signs of 'burning' arises from the misconception that plasma energy or microwaves is involved and as usual neglects totally to take into consideration natural and well known mechanisms.

So your reference that the editor regretted publishing Hasselhoff's paper is a sympathetic e-mail from the editor to Grasi as to why the journal can't publish Grasi's rebuttal. Thats an incredible twist of the context in which the editor made the statement.
 
Last edited:
So your reference that the editor regretted publishing Hasselhoff's paper is a sympathetic e-mail from the editor to Grasi as to why the journal can't publish Grasi's rebuttal. Thats an inredible twist of the context in which the editor made the statement.
He gives a reasoned and logical response in the relevant place that an editor would express regret.
The fact that the number of citations for the original two papers runs to 1 (Levengood cited his own paper) and that there is no continuing discussion or research happening (neither Levengood nor Haselhoff have followed up on their work tightening protocols, instead choosing to simply dismiss the criticisms) is testament to what scientists actually thought about their work.

Paint it whatever colour you like. The papers you cling to are worthless.
 
He gives a reasoned and logical response in the relevant place that an editor would express regret.
The fact that the number of citations for the original two papers runs to 1 (Levengood cited his own paper) and that there is no continuing discussion or research happening (neither Levengood nor Haselhoff have followed up on their work tightening protocols, instead choosing to simply dismiss the criticisms) is testament to what scientists actually thought about their work.

Paint it whatever colour you like. The papers you cling to are worthless.

At least they were published by a peer reviewed group of scientist. A polite rejection to Grasi is what you're clinging to. So did any scientific journal publish Grasi's rebuttal?
 
At least they were published by a peer reviewed group of scientist. A polite rejection to Grasi is what you're clinging to. So did any scientific journal publish Grasi's rebuttal?
Aye? :boggled:

It's already been posted, here, today, on this thread!

Here you go (again):

Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 159–170, 2005: Grassi et al: Balls of Light: The Questionable Science of Crop Circles

http://www.cicap.org/crops/jse_19_2_159-170_2005.pdf
 
At least they were published by a peer reviewed group of scientist. A polite rejection to Grasi is what you're clinging to. So did any scientific journal publish Grasi's rebuttal?
I'm not clinging to anything.
Grassi et al's rebuttal is the important part, read and understand it.
 
Aye? :boggled:

It's already been posted, here, today, on this thread!

Here you go (again):

Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 159–170, 2005: Grassi et al: Balls of Light: The Questionable Science of Crop Circles

http://www.cicap.org/crops/jse_19_2_159-170_2005.pdf

The double standard here is suffocating. The Journal of Scientific Exploration publishes mainly pseudoscientific reports and is more of a tabloid than a serious scientific reference. So are you saying that I'd be taken serious if I use JSE for a reference? I bet I could get something published there. In fact my 15 year old teenage daughter could.
 
The double standard here is suffocating. The Journal of Scientific Exploration publishes mainly pseudoscientific reports and is more of a tabloid than a serious scientific reference. So are you saying that I'd be taken serious if I use JSE for a reference? I bet I could get something published there. In fact my 15 year old teenage daughter could.
It was considered that the correct place to discuss pseudo-scientific nonsense was in the place it deserved to be discussed.

I'd say you'd be taken seriously if your studies were not so easily rebutted... regardless of where you published them.
 
It was considered that the correct place to discuss pseudo-scientific nonsense was in the place it deserved to be discussed.

I'd say you'd be taken seriously if your studies were not so easily rebutted... regardless of where you published them.

His studies weren't so easily rebutted , the rebuttal was rejected. So Grasi found a group with the least chance of rejection. Also I remember the editor stating in the rejection of Grasi.."your view", which means any scientist specialized in their field could easily rebute his "view" too, I don't specialize , nor does anyone, in all the aspects and fields of study pertaining to ufology or the study of crop circles. So finding one rebuttal published in a tabloid style journal, "in my view" , is an obvious "clinging to a paper".
 

Back
Top Bottom